TED Conversations

Kuldeep negi

This conversation is closed.

Is Freedom a Lollipop Handed over by High Authority or rich people to play with in limited means that serve their purpose?

Kings, Monarchs, Autocratic Leaders, Company Owners, Rich people, Political Leaders, and Influencers are the one who use freedom as a tool to keep people in their control and in reversal we the people get happy by the limited freedom that we got such as to choose our clothes, food, and fancy items, some time to speak openly in social media; but when we go deep like Julian assange, Snowden, martin luther, etc fight for our rights we are pushed down or removed from the system. I want to know is freedom used as a lollipop or not?

Topics: freedom humanity
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Oct 10 2013: Yes its is a lollipop my opinion is that freedom is a new religion.( do you believe ? )
    Is freedom being used much like religions it keeps people submissive but gives them hope.
    • thumb
      Oct 10 2013: and you don't believe in freedom?
      • thumb
        Oct 10 2013: Yes and No we may have the freedom to make certain choices but there is consequence for choices. if I don't pay my taxes I end up in court. or the solo mum who does not go to work for the day may not be able the feed her children.
        As humans we are living organisms we need nourishment ,shelter and sleep to survive. This we are a slave to.
        Because most of humanity is not a hunter gather society our necessity of life may be in other peoples hands
        • thumb
          Oct 10 2013: i don't understand the answer. freedom never meant lack of consequences. it is a different concept. in fact, freedom is only meaningful in a world with consequences. if there are no consequences at all, choices do not matter, thus freedom is useless.
        • thumb
          Oct 11 2013: I do believe in restrictions to benefit others as well, even though this can be very difficult at times as of its high potential of being misused.

          When I rose this question, I was thinking about parents who happen to have a disabled child, which may never be able to be independent on its own. Taking on those responsibilities cuts away many degrees of personal freedom, as the concept of responsibility does just that.

          I absolutely agree with you, that as further down the social ladder we go, as more restrictions in personal freedom we find. Those restrictions are based on the concept of real or artificial scarcity, which haven't been solved yet.
      • thumb
        Oct 10 2013: And you don't believe in restrictions in freedom due to responsibilities towards others?
        • thumb
          Oct 11 2013: Yes I do believe in restriction to benefit others as long as there is a flow on effect with who is benefiting. It just seems to me there are more restrictions the further down the social ladder you climb.
        • thumb
          Oct 11 2013: no i don't. i only believe in restrictions to freedom due to not violating the property of another person (property includes his own body).
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: This question was more on the rhetorical side, as my first comment didn't pass the TED Conversations Team.

        Do I understand you right, that in consequence you would not care for people close to you if this care would require to reduce your personal freedom, temporarily or ad infinitum? Or would you care for them, as otherwise this would violate their physical or mental health of their bodies?

        Do you consider mental health of a person as his property as well?
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: And what about cause and effect on violating the property of another person?

        Does this include pollution of our natural environment, which endangers health and therefore the property of our bodies?
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: How do you demonstrate harm in an environment, in which money can buy expert opinions, top lawyers and time?

        Who comes to decide and based on what data?
        • thumb
          Oct 11 2013: you convince the judges. libertarian judicial system is a complex topic. but the same question can be asked in any system. how do you protect the environment in today's system with all judges, controllers and lawmakers bribeable?
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: Corruption works best in minority based decision processes, as any small number of people is easier to bribe than large numbers. This is one reason why I prefer a majority vote over any other as any attempted bribery runs public very quickly and therefore loses its influence and momentum.

        The same goes for the decision making processes within judiciary and politics, in which any representative system faces the same problem of 'small numbers' and is additionally based on even viewer political parties 'in charge' and opposition. Yet there are ways to bypass those limitations and to involve society directly in decisions concerning the very interest in their property of 'health and their environment'. They just need to get installed.

        On health and environmental issues I follow the concept of the 'exclusion principle', which means, that no substance is allowed to be introduced unless its harmlessness is proven. Criteria have to be defined and agreed upon by the majority of independent scientists, which excludes corporate scientists from voting, due to the given conflict of interest. Yet they are part of the discussion and research based on the scientific methodology.

        The current processes and given standards are surprisingly weak, as deeper one digs into it.

        Some years ago I was involved in the creation of new metal-combinations and alloys for the cooking ware industry regarding conductive heating, for which a certificate was needed to enter the market. Yet as deeper I got into this topic, as more it became clear that many of those standards have not been based on basic research, but best practice and therefore just educated guessing.

        And as both, the environment and the human body are highly complex systems, so got to be our effort to make sure not to put it at any risk.
        • thumb
          Oct 11 2013: democracy is a centralized decision making system. in any workable, practical setting, we vote for officials, officials make decisions. that is why many call for direct democracy, but a practical model still haven't been proposed.

          on the contrary, libertarian society is decentralized. there is no central decision making. every decision is made by the group of people directly affected.
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: Short question regarding your freedom of choice / consequences theory :

        Was the freedom of choice guaranteed if my only choices given were to be:

        a) burned to death
        b) tortured to death

        Both of them imply different consequences, yet do not introduce the choice to choose neither of them.

        Would you consider it necessary for the freedom of the freedom of choice to also have less lethal consequences, or does this became irrelevant due to the presence of two choices already and their given consequences?
        • thumb
          Oct 11 2013: i don't understand what you don't understand. if i have freedom to choose from exactly two options then i have freedom to choose from exactly two options. nothing more can be inferred from that situation.

          libertarian theory calls for increasing freedom to its theoretical maximum. what is that maximum depends on the actual situation.
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: 'That is why many call for direct democracy, but a practical model still haven't been proposed.'

        By this saying, how do you explain the existence of Switzerland, in which direct democracy is already put into practice? Have they just skipped the missing proposition of a 'practical model'?

        How does libertarian society tackles situations in which 'the group of people directly affected' is smaller than the group of people which isn't.

        Lets say a big dam was to be build for the production of green energy, yet the group of people directly affected to leaver their homes is smaller than the other group, which needs this energy. Is the larger group obliged to compensate the smaller group, or is this the problem of the smaller group alone?
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: Representative structures are no contradiction to direct democracy, on the contrary, as it is necessary to provide a functional framework for it to happen.

        To you, a majority of canton voting in Switzerland is unable to outvote their representative parliament, or even to restart the process of decision making?

        And what is Switzerland to you if it is not in that 'mostly' state in your understanding?
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: I don't understand what you mean by that, could you please explain?
        • thumb
          Oct 11 2013: "representative structures are needed for direct democracy." direct democracy is by definition does not have representative structures. if there are representative structures, it is representative democracy. it should not be that hard.
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: I understand, so to which of the many definitions are you referring to? Yours?

        The framework of course needs representatives, as no organization can function without any form of internal logistics. Is this difficult to understand in itself, or are you just pretending not to? I can explain it in more detail if necessary.

        Switzerland integrates its people 3 to 4 times a year directly in the active process of decision making and this on a regular basis. By this 'public voting' becomes an integrative and unavoidable, whereas
        in only representative democracies we observe very high hurdles in public voting or even conscious and willingly suppressions. For instance, the German people haven't been asked if they agree to change their currency from Deutschmark to Euro. I ask you, decisions of that magnitude shouldn't be withhold from the people within a democracy, right? We might expect this for totalitarian regimes, yet in democracy? Not me, for my part.

        So the moment public voting becomes an integrative part of the process, and not a vague option, the level of 'directness' increased in this for of democracy. Switzerland, no country, is a fixed definition. Yet any country can improve on its system to insure for more equality, fairness and to reduce corruption.

        Let me know if the concept of direct democracy remains unclear to you still.
        • thumb
          Oct 11 2013: that is the doublethink. if you have representative structure, it is representative democracy. but if you take direct democracy, but you understand that you need some organizational structure, so you add representatives, then suddenly, having absolutely the same construct, you call it direct democracy.

          i'm very sorry for using the words in a cleaner way. for me, representative democracy is with representatives, and direct democracy is without. representative democracy is centralized (not perfectly, to some degree). direct democracy is a dream world.
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: regarding freedom of choice

        So do I understand you right, that you expect the one who is given a set of possible decisions by someone else is not allowed to question those decisions in itself?

        In my given scenario my understanding of free choice was exactly to do just that. To decide not to decide on any given option. Is this something other to you than free choice?

        Is the 'theoretical maximum' of the libertarian theory Anarchy or different from that?
        • thumb
          Oct 11 2013: it is formal logic. he either can choose something or not. you can not say i have the freedom to choose something i can't choose. it makes no sense. a man can either challenge the bondage he is put in or not. whether it is moral, is a different question. i still don't understand where we are going with it.

          there are two large class of libertarian thinking. minarchism and anarchism. i consider anarchism the only clean and true libertarian theory, minarchism being a half-libertarian one. i follow the rothbardian tradition.

          btw i highly appreciate that you restrained yourself from condescending and sideways questions this time.
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: So you decide by your definition about direct democracy right? Well, fair enough, you are free to define the world as a plane, yet it doesn't change anything.

        When a secretary prepares all papers for a manager, a CEO maybe, so that he is able to make his decisions, without doing all the mailing, filing and sorting of information himself, he then is a 'dream figure', because of his secretary?

        If you have difficulties with the term 'representatives', maybe 'state servants' helps you out? A framework in which all the mailing, filing and sorting is done, so that the public who gets to decide don't have to deal with all that. 'Legwork' we may call it.

        Any decision structure I know of works this way, or do you really belief that your politicians do all the work by themselves? This was what I would call a good dream ... :o)
        • thumb
          Oct 11 2013: if you noticed, the definition does not matter. what matters is working kind of democracy is centralized, not centralized kind of democracy is not working. that is the point. calling the central decision makers "servants" won't make any difference.
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: It may well be, that your appreciation is based on choosing not to read in between the lines.

        My given question was clear, the scenario easy to understand. Why you keep going for formal logic instead of applying it in the given context, stays beyond my imagination. Do you avoid clear conversation on purpose, or is this a language problem?

        So I ask you again:

        Was the freedom of choice guaranteed if my only choices given were to be:

        a) burned to death
        b) tortured to death

        Both of them imply different consequences, yet do not introduce the choice to choose neither of them.

        For how many degree of freedom in choice does your formal logic allows, when applied specifically to this scenario?

        It might be a bit unfair to ask, as I already named another solution, yet what would be your solution?

        And concerning libertarian thinking, do you only follow tradition, or do you think for yourself as well? Do you incorporate other 'theories' where it would make sense and to what degree is your view on reality altered by this traditions, if that could be realized and answered at all?

        I notice high levels of reluctance against anything what ever deviates from your tradition, which is often seen in believe systems, such as religions or sects.

        Is there any criticism from your side while you walk the path other minds formed for themselves before you?

        This would explain why even simple questions get lost instead of finding its way to get directly answered.

        There are so many ideas out there to build and improve upon, that my only explanation you refuse to use this beautiful source as well as your own imagination was indeed your freedom of choice.

        But maybe you answer my question this time.
        • thumb
          Oct 11 2013: i'm not aware of anything like "the freedom of choice". what does that mean? i already said: if you have two options, you have two options. i don't see what else could be said about it. you can ask it again and again, but i don't see how to answer otherwise.

          i follow that tradition consciously, not blindly. i found not a lot of things i would disagree out of the many rothbardian teachings. and there are a few issues which i didn't decide if i agree or not yet. needs more thinking.
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: 'Calling the central decision makers "servants" won't make any difference.'

        There are no central decision makers in a direct democracy, that is what you don't understand.
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: No further questions...lol
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: What is condescending to you? That I have no further questions or that I laughed out loud? Or both?

        I have no further questions because I am getting no answers. The 'lol' is the expression of my lack of understanding after a series of failing attempts.

        If this was condescending to you, I hereby apologize.
    • thumb
      Oct 10 2013: very well said Gareth Dawson I agree with you, but for the readers Explain it Elaborately.. please
      • thumb
        Oct 10 2013: My view point of the similarity's between religion and freedom stems from I see religion as a technology designed by the leaders of that time of the religion to try and submit the masses if you don't do what my god says he will smite you (consequences) or you may be poor and starving but when you died you will go to a better place (hope) .
        It seem to be all most instinctive like the child in the playground being push around by the bully might say (my dad a police man and he will arrest you). it may be a lie but the bully may think there is going to be serous consequences.
        Can freedom be use as a tool like this?
        Do we really need to spend trillions of dollar to fight a war on terrorism to stay free ( a war against fear ) it cant be won
        We live with hoping that we live free just like the religious person hoping of an afterlife
        • thumb
          Oct 11 2013: Could you imagine a process, in which the amount of hope gets reduced over time and exchanged by the same amount of real freedom?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.