Why do men like to kill men?

[RCSaunders]

IOW, there are no self sufficient people.

That is what I said. There are no free people and no human has freedom.

'You've convinced me, GIA. There are no self-sufficient people and there are no free people.

Fortunately for some of us, WE ARE NOT PEOPLE. Whatever the unfortunate creatures you identify as people are, which I assume includes you, I'm not one of them. If what you are describing is human, than I'm not human, because what you are describing is something less than a fully rational/volitional being. Only for you, I will identify what I, and Henry, are. We and others are ultra-humans and you have never met one of us or even know we exist. To us, your, "people," are a sub-species that has not yet achieve full ultra-humaness.

Now you can make all the absurd statements you want about "people" without making the embarrassing mistake of attributing to others your own deficiencies and defects. Just remember it does not apply to ultra-humans, which you know nothing about.

[To Henry only: you're right, he is a sick puppy. I feel sorry for him.]

[RCSaunders]

It's your time to waste, RC, but wastin' it you are.

Probably, but I gave it one more shot, just for fun of it.

[Immanuel Can]

I am still waiting for the example you suggested exists above.

Sorry...which "example"?

[Immanuel Can]

Have you read the book or seen the movie -- Lord of the Flies?

What it shows is why we have chosen security under law instead of freedom.

Oh, I read it.

In the story, Ralph (and, to some extent, Piggy) tried to organize society, so that freedom could be maximized. The advocates of unrestricted "freedom" ended up killing Piggy and trying to kill Ralph, the hero of the story.

A few rules for the common good didn't hurt freedom at all, but rather ensured that what freedoms remained took place within a coordinated framework that stood to serve the good of all. It was the little savages who didn't pay attention to that, and wanted freedom without any rules, who ended up creating the disaster that the island became. What Ralph was trying to advocate was not suffocating to freedom, but rather the maximization and direction of freedom into purposes advantageous to all. He was trying to create a minimal level of beneficial civilization, not to impose any tyrannical repression.

Again, you see in that story how a limited set of intelligent rules can serve freedom. Of course, too many rules can suffocate freedom. And of course, there are always debates about how many rules one should have, and about what. But the point of the story is that absence of rules is not freedom, but a things that used to be called "anomie," meaning "lawlessness," the absence of any markers, guides, landmarks, benchmarks for achievement, values, morals or goals. And "anomie" is a state that all human beings actually turn out to hate and fear, even if they claim to want it at first. You can see this because when faced with it they often flee into the hands of dictators (interbellum Germany was a really good example of this).

It seems that human beings will endure tyranny rather than anomie. Absolute lawlessness is not freedom. It's terror.

You are bastardizing the language to try to win a cheep point.

A silly comment. I didn't do anything to the language...well, except use it as a person who knows it does.

And "cheap" is spelled with an "a."

You have freedom as having degrees. One is either free or not.

One is free or not...but sociability and social rules are not the opposites of freedom. So one can be sociable, and follow social rules, and be volitionally quite free.

Your own country has a Statue of Liberty. Not a statue of freedom.

Not my country.

But it's a very nice statue, nonetheless. And I'm not sure what your point is there.

[commonsense]

I am still waiting for the example you suggested exists above.

Sorry...which "example"?

IC, he was waiting for an example of a human who does not rely on other humans. I believe an example has been given, but if that isn’t the case, let me offer any individual survivalist to do the trick.

[Immanuel Can]

I am still waiting for the example you suggested exists above.

Sorry...which "example"?

IC, he was waiting for an example of a human who does not rely on other humans. I believe an example has been given, but if that isn’t the case, let me offer any individual survivalist to do the trick.

I don't know why GIA would think it remotely plausible to say that being in a society was an encumbrance on freedom. That's the silliest kind of point of view. That can't possibly be the point...but I can't tell what is.

For one thing, any decision we make has to take into account not only our present selves, but our future selves. Every time we make ourselves go and do work we don't presently find rewarding, but do it because of some future payoff, like a salary, we are giving up the freedom of our present selves for the benefit of our future selves. But does that mean that what we're doing is not a free choice? Of course not.

We are negotiating with a society of "selves"-- myself now, myself tomorrow, myself next week, and myself in ten years...all of whom have different interests in the decision.

So if taking the concerns of another person into consideration makes one "not free," then there has not been a free human being in history. The human our future selves rely on for their well-being is our present self. One could say that every single human being is a community of selves, selves reiterated through out time.

I don't know what argument GIA is trying to make here, but if it's that taking any other person's needs into consideration makes the decision not-free, then that's ridiculous. We can't even do that with ourselves, let alone anybody else.

[commonsense]

I believe GIA was drawing a distinction between being free (I.e., having free will) and having freedom (I.e., being allowed to act completely independently of others).

Rather than quibbling over semantics, I prefer to view free and freedom from GIA’s perspective as much as I can understand it.

So, by GIA’s view, as I interpret it, people have free will but must exercise their agency within the constraints of an interdependent society.

GIA, please correct any mistakes I’ve made in restating your meaning.

[Immanuel Can]

I believe GIA was drawing a distinction between being free (I.e., having free will) and having freedom (I.e., being allowed to act completely independently of others).

The problem with that is that, as I said, no human being in history has every "had freedom" in the sense described above. You never "act completely independently" of other selves -- your own future selves, or other people's selves -- except when you act totally for your present self -- without foresight, without responsibility, without ethics, without planning, without anything but the passions of the immediate second of time.

Rather than quibbling over semantics, I prefer to view free and freedom from GIA’s perspective as much as I can understand it.

I can't understand it. It makes no sense.

Even by the greatest convolutions of the principle of charity, I can't patch up the defects in GIA's view, so far as I can see.

[henry quirk]

IOW, there are no self sufficient people.

That is what I said. There are no free people and no human has freedom.

'You've convinced me, GIA. There are no self-sufficient people and there are no free people.

Fortunately for some of us, WE ARE NOT PEOPLE. Whatever the unfortunate creatures you identify as people are, which I assume includes you, I'm not one of them. If what you are describing is human, than I'm not human, because what you are describing is something less than a fully rational/volitional being. Only for you, I will identify what I, and Henry, are. We and others are ultra-humans and you have never met one of us or even know we exist. To us, your, "people," are a sub-species that has not yet achieve full ultra-humaness.

Now you can make all the absurd statements you want about "people" without making the embarrassing mistake of attributing to others your own deficiencies and defects. Just remember it does not apply to ultra-humans, which you know nothing about.

[To Henry only: you're right, he is a sick puppy. I feel sorry for him.]

ultra-humans: HA! Nah, being human is a fine enough thing, so I'm gonna stick with that. Instead, since GIA is all about the tribal we ought refer to him and his as protohuman: troops of monkeys, rigid hierarchies, poop flingin'...

[henry quirk]

Sorry...which "example"?

IC, he was waiting for an example of a human who does not rely on other humans. I believe an example has been given, but if that isn’t the case, let me offer any individual survivalist to do the trick.

I don't know why GIA would think it remotely plausible to say that being in a society was an encumbrance on freedom. That's the silliest kind of point of view. That can't possibly be the point...but I can't tell what is.

For one thing, any decision we make has to take into account not only our present selves, but our future selves. Every time we make ourselves go and do work we don't presently find rewarding, but do it because of some future payoff, like a salary, we are giving up the freedom of our present selves for the benefit of our future selves. But does that mean that what we're doing is not a free choice? Of course not.

We are negotiating with a society of "selves"-- myself now, myself tomorrow, myself next week, and myself in ten years...all of whom have different interests in the decision.

So if taking the concerns of another person into consideration makes one "not free," then there has not been a free human being in history. The human our future selves rely on for their well-being is our present self. One could say that every single human being is a community of selves, selves reiterated through out time.

I don't know what argument GIA is trying to make here, but if it's that taking any other person's needs into consideration makes the decision not-free, then that's ridiculous. We can't even do that with ourselves, let alone anybody else.

I don't know what argument GIA is trying to make here: I do. GIA, feelin' leashed, can't imagine anyone feelin' any different, if I, bright young fella that I am, am incapable, then everyone else must be incapable.

It's garden-variety projection.

[henry quirk]

I believe GIA was drawing a distinction between being free (I.e., having free will) and having

Rather than quibbling over semantics, I prefer to view free and freedom from GIA’s perspective as much as I can understand it.

So, by GIA’s view, as I interpret it, people have free will but must exercise their agency within the constraints of an interdependent society.

GIA, please correct any mistakes I’ve made in restating your meaning.

Seems to me: GIA argues man is not free cuz man is dependent on his fellows for everything, not cuz he is restrained or must restrain himself.

[Immanuel Can]

Seems to me: GIA argues man is not free cuz man is dependent on his fellows for everything, not cuz he is restrained or must restrain himself.

Seems to me that GIA should be a radical Libertarian, then. Maybe even just a "libertine."

[RCSaunders]

ultra-humans: HA! Nah, being human is a fine enough thing, so I'm gonna stick with that. Instead, since GIA is all about the tribal we ought refer to him and his as protohuman: troops of monkeys, rigid hierarchies, poop flingin'...

Of course that's what he is, but I was talking to him, and it was the only way I could think of that might get through to the primitive mind of a "protohuman: troops of monkeys, rigid hierarchies, poop flingin'" tribalist.

I stand corrected.

[henry quirk]

Seems to me: GIA argues man is not free cuz man is dependent on his fellows for everything, not cuz he is restrained or must restrain himself.

Seems to me that GIA should be a radical Libertarian, then. Maybe even just a "libertine."

I'm insulted. GIA is a socialist; I'm the libertarian.

[RCSaunders]

IC, he was waiting for an example of a human who does not rely on other humans. I believe an example has been given, but if that isn’t the case, let me offer any individual survivalist to do the trick.

You're right, but I tried that here. Some forms of stupidity are intractable.

I think GIA is a good illustration of something attributed to Einstein: "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it limits."