I am posting a challenge to anyone and everyone here. I want them to prove, with out a shadow of a doubt, why a system of rule that is based upon freedom of its citizens to be the best system. I'm putting this challenge out there because people seem to really disagree when I say that a system where the freedom(s) of its citizens are strictly regulated, or abolished will run better. I just want to see why people think freedom is the only way to go when they wont open their minds to different possibilities. And I also want to see how many of you bought into the whole freedom idea. And a side question/note to Gardener:: You say you have children, are you teaching/telling them that the only way thats right is freedom? Because if so, that does not seem like a good way to raise your children if have the idea of freedom so far up your ass. If you truly believe in freedom you will allow your children the freedom of intellect and allow them to come to their own conculsion as to what they feel is the best system of rule. (that also goes for any other people that preach nothing but freedom)
A little shocked no one has answered the call yet... I will also say that this a good way to be able to discredit people when they attempt to argue against my theories.
The reason is because any system should not be about efficiency or about running well. It should be about giving people as much freedom to do what they want as possible. If the people aren't happy, I fail to see how any amount of efficiency can make a society anything but a failure.
I can't think of a reason why freedom should not be the basis of a society. Why is freedom so grand? That's difficult to explain. You should understand without explanation. Everyone should be able to say and do what they want as long as they don't infringe on anyone else's rights. People need freedom to be happy, in a true sense. How can you be happy if you can't do what you want? And if its people are unhappy and enslaved, then how is a society a success? Because it produces the most the most efficiently? What's so great about that if the people consuming it and producing it would throw it all away to have basic freedoms? And, for that matter, no one has the right to take away anyone else's rights by creating a system in which people have fewer rights. I suppose you could voluntarily sign away your rights, but you could still reclaim them at any time. People have certain rights that cannot be taken away, no matter what. I understand that many of our rights are being taken away, but whether the law says you have them or not, you still have them. They're inalienable. It's difficult to explain if you're looking at it from the point of view where efficiency is the chief goal, and people are a means to that end. People are and will always be the most important aspect of a society, whether it reflects that or not. They are not a means to an end or a commodity. They are the life force. A society should be run with their needs in mind, and freedom is a basic need. If you can't speak your mind, or worship as you'd like to, or choose your own way to live, that's not in your best interest. And if the people are gone, who runs the society? No one does. Therefore, the society must serve the people, and not the other way around. Because, without the people, all you have left is empty buildings. An empire has no purpose without people. People always have a purpose, with or without an empire. That's the best I can explain it.
i've had about enough of this. welcome to my ignore list, eggs. (note to gardner: it's really easy, just go to his profile and click "add me to your ignore list".)
So we can agree that this is the defenition of freedom? Sorry it took me so long to reply I've been really busy with work and crap.
This is not a discussion for alternatives this is a discussion about, WHY FREEDOM IS SO GREAT. UGH when will people understand that... And I have suggested one other form of rule, but as it is I am still writing it.
If what we both agreed to is correct then I present you with this example:: Two men find a small supply of food which they both need. The first man is an sick elderly man and the other a man of good physical and mental health but with a large needy family. The old man is a starving individual who will most likly die within the month if he does not get the food. The young man's family is running short on their current supply of food and need more to feed their children. In the hands of the old man the food supply will last a month, and in the hands of the young man the food will only last a week. But if the old man takes the food he is blocking the young man's right to the food, and vice versa. So how is this deffenition true?
