I apologise that my posts are sometimes unoriginal. I often mention things that I have mentioned again before. It’s because I consider my previous posts to be inadequate. I think I could always add something new to them, or substract something from them that I no longer think it’s like that.
I think we will never make it to have any significant form of political freedom on Earth, unless we allow each other to have our own viewpoint(s), and to create and experience what we wish to experience. This not allowing different viewpoints is fighting, undermining, war. And you just don’t have freedom in presence of war. And even if you call it peace, love, freedom, it doesn’t change.
So now, certain trends how one should be like, how he should act like, have emerged, and they are called ‘freedom’. But freedom is not to follow something that is trendy, so as not to be called wrong and guilty.
Freedom might be to do something that is alligned with some ‘free’ trend, but it might also be to do something that isn’t. And for as long as you don’t impose that viewpoint on another, it’s much freer than any trend could ever be.
It seems it doesn’t cross many people’s minds that trends often start from one or few and then expand to include more. And it seems it doesn’t cross many people’s mind that often one’s claimed intentions might not be what he claims to be.
You can’t have absolute freedom as a human being. Human beings have needs and limitations. They abide to laws of nature, unless they don’t. And a great way to make a slave is to have him abide to rules, and then hide from him the fact that there are rules he abides to.
But we can have significantly more freedom than we’ve ever had. We can choose what to be occupied with, in life, not out of being forced, but out of our own will. We can have in our thinking what we wish to have, and not what is ‘right’ to have, and without that, we wont be able to have it anywhere else.
For example: a person who thinks that without slavery a society cannot function, will just do that. He will either be a master or a slave. And it’s still alright if he thinks that just for himself, obviously -even if that has been brainwashed on him- he has the right to, he is free to do so. But he can’t impose that to others, nor can he trick others into thinking that’s ‘the only way’. That’s the only way for him, as for one reason or another he believes so. It might not be for another.
I know we can function much better than we’ve ever had, as a society or as societies. And we can do that by allowing each other to be, to think, to act, to have, without trying to force each other to fit in what we think is ‘objectively right’. As long as one doesnt force others, as long as one grants others the same rights, he can be free.
To forcefully impose oneself, one’s will onto another is most commonly seen as criminality. To steal, rape or kill somebody is just that. But unfortunately, some such activities are still legal in few, some, most or all countries, depending on what form of enforcement we talk about.
Regardless of how we can co-operate, everyone should be able and allowed to have a space wherein they can be free. It isn’t up to anyone to determine that they can’t. And even if one is restrained away from others, so he wont harm them (like a serial killer or something of that sort) he should have that right too. Norway that has very low criminality compared to other countries, also has a very permissive police and sentences, compared to others. To torture a person for what he’s done, is a rather poor solution, and in no case will it result in the person becoming better. On the contrary, torture could make a killer, out of a person who would otherwise not be one. Pain, suffering brings about hate, not love.
Basic housing, a basic space wherein one can be free, is basic. And with automated production, and cheap materials it can easily be provided to all (Actually, we have the technological means to create an abundance of much more than just cheap housing, but that would result in some losing their jobs and their business. So they need scarcity to exist, in order for them to be needed). From that point on, if somebody wishes for more, he can make it happen by himself or with others, as long as he doesn’t violate other’s rights. One just can’t claim all the land for himself, and deprive it from the rest. The era where people thought that God granted that right to kings and lords is long gone. Let’s not swap that with other theories in our thinking –call them ‘natural laws’, for example. They can’t exist, but in our thinking. And you can’t define what is natural for a human, by observing wolves, bees and rats.
If one wishes for wealth, he should be able to make it happen, as well. Again, without denying other’s rights. Without forming cliques and conditions wherein others are forced to work for them. It isn’t true that we couldn’t have technology and other goods without slave labor. One can offer and be rewarded fairly for what he offers. And just like a human body, if forced to be active through drugs or other things, will eventually collapse, so will a society made of forced human beings. Don’t expect any financial afluence based on slave labor. It would sooner or later blow up like a bubble.
A society should be a way or ways that we can co-operate with each other, if and as much as we wish to. And not a way where few can dominate the rest.
You see, I’m no capitalist nor a socialist. My political ideas are based on my ideas about life, and they’re just not aligned with those two systems, although I wouldn’t mind if any of those systems evolved to be aligned with such ideas. I would support them. And anyway, capitalism and socialism in practice have had little to nothing to do with their theory.
I think we can both be good to each other and relative much freer than we’ve ever been. Because I don’t think people are evil animals that must be suppressed and ‘educated’ into believing and repeating certain patterns of ideas. Education should be free, as well. And that would make it actual education.
I believe I wouldn’t be the only one who would enjoy such a system. But I understand some wouldn’t. for sure. Those who would wish to have others on their feet, depended on them, to control them. They are a minority though, and not necessarily a rich minority. It’s a sort of a personality. And it’s the sort of personality with the greatest influence, as they are the ones mostly occupied with controlling others, through force and deceit.
If we wish for greater freedom, let’s no longer agree with few dominating the rest. We can do this peacefully. We can create it. We don’t need to destroy anything, for the current system is being created for as long and as much as we participate in it. We can make something new to participate in.