Does anybody in the West still want to be free? — synthesis

Yes. Stop watching TV and watching movies, as it's all propaganda. For some reason people want to be like the characters they see on TV and the movies, or be told how they should be the actors that play those characters, rather than just being themselves.

Think about religion and politics. It seems like most people need to look to others to give themselves purpose and meaning.

Where do you live?
— synthesis
Finland.

Corruption is THE problem everywhere ALL the time. Look at the history of our species!
— synthesis
Even if corruption does happen, it is in some countries a bigger problem than in others. It actually defines a lot how people behave. — ssu

Not to reinforce the notion that Americans know little about what happens outside of the U.S., but Finland is one country of which I am not so familiar. It would seem that smaller countries would have many advantages.

I am a staunch individualist because I believe it is the nature of groups is to self-corrupt, the larger the group, the more potential for corruption (much larger payoffs).

Think about religion and politics. It seems like most people need to look to others to give themselves purpose and meaning. — Harry Hindu

Living a free life requires a great deal effort (physical and mental). If you make it possible for most people to get by without exerting themselves to any degree, they will not have developed the skills necessary (nor the desire) to do what needs to be done to pursue a life based on making free choices.

Not enough suffering?

Welcome.

Perhaps a welfare state mentality.

More context?

I would be OK with a benevolent AI running things. It can hardly do a worse job than humans are doing.

Here's a phrase for you from science fiction:

All watched over by machines of loving grace. - author, Richard Brautigan

you would be surprised.

Not to reinforce the notion that Americans know little about what happens outside of the U.S., but Finland is one country of which I am not so familiar. It would seem that smaller countries would have many advantages. — synthesis

Smaller makes it's far more easier to have that feeling of togetherness, social cohesion and to have that "direct democracy". This can be seen from the fact that many tiny countries are ruled de facto by monarchs still. For example Monaco has the executive branch of the state directly under control of the Monarch. Yet as there are less than 40 000 people in Monaco of whom only a fifth are native Monégasque, it is easy for people to directly talk to the ruler. Yet when you have countries with millions of people, that isn't a possibility and hence the link to politicians is quite far. Think about it this way: if you are an American, do you personally know some politicians, Congress members or higher ranking people in the Democratic or Republican party? In a country of 340 million people those 535 voting members of Congress are quite rare.

I am a staunch individualist because I believe it is the nature of groups is to self-corrupt, the larger the group, the more potential for corruption (much larger payoffs). — synthesis

On the other hand, staunch individualism can result in the resentment of groups altogether and people believing that any form of collectivism or collective idea is bad. Yet it isn't so. Social cohesion is extremely important in a society and the feeling that one ought to do one's share.

I think that Americans just locker these issues in a different way: if they are distrustful of collective issues and emphasize the role of the individual, yet they do actively go to church and are active in charity. On the other hand here in Finland the Finns just love associations of all types. A joke is that if Finns go anywhere in the World, the first thing they will do is build a sauna. The second thing they will do is form an association. I think it's crucial for any republic that it's citizens are active and do participate in collective matters in some form or another and not only voting in the rare election once in a while.

Does anybody in the West still want to be free? — synthesis

Freedom is having the ability to lose it.

Something like a skill, trade, or craft takes time to hone and master, which requires work, effort, and time. Knowledge too. A studious pursuit of knowledge either in philosophy or science is truly never complete or "finished". It requires a lifelong pursuit and commitment. You can take downtime and even give up, but somebody else from another nation will do what you neglected or were too lazy to do if so.

You can see what happens when the greatest generation is told "hey guys.. great job. you no longer have to do anything anymore .. ever". That sounds amazing. True victory. Then just sit back and watch. Absent of discipline, knowledge, and structure even the salt of the Earth will turn scum of the Earth in a few generations flat. Happens every time. That's what's happening here, I fear.

Not everyone wants to succumb to the complacent degeneracy sipped from a poisoned chalice of ancient triumphs no one can even remember or even actually knows for sure happened.

@Harry Hindu.

For some reason people want to be like the characters they see on TV and the movies, or be told how they should be the actors that play those characters, rather than just being themselves. — Harry Hindu

“[American] students [of the 80s] have not the slightest notion of what an achievement it is to free oneself from public guidance and find resources for guidance within oneself. From what source within themselves would they draw the goals they think they set for themselves? Liberation from the heroic only means that they have no resource whatsoever against conformity to the current “role models.” They are constantly thinking of themselves in terms of fixed standards that they did not make. Instead of being overwhelmed by Cyrus, Theseus, Moses or Romulus, they unconsciously act out the roles of the doctors, lawyers, businessmen or TV personalities around them. One can only pity young people without admirations they can respect or avow, who are artificially restrained from the enthusiasm for great virtue.”

That is my generation.

What does “being yourself” mean? That presupposes you know who and what you really are. Is that knowledge so evident and obvious? Has the Delphic Oracle been reduced to something like “2+2=4”? Has the object of Socrates’ lifelong pursuit become obvious for anyone that breathes and thinks?

On the other hand, staunch individualism can result in the resentment of groups altogether and people believing that any form of collectivism or collective idea is bad. Yet it isn't so. Social cohesion is extremely important in a society and the feeling that one ought to do one's share. — ssu

Fortunately for many of the smaller countries around the world, me and my closest 340M neighbors have been paying to keep you guys free so you can fully enjoy your associations, etc.. I would suppose that Finland would be part of Russia at this point had the U.S. not been prodding that bear with nuclear pokers.

If Finland had to defend itself (which it could never do), then you would see more clearly the negative aspect of these groups. I will always maintain that groups are designed by the few in their own interests. Otherwise, why would they exist?

Not everyone wants to succumb to the complacent degeneracy sipped from a poisoned chalice of ancient triumphs no one can even remember or even actually knows for sure happened. — Outlander

I think it comes down to the idea that there are a small percentage of people that will do everything (lie, cheat, steal, etc) to get ahead. On the other side of the ledger, there are the majority who just want to do the minimum, just get by while making absolutely certain that their lifetime subscription to the "something for nothing" club is paid-in-full.

I think it comes down to the idea that there are a small percentage of people that will do everything (lie, cheat, steal, etc) to get ahead. — synthesis

Small? Lol. Nah, that's "the everybody" .. we just get to live on the illusion we're good people propped up by those who engaged in illegal acts of murder and robbery with no concern of repercussion (some with full knowledge of such) toward those who would come after. In a philosophical angle it's the hedonic treadmill why we are no longer satisfied with things we didn't deserve yet someone with nothing can find happiness if left alone. Who are you to think you can suddenly now shy away from evolution and Darwinism, survival of the fittest, God is non-existent or otherwise does not punish immorality and abandonment of all you were given. The pact was sealed in the blood of the innocents. The die was cast, the bed is made, if there is no God you win. If so.. well, you wouldn't have to worry for long. Or maybe so. In either case, it's only what you deemed was right, let that never be forgotten. You will not however, corrupt or persuade others who may still be saved with your myopic drivel any longer.

What does “being yourself” mean? That presupposes you know who and what you really are. — Todd Martin

It's a silly question. Being yourself doesn't necessarily require knowledge of who you are. A cat does not know it's a cat, but has no issues being a cat. We are all outcomes of our genes and upbringing and are always being ourselves. It's just that some people (and cats) are followers and some are leaders.

Small? Lol. Nah, that's "the everybody" .. we just get to live on the illusion we're good people propped up by those who engaged in illegal acts of murder and robbery with no concern of repercussion (some with full knowledge of such) toward those who would come after. — Outlander

That's a pretty negative outlook.

Hope you have a better day today!

Fortunately for many of the smaller countries around the world, me and my closest 340M neighbors have been paying to keep you guys free so you can fully enjoy your associations, etc.. I would suppose that Finland would be part of Russia at this point had the U.S. not been prodding that bear with nuclear pokers. — synthesis

Uh actually.... I think you don't know Finnish history. The story during WW2 and later being non-aligned, not in NATO, never getting the Marshal aid. And no Liberation-Day / VE-Day for us in WW2, thankfully!

If Finland had to defend itself (which it could never do), then you would see more clearly the negative aspect of these groups. I will always maintain that groups are designed by the few in their own interests. Otherwise, why would they exist? — synthesis

Yep, you've never heard of the Winter War between Finland and Soviet Union, I presume.

But we surely know that we are expendable and nobody would give a rats ass about us, if it wasn't for ourselves.

It's a silly question. Being yourself doesn't necessarily require knowledge of who you are. A cat does not know it's a cat, but has no issues being a cat. We are all outcomes of our genes and upbringing and are always being ourselves. — Harry Hindu

But you upbraided synthesis for trying to be someone else:

Stop watching TV and watching movies, as it's all propaganda. For some reason people want to be like the characters they see on TV and the movies, or be told how they should be the actors that play those characters, rather than just being themselves. — Harry Hindu

So, apparently, at least some ppl aren’t always just being themselves, but are impressed enough by examples they admire so much that they want to be that person. In the mid-80s Allan Bloom wrote, “ I discovered that students who boasted of having no heroes secretly had a passion to be like Mick Jagger, to live his life, have his fame. They were ashamed to admit this in a university, although I am not certain that the reason has anything to do with a higher standard of taste. It is probably that they are not supposed to have heroes.”

We are all outcomes of our genes and upbringing — Harry Hindu

But man is satisfied with neither his nature nor nurture. Often, to be himself (or herself) he thinks, he needs to alter his genetic gender, and work hard to overcome an oppressive upbringing...all in order to become who he truly is.

A cat does not know it's a cat, but has no issues being a cat. — Harry Hindu

Your example goes straight to my point: a human being, unlike a cat, knows what he is, and, unlike a cat, often has issues with it.

But you upbraided synthesis for trying to be someone else: — Todd Martin

If synthesis is a follower, and I'm not, then telling them how to live their lives and how to think, and then they do just that, is what we both do and how we are both being ourselves. Leaders lead. Followers follow.

Your example goes straight to my point: a human being, unlike a cat, knows what he is, and, unlike a cat, often has issues with it. — Todd Martin

If someone asserts that they Elvis Presley reincarnated, are they really being Elvis Presley reincarnated, or just being delusional?

Uh actually.... I think you don't know Finnish history. The story during WW2 and later being non-aligned, not in NATO, never getting the Marshal aid. And no Liberation-Day / VE-Day for us in WW2, thankfully! — ssu

You are correct. My knowledge of Finnish history is nearly zero. I am glad to hear that you guys were able to remain somewhat independent. How you deal with the cold, though, is beyond me. I can barely deal the winters we have in Southern California!

We are not free; so I don't think it a valid question. Freedom is an ideal; a starting point for thought that is then traded for social goods like law and order, the enforcement of contracts, and national defence.

If you were to ask whether I think social impositions on individual freedom have gone too far, I'd say so - but it's not as if freedom were much more than hypothetical in the first place.

We are not free; so I don't think it a valid question. Freedom is an ideal; a starting point for thought that is then traded for social goods like law and order, the enforcement of contracts, and national defense.

If you were to ask whether I think social impositions on individual freedom have gone too far, I'd say so - but it's not as if individual freedom were much more than hypothetical in the first place. — counterpunch

Not only is freedom an ideal, but so is everything else. Even so, and within those limitations, we must still confront the forces of evil that would enslave us all without a second thought, so casting one's line out into the sea of freedom, one hopes to find others also fishing for the chance to distract TPTB for just a little bit longer.

Not only is freedom an ideal, but so is everything else. — synthesis

I have no idea what you might possibly mean by this; even from context, relating it to limitations - what on earth do you mean? Do you imagine I was invoking Plato's allegory of the cave - when I said freedom is an ideal? Surely not. So in what way is everything an ideal?

In that we choose to give meaning to that which we cannot understand.

I believe that our intellect has no real access to the truth of anything, so what we do is create our own existence within the context of overall accepted existence. Freedom means something different to everybody but you are correct that it does not exist in any real way.

If it's the case for freedom, then it is the case for all things. No matter how simple something appears, it is infinitely complex so that our minds have no chance of comprehension (so we do what our species does best...bullshit)..

I believe that our intellect has no real access to the truth of anything, — synthesis

What does that have to do with the question - does anyone in the West still want to be free? There's zero implication to subjectivism in the question; and the term ideal, in the response - denotes a political ideal. I'd have to wonder if you are mentally ill - that you answer in such a manner. "Everything is ideal" - other than your answer. That's a real steaming turd!

Maybe most people are just as happy to live under a set of authoritarian edicts as long as they can have access to things like cheap junk food, lightening quick internet, 2-day free shipping, and free pornography, you know, the essentials of life. — synthesis

I think this is largely true. As long as Soylent Green isn't people, why care? Few people I have spoken to can tell me what freedom actually is in any coherent form and I certainly don't have a robust conception of it. I know Americans seem to be very fond of the term, but I am sure it is understood differently (and not just across Liberal/Conservative lines). I'm tempted to think that notions of freedom are as great a source of internecine squabbles and irresolvable argument as religion.

If there is uncertainty among the participants in this discussion what freedom means, maybe it would be good to come to an agreement about it. I propose this definition for consideration:

Freedom for a member of a political community is his permission within that community to pursue the things considered necessary by that community for living a fully human life. I am aware this is a vague generalization, but you’ve got to start somewhere.

We are not free; so I don't think it a valid question. — counterpunch

What does that have to do with the question - does anyone in the West still want to be free? — counterpunch

cp, what's the point of responding if you don't think it's a valid question?

My response to you was basically suggesting that when it comes down to it, is anything valid? It is easy to disprove anything when dealing with an intellectual framework where all things are relative and constantly changing.