This is a strait up extension of conclusions I came to on this thread http://www.highexistence.com/topic/what-is-your-way-of-restoring-your-faith-in-humanity/
The thing is, I have no authority to define those myself and enforce them, I can help in the process though.
I know we all hate the idea of forcing anything on people, and you are absolutely right, I don’t object to that. But every philosophy you currently enjoy as a free right is being taken away from other people who deserve it.
This thread is not about forcing anything but only about coming to reasonable conclusions to provide everyone with the same freedom you enjoy. It is bad to enforce but it is empathic to try to find a way to appropriately justify everything our civilization enforces and ignores.
Any suggestions of what is a right, is enough. You can also add if you think it is a basic or an earned right and why you think that so others can discuss it to see if we can conclude it or reasonably define the responsibilities that come with it.
For example, people say freedom is a basic right, but if that were true we would have no justification for prisons and generally seperating certain people and animals from other people and animals. So freedom is a basic right as far as you meet the responsibilities to keep it, but what are they?
Ok, I will just talk to myself.
The responsibilities of freedom depend a lot on not hurting people, but if that were the only factor then we would have no powers to stop others who hurt people. This is a big key to it all. All situations vary, some times you have options to stop people from harming others, evident because we actually have prisons and generally certain people and animals seperated from other people and animals. Other times killing is the only option, but this is not always strait forward either because everyone makes mistakes on judgement calls.
So then we have to establish the intent of force, malicious or human error, deliberate or accidental, if the person paniced, was neglectful or was in clear sensibility.
If they were clearly sensible then we establish motive, was it justifiable or excessive, then deem accordingly.
But then we have cases where the cause of harm is not dirrect, that people make various decisions everyday, if they know who and how it will effect others must be established. Then we have the motives for the decision. The scope of the decision determines accountability for the micro-management of the effects, and if the person in question cannot manage that area appropriately then the area must be divided into areas that are manageable.
Do you see what I am getting at?
Then yo have the fact that some areas are more profitable than others and you have areas where the responsibilty to manage outweigh the resorces that area provides to manage it. So generally, all areas cannot be completely independant of each other but the profits of one area have a certain responsibility to the management of other areas. That is where we as human beings and a civilization are neglectful and deny liability.
You really are talking to yourself, lol!
Anyway, I agree freedom is a basic right as long as you meet the responsibilities to keep it. And for me, personally, all those responsibilities come down to one: live and let live. Live in peace and let others do the same. And those with power are assumed to have earned it are responsible for keeping you safe when you cannot save yourself and judging those who harm others. (Not saying that those in power are always good at this, lol, but that’s ideally what it would be.)
Every country that has these opportunities for their citizens has a sustainable population growth, some of them actually have a negative population growth. Sure culture plays its part in that but culture primarily depends on the education level of the citizens. The trends of the group mentality deminish as the people become more independant and free to make their own choices.
It would cost the world a lot to do something about this, but the benefits would mean that we become more sustainable and as we do, the quality of life improves for everyone and we actually start to pay back all that it cost us to do it.
You don’t have to enforce a thing by law, it is about every one of us just saying it is ok, its a right, its not my place, someone being a dick is fine until it happens to you. So you ignore it? Yes that is nobel, but cowardly, grow nutz and stand up to ignorance, lest you want a cesspool society.
Plenty of people stand up for ignorance all because nobel cowards decide its their right.
Forget about beliefs, what do you need them for when you have natural and REAL empathic sensibilities inside you that YOU are responsible for standing up for as a principle.
So people have the right to be a dick, that’s fair enough, but you have the right to call them out on it and the right to refuse deflection of responsibility for their own actions.
If you are not comfortable in your power and authority then sub-contract it but take on subsidiary rights and responsibilities with it.
Ask yourself whos freedom is greater than their duty or liability? Each of us equal in that relation from bottom to very top, we have accountability to our own behaviour in each our designated roles. Individual cells of the one organism, any entity outside of this principle is cancer. Each of us an independant identity within a collective identity, Humanity, each of us with freedom, duty and liabiltity.
You are always free to make judgement calls on your own behaviour but just remember the equal measure of duty and liability that comes with that right.
Don’t confuse understanding with demands, there is opportunity for both empathy and pure logic in that reasoning.
This is what everyone wants, even if you have no idea what I’m talking about and you probably don’t. But even the richest people in the world want this, simply because it makes their lives better. The only person that does not benefit from this is the person who has no part of it. This is not communism or any new type of government, it works on exactly the same system we are under. It even uses the same principle that is found under capitalism, the subsidiary rights and responsibility method, totally a corporate idea.
It is not a one world government, nothing changes about anything. The economies are no more connected than they already are, but that areas that need help are helped by areas that already have more than they want. It is just a balancing mechanism. It just sets everything right that real progress can be made and we don’t look like idiots any more.
This is basically how it works:
Every business in the free world registers as a subsidiary. The “Father” organization is not powerful or authoritarian, it is simply an accounting (number cruncher) entity that works out where the global economies need most balancing. This overall strengthens the economies so to create better productivity and efficiency, but it also means we can work on issues that had previously been neglected due to economic impracticality.
This can help poverty, climate change and general restoration of nature. It also helps every business, including the most profitable, by creating the environment for them to thrive.
Not only poverty and the environment, but anything about the world that is in trouble because even though it is our responsibility as the only sentient being here but we see no profit in it. That is the problem, we neglect our duties for the sake of money. I don’t have a problem with money or the big entities that make most of it, I have a problem with people not being liable for their own behaviour.
But there are plenty of areas that have more than they want, and if you doubt that they have more than they WANT then consider the fact that these areas have as many problems, even more critical problems, than those areas that do not have what they need. The global financial crisis is evidence of that, and that did not just effect people we don’t know in 3rd world countries who are faceless and nameless so as to forget they even exist, but it effected all of us and still is. That is the kind of problems from having more than you want.
But as I said, industries, corporations, commercial entities, real estate and property development, all these can be linked under the subsidiary system to get them all up to scratch and as you improve these areas they become more productive, which equals profits across the board. But not only that but it provides heaps of jobs in the process.
And yes it is basically like a tax, but I consider it an investment.
After companies become subsidiaries, it is not a bad idea to make every single person one also, perhaps on a different entity, but anyone who pays tax in any country in the free world could be a part of it. This would actually have very little effect on every day people but it helps in all ways and companies do not feel singled out for discrimination that they are the only ones paying for everyones advantage, regardless of how much they get out of it.
Freedom from is ordinary, mundane. Man has always tried to be free from things. It is not creative. It is the negative aspect of freedom.
Freedom for is creativity. You have a certain vision that you would like to materialize and you want freedom for it.
Freedom from is always from the past, and freedom for is always for the future.
Freedom for is a spiritual dimension because you are moving into the unknown and perhaps, one day, into the unknowable. It will give you wings.
Barry Schwartz: Using our practical wisdom
“http://www.ted.com In an intimate talk, Barry Schwartz dives into the question “How do we do the right thing?” With help from collaborator Kenneth Sharpe, he shares stories that illustrate the difference between following the rules and truly choosing wisely.”
@tigerturban, Freedom is only a bad thing because it is not moderated by two important other factors, liability and duty. Yes there is a limited liabilty on freedom but once you meet that, your only duty is to more freedom and meeting the liability for it. This is ridiculous because as the caretakers of this planet we have a responsibility to its maintainance, but we also have a responsibility to each other.
I am not saying that we create a welfare state where people can sponge of the system, I am talking about a duty to provide people with the means to become self-sufficient.
Freedom comes from truth; it can be achieved as a basic and as an earned …And i think that freedom can be earned on many scales too. For people that are mentally and emotionally broken, they must heal their wounds step by step until they’ve proven to themselves that they can face the truth and set themselves free, and there is the freedom at the cost of being tied down by others and having no say this at the expense of strength and will to survive. But, there are factors that can reach freedom and it is not easy, many people do seem to believe they are free, but they aren’t, especially when being trapped in the mind or trapped in a prison cell. either way, if the truth is within reach, if there ar which is possible because the truth will always be there, however we as people are ignorant to that type of stuff… but back to what i was saying, if there are no quarrels or pitfuls, and or a way out of that, then freedom can be sought. But if you are blinded then freedom is unattainable. Hopefully this might help….
@birdysue313, Fuck that hippy shit, yes we can all achieve a mental state where nothing can harm us, but that is like saying fuck everyone else, I’m comfortable. Then saying they can be comfortable too they just have to reach the same mental state I’m in. Well not everyone is spiritual and if they were this world would suck balls.
Fuck spirituality, that is a belief you can find in yourself, good for you, but beliefs are a complete load of bullshit, if anything they can be used as a guideline, but empathy and logic are something real and confirmed, not just being stoned.
That is another huge problem, spirituality, it is just a cop out way of calling yourself apathetic.
truth be told, i’m already late to bed and could only skim these responses, but here’s some of my two-cents.
so long as we live in a social-contract-based society, there will always be a blurry line between given rights and earned rights. even when we think of something as basic as the “right to live,” we’re automatically involving ourselves in the discussions of abortion and capital punishment (neither of which are topics i’d like to get into) and the idea that one’s life can be taken given a mandate from the masses. i do agree with the more blanketed approach of earning rights based on one’s participation in society. in america, for example, they say that voting is a privilege, not a right. to some extents, i agree. felons can’t vote, as they’ve failed to hold up their end of the social contract. at the same time, i feel as though people who don’t participate in society (another conversation for another time) shouldn’t necessarily be given the benefits of that society. continuing with the voting example, if someone doesn’t study pamphlets or candidate statements, why should they be allowed to vote?
But what, are you going to love people into doing the right thing? No, you offer them a trade off, you take their money and do the right thing with it and create the environment for them to make even more money in return. It is simple and that is what this proposal is. Something practical to buy people of logic and empathy,a sense of duty and responsibility, the means to fix up what is neglected and pay back many times over those who chipped in to get it done.
What do you want to sing Kumbaya in the parking lots, hoping they do something? Fuck that, they wont do shit, you make a business proposition.
I am actually quite strict on how I see things. I believe you are responsible for your own, parents should be giving their kids what they need to become self-sufficient, but this cannot always be the case. In the case of povert, even the parents don’t know how to be self-sufficient and we all have a duty to give them that opportunity.
But once given the opportunity you have a duty to yourself and society to use it, if you don’t then there is no free ride, we deck out a factory floor with cots and feed them mass crap for food, this gives them motivation to move into that self-sufficiency, or stay in a shit life. Certain things we provide, like tools to seek work and to make them presentable, even educate them some more, but no money.
People should lose their privilages, freedoms and rights, the more they neglect their duties such as self-sufficiency, not deliberately harming others in malice and staying in a state where their choices are not adversely effected by addiction (not just drugs but any state of dependancy that causes you to neglect your duties as a citizen).
The fact is that you have no real self-determination without achieving your self-sufficiency anyway so they are not losing anything by coming under protections. But no one is ever really fully self-sufficient, but people can attain this to a reasonable level and it is not asking too much. We just have the duty as a global civilization to make sure people have the opportunity to become self-sufficient and we don’t do that without some kind of practical plan.