Are we any more free today then in times past?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

The point of this discussion is to ask "Are we any more free today then in times past?"

The parellel's between todays capitolist democracies and the fuedal landlords of medieval Europe are quite shocking.


As in medieval Europe people today are merely serfs who in general work for a person of power or wealth
Land holdings vastly exceed the requirenments. As a matter of fact. Many land holdings today are larger yet less productive or produce product that is used to create wealth or in many instances is not productive at all
Power is rested in individuals on the pretense of democracy. Like in medieval europe this power is only enjoyed because the people make the choice of the individual based on what they can themselves can get out of the deal
Now the question is thus. Are we any more free?

In most modern democracies the only people who in practice weild power simply because they are the ones that control the wealth. Take the US for example. Despite technically anyone can run for president. The shear cost involved in running for president put's this idea beyond the average citizen.

Is it possible that the "freedoms" we enjoy are merely there so the people who control the wealth continue to wield the power over the general population? IE To maintain this power they need to keep the population happy.

Thoughts discuss?

[Omaha]

I only have a few things to say to this whole idea that wealth is bad and large businesses hurt the public.

Anyone can become wealthy. Take your example, America. The two that invented Google were nothing more than two kids of a middle/upper income family. Now they are million, if not billionaires.


Wal-Mart started as a corner store at some point. And so did Target, and McDonalds.

That is where your theories are flawed. In the middle ages, you were born wealthy, and if you weren't, you were screwed.

[Howitz]

Mobility, not nobility. Get with it, punk.

[CyberSpec]

I agree with Minardau (more or less).

It's true that we have a few extra perks these days and it's possible to make it to the top, that happens to only such a small number of people that it doesn't affect the overall set up of society. The ones that make it, simply join the elite and have no interest in making any changes.

The vast majority of people are economic slaves, they just don't know it or find it too painful to acknowledge that fact. The population gets enough "bread & games" to keep them entertained and in the wealthier societies, enough of a stake in the whole enterprise to prevent them from wanting to "rock the boat" too much.

It's only when the majority has nothing to lose that revolutions happen.

And BTW, I'm not advocating some sort of utopian society here...I'm convinced that humans will ALWAYS live in a hierarchical society of some sort...we can't help it, it's simply our nature.

P.S.

The only way that this might change is, if we evolve into something else.

[Son_Of_Suvorov]

The way I see it, increased "freedom" has been somewhat correlated with the development and increased abstraction of economic instruments. Don't forget that serfdom developed out of slavery - now you are no longer owned directly by your master, you are just tied to the land that can change hands among masters. Today, people are tied to debt and capital (which are the same things - one man's debt is another man's capital after all). Whoever owns your debt effectively owns the products of your labor. Your debt obligations can be freely traded among companies and are sometimes backed by banking institutions, who can also "trade" them to some extent through other financial instruments. This is just an abstraction of serfdom, which is necessary since agriculture is no longer the main source of employment.

[Flagg]

The point of this discussion is to ask "Are we any more free today then in times past?"

Yes! Mostly

The parellel's between todays capitolist democracies and the fuedal landlords of medieval Europe are quite shocking.


As in medieval Europe people today are merely serfs who in general work for a person of power or wealth

Take international air travel for example...more people every year enjoy the opportunity to travel to far reaches of the globe....whereas in the past people were more than just figuratively tied to the land. Even just 30 years ago things like currency controls prevented citizens from actually controlling their own finances......it was ILLEGAL to take your own money overseas..PERMISSION and JUSTIFICATION was required. I couldn't fathom that.


Land holdings vastly exceed the requirenments. As a matter of fact. Many land holdings today are larger yet less productive or produce product that is used to create wealth or in many instances is not productive at all

I disagree with the "less productive" part. Today, only a small percentage of the population is required to grow food sufficient in quantity to feed domestic consumption as well as export.....a drastic improvement over yesterday's sustinance level productivity levels. If land is left fallow, there's generally a reason like rotation to protect soil or oversupply/low price issues.


Power is rested in individuals on the pretense of democracy. Like in medieval europe this power is only enjoyed because the people make the choice of the individual based on what they can themselves can get out of the deal
Now the question is thus. Are we any more free?

Yes......basic rights for individuals and workers are well protected in the west in comparison to the previous hundred years that saw strikers massacred by hired gun strike breakers and individuals left with limited legal recourse when confronted

In most modern democracies the only people who in practice weild power simply because they are the ones that control the wealth. Take the US for example. Despite technically anyone can run for president. The shear cost involved in running for president put's this idea beyond the average citizen.

Is it possible that the "freedoms" we enjoy are merely there so the people who control the wealth continue to wield the power over the general population? IE To maintain this power they need to keep the population happy.

Thoughts discuss?

In my opinion, the average citizen of the average western country has it made by birth.

Opportunities, IF sought, far exceed those of previous generations.

To me, the greatest loss of freedom western citizens face today is completely self-inflicted.

The overwhelming desire by the majority to enslave themselves with a lifetime's worth of debt in exchange for a few unnecessary shiney trinkets is the real tragedy.

EDIT: dang! Suvorov beat me to it by a minute!

[BlackRain]

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended the habeas corpus for 5 years. 13,000 Americans were arrested under martial law including Maryland Secessionist, John Merryman.

Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of habeas corpus commanding the military to bring Merryman before him.

The military refused to follow the writ. Justice Taney, in Ex parte MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress.

President Lincoln and the military ignored Justice Taney's ruling.

Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal.

-------------

I would say we are definitely more free now than back then.

[Herrmannek]

We are less free.. and thats a fact... back in the time there was no borders, visas, gun laws, copyrights we know today, there was no work laws, worker unions, obligatory IDs, tickets, income taxes, etc etc etc... We are ****ed, and some babling idiots are even proud they are prisoners of the system... I think as for now* peak of our civilsation was somwhere between 1800~1900...

*Yup Poles are planing new social revolution, and I'm sure it will be prefixed Re-guess-what-will-be-here...

[americanbychoice]

Who has lived without freedom?

One of the foundations of anti-government action post-9/11 has been an insistance that we have become infinitely less free. I don't see it.

I have lived in China in the midst of Deng Xiaoping's socio-economic reforms. There, earning was supposed to be equalized, and everyone was supposed to be equal... earning money based on merit was impossible outside of the special economic zones. But things gradually changed, and people's standards of living began to rise. My time in China ended when tanks rolled into Tiananmen Square. Look at China now... more free, more capitalist, less communist/equal.

This time in a country without freedom has made me more appreciative of Western freedom. You think you're not free?

Freedom REQUIRES personal responsibility... and part of it is economic responsibility over your future.

Freedom that takes away personal responsibility over your future... this does not exist. And you would be talking exactly like the Jews during the Exodus, pining for the leeks and onions of Egyptian captivity.

Freedom = Responsibility. This is the same for every single God-given right that we have... speech, bearing arms, and so on. Any freedom without responsibility to other citizens... it's a sham, and we're one step towards Somalia & anarchy with this kind of non-freedom.

[Durandal]

As in medieval Europe people today are merely serfs who in general work for a person of power or wealth
Land holdings vastly exceed the requirenments. As a matter of fact. Many land holdings today are larger yet less productive or produce product that is used to create wealth or in many instances is not productive at all
Power is rested in individuals on the pretense of democracy. Like in medieval europe this power is only enjoyed because the people make the choice of the individual based on what they can themselves can get out of the deal
Now the question is thus. Are we any more free?

I own land, I vote, and I own guns.

I am not a serf and I find such analogies moronic. I am fairly familiar with the medieval period of Europe and trust me, even the third world is more free.

[Herrmannek]

But you can't DUI :)

[Durandal]

But you can't DUI :)

*snort*

Yeah, that's my litmus test for freedom.

rofl

[Omaha]

DUI? Driving under the influence?

What are you two talking about?

[Durandal]

DUI? Driving under the influence?

What are you two talking about?

That was my point ultimately...