The Russian Meeting Place: A place to meet people and talk about all things Russian...

International Discussions about Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Travel, Music, Russian News, Ukrainian culture, Belarusian Dating, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Kiev and other intelligent topics about life in the former Soviet Union.

     


                                

              

Pages: 1

what does it mean to be free? What is freedom?

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: parasionok

I personaly think that freedom cannot be imposed on anyone, otherwise it is not freedom. I think that freedom cannot be brought or taught or shown to other countires or peoples. I think no country professes freedom, on the countrary. They enslave people and make them think as it is needed for this very moment in history to achive certain goals set by individuals with the thirst to power, money, etc. Or am I being mistaken?

I think being free means that you feel you are free inside yourself, being born in a "free" country doesn't make you a free person. I think freedom is very subjective. Can a person free himself from all the dogmas imposed on him by the society, by his family, by books he reads, by movies he watches, by products he buys? Or freedom is something that the society imposes on you? Is nihilism a certain expression of freedom or it is just a rebelion against everything that has been set by your environment?

Anyway, what is freedom or who can be called a free person...

Any thoughts?


Posted by: rob_we

Para
In the 80ies there was a saying:
"Fighting for freedom is like F***ing for virginity"
It was quite true in the cold war times and it is now more true then ever I guess.

Still I think that the word freedom has divided and altered its meaning in the way, freedom for people (outer freedom), and freedom of the individuum(inner freedom).

To live in a free country doesnt make us as individuals more free than to live in a totalitarian one I think. Means you can have a perfect inner freedom in a totalitarian regime and none at all in an outer freedom country.

If its about outer freedom I think it is not possible to be imposed on a group of people, but it is on individuals.

I will explain this:
To my opinion any group of people has its own, lets call it "codex of live" (to avoid any "problematic words" in this thread)

If another group would impose their "codex of life" on them it would be like a prefurnished apparment, its nice but it never fits...
Maybe its even worse then the conditions before, even if the "furnisher" did it with his best intentions...
Hence a group can only free itself. This is why a war for fredom of someone else makes absolutely no sense ...at least to me....

A single individuum is able to change its social group, and adapt to new circumstances, as to more outer freedom...so here it might work..

If its about inner freedom its even more drastical.
I can use the same analogy as above for groups and individuals, because it would neither be imposable on a group nor on an individual.
Anybody has to find it for himself.
Thats the job we are here for I suppose


Posted by: Pin Boy

in another thread someone made a good point that russians have more freedoms than westerners...for example, if a person wants to sell apples on the corner they can do it without needing a gajillion licenses, inspections etc..if a person wants to drink a bottle of beer on a bus, they can do it....there were similar thought provoking examples in that thread

but if we're are talking FSU freedom vs Western freedom, i would choose western freedom for the fact of being able to freely travel to most other places in the world...it is such a shame that people in the former FSU are subject to such intense scrutiny to get a tourist visa to many countries

my 2 cents

pin boy


Posted by: Eryk

Quote:
Originally posted by parasionok
Anyway, what is freedom or who can be called a free person...

Any thoughts?


Universal freedom cannot exist in any society. The closest that you can really get to freedom is 'anarchism' and that doesn't really constitute freedom because even without a central government it is impossible for all individuals to act according to their desires without some implicitly abridging the freedoms of others. Obsessing about 'freedom' is middle class, western, navel gazing. In the developing world people by and large have much more important things to worry about like finding enough to eat.

To bring this back 'on topic' (for the site), that is why Luka easily won the referendum last week. The OSCE et. al. may moan about irregularities etc. but despite that the fact is the man really did win the popular vote (I personally detest him incidentally). The reason he won is simple. He makes sure pensions and state salaries are paid on time and prevents private businesses using cartel tactics to force up the prices of basic essentials. The bleeding heart nomenklatura in Minsk and their sugar daddies in the EU/USA may agonise over 'authoritarianism' and lack of 'transparency' but out in the countryside people don't give a damn about such esoteric rubbish. They want to be sure that they will be able to eat next week and are not concerned if a few newspapers are closed down and John McCain refused a visa etc. etc. The most basic and fundamental freedom is the freedom to continue to exist ...details regarding elections of politicians are irrelevant if you are dead.

Eryk

PS: Much though I loathe the man, I would actually have voted for him in this case. Term limits are intrinsically undemocratic since they may act to prevent the electorate selecting the candidate they want. There is a good chance that at the last US election the real will of the electorate was to re-elect Clinton for a third term ...but the people were denied that opportunity. The result has been foisting the predations of the Shrub on the entire planet.


Posted by: rob_we

Eryk
Quote:
Universal freedom cannot exist in any society. The closest that you can really get to freedom is 'anarchism' and that doesn't really constitute freedom because even without a central government it is impossible for all individuals to act according to their desires without some implicitly abridging the freedoms of others. Obsessing about 'freedom' is middle class, western, navel gazing. In the developing world people by and large have much more important things to worry about like finding enough to eat.


I think we would have to define what you mean with "universal" freedom. You say anarchy would be close. Hmmm. I would not see it this way. Anarchy means the strongest indivitual, and all those who are stronger then you could impose their will on you without consequences. Hence in an anarchy only one person could have his/her "universal" freedom to your definition!
If you see it this way, a totalitarian dictatorship, or an absolute monachy could have the same amout of freedom or even more (if you look at a random single individual).
Society structures are built to my view acordingly to increase the freedom of the individual not to decrease it! Living "free" in a society (I refer to my first post (outer freedom) ) implies the wish and the will to respect the other members of this society.
Otherwise it would be contradictive! Humans are social beings. That means they are made to exist in groups, not on their own! Any society is the medium for their human beings to interact.
Its necessary to use this medium to become free. Otherwise you would say Robinson Crusoe would have been more free than any of us, but in the contrary, he was a prisoner

I try to explain this:
Its like buying a car. You choose a car (free choice) then you drive where you want (free choice) but anarchy here would mean you destroy the car that you chose before. Hence you did not choose the car to be free but to destroy it! You do this and can not move around any more... Result: you are NOT free

So to act accordingly to your desires, means in the car analogy you would just have to choose the right car to be free...
If no car fits you have to buid one on your own and make it work....

THIS choice (car<>society) is to me the most important one! Most people do not question the society they were born in, but because it does not fit their needs, feel unhappy and unfree. Again its more a "change the car" then a "destroy the car" issue ...

The point in your post, that ONLY or MAINLY "third world people" do not pay attention to their freedom due to the fact that they are hungry, is also a point I disagree with.

I am convinced that there is only one issue that makes individuals give up parts of- or their whole freedom.

That issue is fear. The wish for freedom is only dominated by the wish of protection. If a government, a group of people or certain circumstances is/are able to frighten people, then those people "sacrifice" their freedom for protection! Its not important if its the fear of starving, of being hurt, or losing something important (family, job, personal belongings). Hence loosing freedom or less freedom is not at all a third world country issue, on the contrary. Due to the fact that "rich" people have more to loose then poor people they have more fears. So its even easier to make them give up their freedom for protection! It is something that can happen to all of us in ANY society but its the rich countries who are more in danger then the poor!

This is why I "sliced" freedom in two pieces in my first post!
It is the amount of inner freedom of any individual, that makes outer freedom possible or endangers it. Loosing your inner freedom means you will start to fear. If you start to fear you will consequently loose your outer freedom.

On the other hand being not able to gain inner freedom due to society (no outer freedom) increases pressure of the individual on the society. If enough people feel like this, they will try to increase outer freedom (from voting other parties up to revolution)
This is the ONLY way to change a society to my opinion. The possibility to gain more outer freedom to increase the inner freedom will give the society the power to overcome the restructuring process and grow something new (e.g. build a new car ). If outer freedom is imposed without that pressure from the inside, it is more then likely that an equal system or anarchy results, because a system is destroyed without the inner motor to grow a new one. The fatal result then is, that this increases fear and in the end the stabilizing process ends in an even more unfree society!... I think we have quite some examples for this lately and in history ...


Posted by: Jutman

Freedom is where you as person has the rights to a good life.

- Thats why, there is more 'freedom' in Russia, to do what you want, BUT many don't have the freedom to go to doctor, Uni, get welfare and so on. So whats why many in the West will feel they have more freedom.

Its basically (again) about balance between systems and individual freedom.
So a good life, is where you give some freedom to the system and the system will provide you with new freedom.
- that the good life is, is up to the individual to define AND make, enjoy and use.

The different political parties has a different view on what the individual must give and get. And in contrast what many thinks, this is what all politicians has in common: they want to make a good life for people, they just have different view on whats is a good life.

So even this discussion can be argued from now until end of mankind but at least we are 'free' to have this discussion ACROSS borders, oceans and cultures.


Posted by: FlashingEyes

"Freedom" can be a confusing word, because it means something entirely different when applied to an individual and a society.

The "free" individual outside of a free society is not something we admire. For instance: a male hiker came upon a female hiker in the wilderness. They started to talk but she began to get worried because he was a bit free with his language. Then when she looked away he took the liberty of hitting her over the head with a rock, and knocking her out - he tied her up and proceeded to take whatever freedoms he desired on her sexually.

The "free" society is what people admire when they use the word freedom, but the free society is a society of laws, designed to secure an equal distribution of rights to all people in the society - "that to secure these rights governments are instituted by consent of the governed" (US Declaration of Independence).

Hobbes argued that there is no lack of the good kind of freedom just because people alter their actions in fear of just laws designed to protect society:

"Fear and liberty are consistent; as when a man throws his goods into the sea for fear the ship should sink, he does it nevertheless very willingly, and may refuse to do it if he will: It is therefore the action of one that was free. So a man sometimes pays his debt, only for fear of Imprisonment, which because no body hindered him from detaining, was the action of a man at liberty. And generally all actions which men do in Commonwealths, for fear of the law, are actions, which the doers had liberty to omit." (Leviathan)

In general you will not gain knowledge of the true meaning from an Internet chat board, but only by doing the work of reading importing thinkers like Hobbes, Hume, Locke, and the rest.


Posted by: rob_we

Flash
If you go back to hobbes&Co, I think we have to understand his philosophy, due to the fact that he definitely lived in a very different pre industrial pre humanistic society. His ideas are to my opinion much to much on the evil spot. His thesis is (as yours) if you give someone the opportunity to do evil he will. Then as a matter of fact, he proclaims an autocratic system that forces any individual to a very strict behavoir codex.
A more modern philosophy would state more the opposite now...
I don´t think so personally either. I think Your hichhiker example woud be in "real life" almost always quite different. They would meet and talk. Even if the male hichhiker would be allone, without witnesses, and could rape the girl, he woud in almost all cases NOT DO IT! Why?
I think this fear of the fact that anybody WANTS to do evil and destroy a social group (here it is two peolpe) is understandable for people living in a time with huge restrictions. If you take away the force "restrictions" at once then the individual will first "bounce" to the opposite of course (I think this is more due to the fact of pure curiosity of individuals to "explore" new possibilities, then due to the fact that we are all evil). Thats more or less pure "physics" of exploring our world and not evil but neutral! So if you do this moderately, then the counterreaction will be moderate too.
This is the reason why a totalitarian regime can not be just taken away. It has to be a slow process...


If you claim Locke here now, then keep in mind that those "hichhikers" have already a social background!
Also Humes theories do not give here the correct picture to my opinion! To put it all in a nutshell, all of these 300 or 400 year old theses assume a socitety, their makers have never been able to monitor. They underestimated the complexity of different "operators" in a "free socitety" and they did not think about the wish within any human being for "understanding" and "relief" (Kierkegaard). These operators can and do form structures of free societies within increasing freedom...!
To my belief it is NOT fear that keeps us not doing cruelties to others, its the urge for being understood by society, for being reliefed (or at least accepted maybe loved for the things we do) and the cognition of a freedom and an environment that repells whatever you stimulate. (actio = reactio)

One exaple:
Due to my understanding of Hobbes and Hume, they give actually no reason why sane people are not cruel to their children. They have all power and all possibilities. Fathers do usually not rape their daughters, beat or suppress their sons even if they would have a lot possibilities. In the contrary! I did not find any indication in those theories how to explain this phenomenon with it!

So to my understanding any action of any individual is a neutral "question" to society, any reaction of society is the answer.
If society answers "correctly" (with understanding and as moderate as possible in a way like a parent) then the next "question" of the individual will be more adequate too. So a modern society is able to perform an approximation to its individuals by granting more individual freedom, and vice versa...


Posted by: FlashingEyes

Well rob_we if all people are "good", which means they always act in the best interest of everyone, then your ideas make sense.

If even one person is "bad", meaning acts in his or her own interest and against the interest of others, then your ideas fall apart, and in order to have a free society we need a society of laws.

It is sad but true that some fathers will rape, beat and suppress even their own children, and only a society of laws offers some hope of protection to the innocent, contrary to your assertion that this sort of abuse never happens.


Posted by: rob_we

Flash,
Maybe you didn´t read what i wrote carfully enough. I never said what you wrote in your last post...
I don´t believe that all people are good, neither does Kierkegaard or other modern philosophers. That was not my point actually...
I don´t belive in "good" and "bad" either. I used "evil not as an expression of "the bad" but as a miscondicioned individual behavior... Maybe misleading in this matter (to use evil)....

So I think people are neither good nor bad. I believe in neutral curiosity, in conditioning through pressure, experiences, the urge to be understood and reliefed, as the motor for an individuals wish to join society.

I did not intend to remove the laws of the society... hence I think that a free society does not impose laws on their "sane" individuals that restrict their freedom...

That is actually the major difference to the pre humanistic ideas
Its a slow process...but I´m convinced if mankind does not kill itself before, that this will be the endpoint, and it should be the way to go,...at least for me!


Posted by: FlashingEyes

well there's really no effective difference between what I said before:

If all people were "neutral" as you call it then maybe your ideas would make some sense.

If even one person is "bad", meaning acts in his or her own interest and against the interest of others, then your ideas fall apart, and in order to have a free society we need a society of laws.

It is sad but true that some fathers will rape, beat and suppress even their own children, and only a society of laws offers some hope of protection to the innocent, contrary to your assertion that this sort of abuse never happens.


Posted by: rob_we

Flash

as I said in my post before!
Quote:
I did not intend to remove the laws of the society


but

Quote:
I think that a free society does not impose laws on their "sane" individuals that restrict their freedom...


So this means laws are not removed, which means you still have laws, saying there are laws within the society!

"sane" individuals, means individuals who are part of the society, (not outsiders living in the society which are prevented to harm the socitey by the laws, that are NOT removed!) will because of their mutual understanding of the "rights" and "wrongs" within this society not feel these laws as a burdon, or a restriction or something that would reduce their freedom, because they would not want to do things that are prohibited by law in the first place. If you do not intend to do something that is prohibited, then this something does consequently not restrict your personal freedom, because you will never do it anyway, therefore thats no limitation of your possibilities....

Example:
If it is prohibited by law to go to Island, but you never thought about or intended to go to Island, then this law does not limitate your personal freedom. You will never feel it...


Posted by: FlashingEyes

well rob_we all you keep doing is changing your definition but it doesn't change my basic response:

If all people were "sane" as you now call it then maybe your ideas would make some sense.

If even one person is "bad", meaning acts in his or her own interest and against the interest of others, then your ideas fall apart, and in order to have a free society we need a society of laws.

It is sad but true that some fathers will rape, beat and suppress even their own children, and only a society of laws offers some hope of protection to the innocent, contrary to your assertion that this sort of abuse never happens.


Posted by: rob_we

Flash
mhmm would you like to add something to our discussion, or do you just love to have the last word? You copy paste your post now in this thread again. Doesnt make much sense to me actually. If you don´t understand what im talking about or you don´t agree, but have actually nothing to say I dont really understand what you are doing? Or are you a prisoner in a time loop???


Posted by: FlashingEyes

rob_we,

It's very simple. You typically ignore the flaws that are pointed out to you in your arguments and make elaborate, long-winded responses on tangents. When you do, I simply return to the basic flaw in your argument. You can show me the smoke and mirrors, do your dance and sing your song, but at the end of your speach I'm still going to be looking to see if the same basic flaw still exists in your sermon. In the arguments you are making on this post, your basic flaw is:

If all people were "sane" as you now call it then maybe your ideas would make some sense.

If even one person is "bad", meaning acts in his or her own interest and against the interest of others, then your ideas fall apart, and in order to have a free society we need a society of laws.

It is sad but true that some fathers will rape, beat and suppress even their own children, and only a society of laws offers some hope of protection to the innocent, contrary to your assertion that this sort of abuse never happens.


Posted by: rob_we

Flash
sorry but I tried to explain my view several times with different examples. As I see in your response, you haven´t understood at all what my point is about...
I do not think you even want to. Sometimes it seems to me its more about having wwhatever opposite opinion, with the touch of lecturing... Whatever...
So my advice is read Kierkegaard and some philosophers that are less then 300 years old and be happy with whatever result you get out of it...

btw. Its not "my Ideas" but its the common philsophical views of some major philosophers of the last 2 centuries...
e.g.
Skinner, Burrhus Frederic
Apel, Karl-Otto
Plessner, Helmuth

see further Existentialists...
Heidegger
Jaspers
Camus
Nietzsche

....


Posted by: FlashingEyes

rob_we,

I've read about half of these. I do know in other conversations that you had claimed to have read people and understood them but it turned out you didn't understand them as well as you thought. Having read a smart person's book doesn't make you right, and especially if you misunderstand the smart person. I don't think that Internet forums are the best place to learn philosophy - that's best in self-study or classroom study, as you prefer. One problem with relying on complex philosophers to make your argument is that you miss an important concept and end up making an unrealistic argument, in terms of commen sense. That's why I've pretty much stuck with common sense. From a common sense approach:

If all people were "sane" as you now call it then maybe your ideas would make some sense.

If even one person is "bad", meaning acts in his or her own interest and against the interest of others, then your ideas fall apart, and in order to have a free society we need a society of laws.

It is sad but true that some fathers will rape, beat and suppress even their own children, and only a society of laws offers some hope of protection to the innocent, contrary to your assertion that this sort of abuse never happens.


Posted by: rob_we

Flash,

What I really admire is your way to look at the world and yourself, and the enourmous amount of literature that you have read and understood. I guess every american University (technical or philosophical faculty will be pleased to have you give lectures there) ...

btw. most of these philosophers also agree in the view that there can´t be one global philosophical truth for everybody and that there are different ideas, what those people also brings to the view that it can and should be discussed. I guess I also misunderstood this fact due to your opinion


Posted by: FlashingEyes

rob_we,

I have noticed that once you lose an argument you begin to try to alter the argument to criticisms of the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself. But really that is not as interesting to me as it is to you. I have a basic flaw in your arguments that I am pointing out, and am uninterested in your attempts to shift the discussion away from this flaw and instead to personal attacks on me. The basic flaw in your argument is:

If all people were "sane" as you now call it then maybe your ideas would make some sense.

If even one person is "bad", meaning acts in his or her own interest and against the interest of others, then your ideas fall apart, and in order to have a free society we need a society of laws.

It is sad but true that some fathers will rape, beat and suppress even their own children, and only a society of laws offers some hope of protection to the innocent, contrary to your assertion that this sort of abuse never happens.


Posted by: parasionok

Flash,

Quote:
It is sad but true that some fathers will rape, beat and suppress even their own children, and only a society of laws offers some hope of protection to the innocent, contrary to your assertion that this sort of abuse never happens.


I didn't find where Rob was saying that all people are "sane". Every society imposes laws on its people. In medieval times there were laws to burn witches and free thinkers. There were laws allowing people to inslave other people. There are laws now when people are sentenced to be stoned because they cheated on thier husbands. There is death penalty in many countries. People are judged by other people who are maybe no better than the accused.

I am no philosopher and I have not read Hobbs. It doesn't mean I cannot talk about what freedom is because my education is not as good as yours, does it?


Posted by: rob_we

Flash
The problem is, you don´t argue. You repeated your argument now 5 times. Thats no way of discussing things. Its just annoying. So if you think you win an argument by constantly copying and pasting the same sentences, than congrats. The truth is you annoy your opponents just so much that it then doesnt make any sense to go on. Nobody wants to talk to a taperecorder....
Your assumption of the "basic flaw" results in the fact that you did not read or understand what I was talking about. Laws are constantly changing because they are not perfect. they alter in a way people in a socitety change. Usually nobody is perfect, not even you, Flash...


Posted by: FlashingEyes

rob_we,

Again you are trying to switch the argument to a discussion of your opponent, since you have lost the discussion of the issue - I have seen you often do this in other threads. But I keep repeating the key flaw in your argument because I keep bringing you back to the issue. An argument should center around the issues, and if you don't respond to the issues then all I can do is keep bringing you back to them. Since I have no interest in your personal criticisms of me, I can only repeat the argument that you keep ignoring and attacking me instead:

If all people were "sane" as you now call it then maybe your ideas would make some sense.

If even one person is "bad", meaning acts in his or her own interest and against the interest of others, then your ideas fall apart, and in order to have a free society we need a society of laws.

It is sad but true that some fathers will rape, beat and suppress even their own children, and only a society of laws offers some hope of protection to the innocent, contrary to your assertion that this sort of abuse never happens.


Posted by: parasionok

Flash,

Rob was not claiming that everybody is "sane". I didnt find it anywhere in his posts.

You say: It is sad but true that some fathers will rape, beat and suppress even their own children, and only a society of laws offers some hope of protection to the innocent, contrary to your assertion that this sort of abuse never happens.

He said: "sane" individuals, means individuals who are part of the society, (not outsiders living in the society which are prevented to harm the socitey by the laws, that are NOT removed!) will because of their mutual understanding of the "rights" and "wrongs" within this society not feel these laws as a burdon, or a restriction or something that would reduce their freedom, because they would not want to do things that are prohibited by law in the first place. If you do not intend to do something that is prohibited, then this something does consequently not restrict your personal freedom, because you will never do it anyway, therefore thats no limitation of your possibilities....

Makes sense to me... If I know that I will never abuse my child because I am a good and loving parent, the law that prohibits me from doing it won't affect my personal freedom because it is also my inner law/convinction/principle not to harm people. If by law I am obliged to spy on my neighbour and report him to the authorities because he keeps a copy of Master and Margarita at home, I would feel that this sort of law supresses my own freedom and the freedom of other people.


Posted by: parasionok

Back to the freedom topic. Why I started it is because we heard alot about American freedom, about freeing the world from something, etc. What I am trying to understand is your opinion about who is free and how each of us can be freed from something or whether we feel free. I read here on the board something like “ How does it feel for you to feel this sweet freedom once you are in America?” Good question. America is supposed to be the most free country. BUT let’s have my own example and you are all free to analyze it. I was born in Russia, educated by the Russian parents, went to a Russian school. I go to America 2-3 times a year and I feel like “WHAT IS IT?”... I am a smoker. Why can’t I smoke in a bar in America now? Some years ago I could and now everybody suddenly realised I was harming everybody? On the other hand, America still doesn’t sign a Kyoto protocol, knowing that the green gas emission trading can in a way (note: I am not a big fan of the UN, but what they are doing with trading points about green gas emission can at least bring some balance to pollution control and environmental protection). What is the difference? How can they tell me not to harm others whilst they are doing it on a more global level? Why can I make love on MY OWN TERRACE to my boyfriend in Germany and why cannot I do it in America? Who am I harming there? On the other hand, America (and Russia but not pretending to be the major democracy or freedom fighter at least) can bring freedom to other countries by invading them and killing innocent people? To free them from suppression? Excuse me, we free them by killing them? Makes sense to me, at least once dead they won’t run the risk by being killed by Saddam. If all the laws are done to protect the innocent from being abused or killed why don’t we all ban cars, airplanes, any sharp objects, electricity, fire? How many people are killed in traffic accidents, fire, etc?

I personally think freedom is something that every individual has and it is an inner freedom. The society cannot impose anything on you unless it is in accord with your own beliefs/morals (I hope nobody here will accuse me of not speaking English properly). Otherwise we would not have any crime whatsoever. If anyone can comment this, I would be grateful.


Posted by: rob_we

Para
Freedom, as it is seen by most modern philosophers and or related psychoanalytics, seems to have one basic issue.
It describes the abilities, possibilities, needs and wishes of a human being in interacting with others and in developing itself.
Freedom (according to Kusnetsova, Boss, Maslow) is formed by the need of a human being to be seen (respected) by others, basically the wish to perform and live his/her needs.

So the inner contentment is a fundamental base for the development of any individual and the society. A person that has achieved this is free and able to act unselfishly (see. Maslow)

Laws for a society are (for all participating and to my definition "sane" people) only the crutch of a society in a development process. Like the law for a kid imposed by the parent to go to bed at 8 pm.

Freedom can not be imposed to my opinion. Freedom implies a full resposibility (see Kusnetzova) of what you do, so it is of the essence that this process has to come out of the individuals, because its not possible to impose responsibility! You can only accept it ...
I think a lot laws, are quite old, and based on fundamental or religious thoughts of times long ago. I think that some strict laws in the us like those about sexuality issues are from the time of the puritans, making love is still officially banned as something bad, and the laws about smoking is, as prohibition some time ago, just an attempt to take away responsibility because the us society sees several actions of individuals as "a proof for their irresponsibility". Its to my opinion the same aproach to force someone to be free, whatever it takes (Iraq, at least the official statement...) ... I think it is wrong for any government to spoon-feed your citicens, because it will lead definitely to a counter reaction and a degradation in the long run....
As i said in my first post I do not think that freedom is imposeable on anybody. It is an individual development that leeds to a certain understanding. This is the base of any society, and its laws to be changed. Any society has to find its own way, to achieve this. And any society has the right to do this. To take the right to change a society in your own hands as not being a member of it and understanding it, is a fashistic attempt, with the only purpose to show this society that you are better....
By doing so you show that you are not free at all, but dependant so much on your own believe, that you have to impose it on others to proof that it could be true....


Posted by: FlashingEyes

parasionok,

Apparently you are confused because you didn't read all the posts. What Rob said that I am responding to is:

"Fathers do usually not rape their daughters, beat or suppress their sons even if they would have a lot possibilities. In the contrary! I did not find any indication in those theories how to explain this phenomenon with it!"

But afterwards he tried to take the tact that he is defining "society" as "sane people" which do not do this...however, ONLY IF his ASSUMPTION that ALL PEOPLE IN SOCIETY ARE SANE is TRUE will his assumptions work, as I have noted now about 7 times...his fatal flaw:

If all people were "sane" as rob_we now calls it then maybe his ideas would make some sense.

If even one person is "bad", meaning acts in his or her own interest and against the interest of others, then your ideas fall apart, and in order to have a free society we need a society of laws.

It is sad but true that some fathers will rape, beat and suppress even their own children, and only a society of laws offers some hope of protection to the innocent, contrary to your assertion that this sort of abuse never happens.


In regards to your second post, you need to distinguish between the free individual and the free society, as I have already noted (and posted below). Your post criticizes American SOCIETY and asks how is it free? but then you compare it only with free INDIVIDUAL comparisons...as you note, the free INDIVIDUAL will smoke all she wants but the free SOCIETY will protect the rights of everyone and smoking will be prohibited in many places. As I already stated:

"Freedom" can be a confusing word, because it means something entirely different when applied to an individual and a society.

The "free" individual outside of a free society is not something we admire. For instance: a male hiker came upon a female hiker in the wilderness. They started to talk but she began to get worried because he was a bit free with his language. Then when she looked away he took the liberty of hitting her over the head with a rock, and knocking her out - he tied her up and proceeded to take whatever freedoms he desired on her sexually.

The "free" society is what people admire when they use the word freedom, but the free society is a society of laws, designed to secure an equal distribution of rights to all people in the society - "that to secure these rights governments are instituted by consent of the governed" (US Declaration of Independence).

Hobbes argued that there is no lack of the good kind of freedom just because people alter their actions in fear of just laws designed to protect society:

"Fear and liberty are consistent; as when a man throws his goods into the sea for fear the ship should sink, he does it nevertheless very willingly, and may refuse to do it if he will: It is therefore the action of one that was free. So a man sometimes pays his debt, only for fear of Imprisonment, which because no body hindered him from detaining, was the action of a man at liberty. And generally all actions which men do in Commonwealths, for fear of the law, are actions, which the doers had liberty to omit." (Leviathan)


Posted by: rob_we

Flash
if you understand the philosophers as you understood me, then I can understand why you argue like you do....


Posted by: parasionok

Flash,

I am not confused because I read every and all of your and rob we's posts....

I agree with Rob that fathers do not usually rape of abuse their daughters. But those who do, do it anyway, no matter what laws are imposed on them. Hence, those who do abuse or rape their kids are automatically outlaws according to the society. They do not do that to assure their personal freedom.

As Binswanger siad and based his practice upon the individuum cannot be free unless he realises his own rights and wrongs and cannot be judged by any outer laws... Lots of psycologists are following his teachings and are basing their therapies on making those "insane" individuals go back to "sanity" (by the way, that is why we still have insanity cases in law practice in most coutries especially in those who claim to be democratic)

Quote:
If even one person is "bad", meaning acts in his or her own interest and against the interest of others, then your ideas fall apart, and in order to have a free society we need a society of laws.


Again if one person is "bad" than he is judged by society that can pervert all ideas of goodness. Like in russian everybody who was against Stalin regime was bad. Who were they protecting from those people who dared to disagree? Society can be also judged by other societies then... right? Like Nazism was condemed or Stalinism was condemed by other societies? Then what is the ideal judge? God? Unfortunately he doesn not have any presence here on earth. And if someone claims that whatever they do are done by the will of God, well, in Europe these people talking to some voice from above end up in mental hospitals but not votiting to be a president.

Show me an example of a free society please. Any rules or laws that any society accepts are written by several individuals. Don't tell me that they represent the universal truth. Think about abolishment of slavery in the US, or in Russia... It was totally legal to own other human being and we had wars about slavery throghout 2 centuries. So show me any society that represents and gives the protection and total security for its members.

Quote:
The "free" individual outside of a free society is not something we admire


No we do not admire him... God forbids. Think about Nabokov, there are so many debates about his Lolita or Ada. Some people say he is a genious, some people damn him for being pedophil. Who is Nabokov? A dissident. Actually fully acclaimed only after his death but by a narrow circle of people who appreciate the linguistics and moral genion he is. A person who has been always free but an outsider and a law breaker, someone who wrote scandalous books lots of people still cannot understand hence they condemn them? What society Nabokov belongs to? Who is he not appreciated by? Excuse me if my society starts to ban people like Brodsky, Nabokov, Bulgakov, Moore, than I dont want to be in that society. Then this society is not free. Let me read who I want, let me admire people who are not admired by others, let me express my opinion and fight for those who are think are worth to fight for, then I will feel I am free.



Quote:
Hobbes argued that there is no lack of the good kind of freedom just because people alter their actions in fear of just laws designed to protect society:


I was fascinated by Hobbes and Locke(sorry for my spelling, read them only in Russian) also by Anaksimandr, Aristophane, Andragon (sorry for my spelling as well). Antiquity teaches us lot from Historical point of view but as Hegel said in his histoy of phiosophy: Do not look back, look forward, we all develop, human mind is the most precious and unpredictable thing that can ever be found in our known universe... Lets learn from the past, but do not forget about what future can bring..."


Posted by: FlashingEyes

parasionok,

Your arguments are so counter to reality that I can't even follow your logic. For instance, you argue that laws do nothing to protect children from fathers who would rape and beat them. If that were true, then laws would also do nothing to protect anyone in society from anything that is outlawed. Your entire premise is absurd and it appears you are only arguing for arguments sake.

As you've already admitted, you started this thread under false pretenses. You claimed in your first post to be genuinely interested in the concept of freedom but in your latest post you admit your real agenda was to try and promote your personal political beliefs that America is not free, which is the same type of absurd premise as the arguments you use to support it.

Apparently noone is deceived by your disingenious arguments except your German boyfriend, rob_we.


Posted by: rob_we

Flash
apparently the only one of us three here who was ever told to shut up by a moderator due to his inability of being able to discuss was our friend Flashing Eyes

seems you talk to your mom or your teddybear that you give names Flash. What you claim people admit here or say here is so far from any reality that im in deep concern about you, seriosly... I would check this...


Posted by: Jill

Alright, folks.

This is actually a really interesting topic to discuss and I'm impressed by many of the insights presented here...But let's keep it RESPECTFUL


Posted by: lolomarseille

rob, para, you forgot the leviathan quoted by flash: he's on his religious perfect world, so he really cannot understand that a law can be bad or inexistant

flash, did you served in the navy?
you act like a submarine
nothing cames into
:-))

flash, if i understand your view about perfect laws:

martin luther king, gandhi were wrong?
citizens do not have right to carry arms? (coz laws are done and well done)

you look like a communist chinese political scientist you know
law, order, society, and all the stuff in a circle
escape from your own reality!


Posted by: FlashingEyes

lolo,

I agree with Dr. Martin Luther King (April 16, 1963):

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws...A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God...To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just...a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal...In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist."

I am only supporting "a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself" as directly specified by Dr. King.

Isn't it hilarious how many people like yourself have so little understanding of what their "sources" really said and stood for? I fully support Dr. King's thesis that the law must be followed and that civil disobedience is an appropriate response to uphold the true law, when it happens that the "natural law" and "moral law or the law of God" and the "code that the majority is willing to follow itself" is not equally distributed to all members of society. My support for a "lawful society" is only for a society which follows the "natural law" and "moral law or the law of God" and the "code that the majority is willing to follow itself."


Posted by: lolomarseille

cool flash'
don't laugh too much
now you speak like the pope!
natural law etc;;
do you understand that I, para, etc, we do not recognize such concepts?
me i'm atheist so for me"under god" and all the stuff is irrelevant
but i respect the laws
i perfectly understood your views, i know them, your system works perfectly if you put a few things BEFORE; try to understand that other origins may have the same results

lolo


Posted by: rob_we

lolo
seems there are perfect laws.... we are just to stupid to realize.
Dumb europeans we are...

but i think you have proofed only one thing here now lolo... you MUST definitely be my french girlfriend in disguise (Nov.3. 2004)


Posted by: lolomarseille

on your knees, axis of evil
hi hi
it's buttiglione

IN EU WE FIRED JUSTICE SECRETARY (all EU govt in fact)COZ HE SAID HE HAD STRONG BELIEF IN GOD


Posted by: rob_we

lolo
If its true then its a good start maybe...

mhmm btw. did he say he believes strongly in God, or he is talking to god . Because if its the second he could run for president maybe...


Posted by: lolomarseille

you're on a trip?
barroso commission was rolled back by parliament
coz of buttiglione's sayings
he said what a bishop could say
it made him unable to became european kommissar
big difference, enormous with our friends from tehe other side (of meditterranea it works too he he)


Posted by: parasionok

Quote:
do you understand that I, para, etc, we do not recognize such concepts?


Lolo, careful, now Flesh will start another rumour that I have two boyfriends: Rob-we in Germany and yourself in France


Posted by: lolomarseille

oooh!
franco-german drujjba is sometimes painful!
para!
pomoc!
i'm attacked by an Ossie gay!


Posted by: lolomarseille

Quote:
Originally posted by parasionok
Lolo, careful, now Flesh will start another rumour that I have two boyfriends: Rob-we in Germany and yourself in France


forgive me(rob to) i spoke for you
but in this case i thought i had the right to, even if you believe you


well, matriarchy is not new on earth...


Posted by: lolomarseille

Quote:
Originally posted by rob_we
lolo
If its true then its a good start maybe...

mhmm btw. did he say he believes strongly in God, or he is talking to god . Because if its the second he could run for president maybe...


aah these ossies!
catlickers talk only to the pope

it's a pyramid
remember your youth: it's the same


Posted by: FlashingEyes

oo-yay ake-may o-nay ensay


Posted by: rob_we

lolo
btw. I´m no ossie. I´m bavarian. Brutal tribe we are, but definitely no ossie hence I was married to one for a while... but thats a different story


Posted by: lolomarseille

scuse me robayerische, i misunderstood

flash, i did not understood what you wrote


Posted by: rob_we

lolo
THAT happens to me all the time


Posted by: lolomarseille

he's nice!
i like people like him
i do!
coz they protect us, don't they?


Posted by: rob_we

lolo
its just because of my "bavarese" I suppose...
you gauls have it much easier, we bavarians owe you guys our independence, thats why we are quite francophil... actually we agree on almost anything you say as long as you guys don´t critisize our beer


Posted by: lolomarseille

Quote:
Originally posted by rob_we
lolo
its just because of my "bavarese" I suppose...
you gauls have it much easier, we bavarians owe you guys our independence, thats why we are quite francophil... actually we agree on almost anything you say as long as you guys don´t critisize our beer


one of the numerous failure of french policy; signing 1918 armistice and versailles treaty not with baviere, bade, wurtemberg, prusse, saxe, mecklemburg but with united german state

oktoberfest?
really, i've nice legs, but me in short, oh no


Posted by: rob_we

lolo
you guys definitely should have


Posted by: FlashingEyes

"i"-yay inkthay ooyay "e"-thray "r"-ray ryingtay ootay rownday isthay opictay ithway illysay ostspay causebeyay ooyay antcay featdeyay "i"-may umentsargyay.


Posted by: rob_we

Flash
...is that painful?


Posted by: lolomarseille

Quote:
Originally posted by rob_we
Flash
...is that painful?


no no rob
he looks like a muezzin


or must be nosenglish


Posted by: FlashingEyes

returning to topic:

lolo cited Dr. Martin Luther King, but wasn't too happy when I quoted his own source:

I agree with Dr. Martin Luther King (April 16, 1963):

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws...A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God...To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just...a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal...In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist."

I am only supporting "a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself" as directly specified by Dr. King.

I fully support Dr. King's thesis that the law must be followed and that civil disobedience is an appropriate response to uphold the true law, when it happens that the "natural law" and "moral law or the law of God" and the "code that the majority is willing to follow itself" is not equally distributed to all members of society. My support for a "lawful society" is only for a society which follows the "natural law" and "moral law or the law of God" and the "code that the majority is willing to follow itself."

This is freedom from lolo's own source...


Posted by: rob_we

ok back to the topic

Quote:
One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws


Absolutely. A free society does this because freedom implies responsibility

Quote:
A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God


But because we cannot really talk to god we have to use an approximation depending on our own moral state (socitely) and the development of its individuals...
So laws have to change...

Quote:
I am only supporting "a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself" as directly specified by Dr. King.


Too easy to me. Martin luther King fought exactly this: The majority (whites) compelled the minority (blacks) to do things that were not ethical correct(at least from the blacks point of view). Only if the system gives all its "sane" individuals the possibility to respect the given rule by equal freedom of anybody, in other words if all individuals WANT to participate in a society and understand its rules and ARE able to be equal and responsible in the same way, then everybody is as free as responsible... Thats what my whole point about freedom was about...


Posted by: FlashingEyes

rob_we,

I am quoting Dr. King directly. Your claim he "fought exactly this" only shows your limited knowledge of him and what he stood for.

Dr. Martin Luther King (April 16, 1963):

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws...A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God...To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just...a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal...In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist."


Posted by: rob_we

Flash
ok .S o tell me ..
He didnt fight against the laws of the whites?
And the whites weren´t the majority?
And their laws didn´t compel the blacks?

I thought he did, they were, and they did... mhmm so tell me whats wrong with my thoughts?

I know he was a rebel and stood up against society, because socitety was wrong back then

As Ghandi was... or Jesus (if he ever existed in reality )


Posted by: lolomarseille

Quote:
Originally posted by FlashingEyes
returning to topic:

lolo cited Dr. Martin Luther King, but wasn't too happy when I quoted his own source:

I agree with Dr. Martin Luther King (April 16, 1963):

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws...A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God...To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just...a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal...In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist."

I am only supporting "a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself" as directly specified by Dr. King.

I fully support Dr. King's thesis that the law must be followed and that civil disobedience is an appropriate response to uphold the true law, when it happens that the "natural law" and "moral law or the law of God" and the "code that the majority is willing to follow itself" is not equally distributed to all members of society. My support for a "lawful society" is only for a society which follows the "natural law" and "moral law or the law of God" and the "code that the majority is willing to follow itself."

This is freedom from lolo's own source...


i made a quote from , don't take it seriously; are you a catholic priest? well, st thomas d'aquin was one of the biggest thinkers in 13th century, he strengthened the power of the new kingdoms, making them states; it's a doctrine of ruling, of power , of social and mind control; not really funny


Posted by: FlashingEyes

lolo you cite Dr. Martin Luther King as your own source but then you run from his ideas. He was a very smart man, much smarter than you and rob and para put together. Learn from your own source.

I am only supporting "a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself" as directly specified by Dr. King.

This is the ideal free society quoting your own source.


Posted by: lolomarseille

i do not really understand what is your point
btw, i've little interest for MLK, as he 's not from my world
so you can say anything you want about, you will be right for me
btw2, i know he was better than anybody here :-))

just your theory is full of dogma, not pragmatic at all
natural law/versus man's law; it's a concept which built so much massacre and tyranny
btw it's naive too

travel, flash
take your bag and cross border!

btw 'last)
did i really quoted MLK?
i've to check my mails
doubtfull...


Posted by: rob_we

Flash
same with me. A citate doesn´t mean much, if it is not used to explain your own view. In a discussion you should have your own view and be able to explain it. I still didn´t get your point either. You didn´t answer my questions! So what is the point of your citate? What should it proove? I don´t know actually. And I don´t think we should start the "who´s the most clever guy on the planet" competition. Nobody said he is on this thread. We just try to talk about freedom and our views. So feel free to contribute if you like...


Posted by: lolomarseille

he has an islamic way to think
nothing by himself but only the book, the said truth and so on


Posted by: BradIL

Quote:
[i]Originally posted by parasionok:
On the other hand, America still doesn’t sign a Kyoto protocol, knowing that the green gas emission trading can in a way (note: I am not a big fan of the UN, but what they are doing with trading points about green gas emission can at least bring some balance to pollution control and environmental protection).


Para--- I disagree with some of your conclusions, but I ADORE your thought process. In this post I have excerpted this one small piece of it for this post, but I love the rest of it, and will offer a few thoughts later.

America's hesistancy to sign Kyoto, to wit: Understand that I am among the americans who find the whole treaty & its underlying assumptions to be very suspect. Much of the 'proof' of global warming rests in the Mann calculations regarding temperature variance around the globe. Criticism has convinced me its faulty, and is one reason that global warming is not showing an overall, emerging trend.

The Mann charts show impressive data, but you have to understand that years with wide variance of temperatures were excluded from the survey results. Calculations regarding temperatures in the past also have so many assumptions that a clear formula for them is not evident. It seems Mann wanted to prove there was global warming & manipulated the data to back his theory. But I might be overstepping.

Additionally, no one & I do mean NO ONE is asking if variances in solar activity causes heat waves. I am skeptical of any 'proof' that does not attempt to study solar phenomena. It should also be noted that the air hasn't been cleaner in the US since the dawn of the industrial revolution. We are counting pollutants in parts per *billion* these days, contrary to where we were in the 1960's & 1970's.


Posted by: rob_we

Brad
Here in germany we have some weather observations that go back about 150 years which seem to proove something like global warming. This is, of course, if you look at the "global" picture NOTHING! It could definitely be some stellar influence, some very small orbit changes and whatever other reasons. You are right with this. The scientific proof, (with normal methods) is here almost impossible to be done.
BUT the problem we run into is that we do not have another world for experimenting. In this special case, and due to the fact that the world climate is a chaotic system, its legitimate to jump on Poppers view and say, can we say it "could" be possible. Can we falsificate the "orbital" theory. The problem is yes we can. The fact that we do not have weather and environmental data of the last 100000 years is true. The fact that the earth already WENT through some climate catastrophies seems to be prooven. The fact that carbon- dioxide and FCKW influences the environmental system is VERY likely. The fact that a change of an indicator within a chaotic system can possibly cause a huge change (butterfly effect) is prooven. Now we HAVE to assume, for our own good, that the massive CO2 emissions cause this problem because we will have 2 conclusions on this problem:
1; Nothing will happen, the global system is not influenced
2; The global system will alter. Chaotic systems DO have this avalange effect, that is not, or extremely slow reverseable.

Because the second possibility is not zero we HAVE to act as if it is already proved! Otherwise we play russian roulette....
This IS why the biggest "polluter" in the world HAS to contribute, if the country is to be taken serious! All other reactions are like someone who drives through a red light with closed eyes. It would be irresponsible...


Posted by: tjt517

Freedom was imposed on Japan and Germany at the end of the second world war effectively. However the situation in Iraq bares no resemblence to that situation.


Posted by: FlashingEyes

Robwe/Lolomarseille,

You originally cited "Martin Luther King and Ghandi" as "Lolomarseille" but then brought them up again as "Robwe". From these and other gaffes it's pretty obvious you're the same person posting under two accounts - "Parasionok" is your girlfriend, so really you have 3 accounts that you effectively control to try to win arguments through sheer volume (and an amazing amount of free time). But logic and your own sources defeat your arguments. Let's review:

The logical argument:

If all people were "sane" as you now call it then maybe your ideas would make some sense.

If even one person is "bad", meaning acts in his or her own interest and against the interest of others, then your ideas fall apart, and in order to have a free society we need a society of laws.

It is sad but true that some fathers will rape, beat and suppress even their own children, and only a society of laws offers some hope of protection to the innocent, contrary to your assertion that this sort of abuse never happens.

Your own source, Martin Luther King (April 16, 1963):

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws...A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God...To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just...a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal...In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist."


Posted by: rob_we

tjt517
I absolutely disagree with this. Freedom was NEVER imposed on germany. Germany slided into a dictatorship due to several reasons. Germany HAD a Weimarer Republik which WAS a free democratic christian western society for about the same time as the NAZI dictatorship. It had the basic stuctures for democracy already! It true that germany was NOT ready to bear the consequences of its freedom in the 20th! But to compare a western industrialited society like germany at the beginnig of the last century with a islamic society (even if one has to consider that iraq was quite developed for an islamic society) is as you want to compare the us with the roman empire!
The way to think, the basic structures, the role of the religion, the understanding of right and wrong and the organisation of the society are absolutely different!
German people could see what happened, what they parted in and participated, they saw and knew the outcome, and they knew it was basically wrong! So they (in a way) could agree to what the allies did and moved on...
An islamic culture has absolutely different values that they do NOT change just because someone tell them its wrong!
Imagine the us would become comunistic overnight. You would be told making money is bad! You would be told having your own business is bad. Would you agree? Certainly not! So you would participate as much as necessary, but you wound NOT change your ideals, because all you would feel is that you are pressed in a system that is wrong to you! You would try to harm the system as much as you can! And thats exactly what happens with those guys in the middle east! This is why it is to my opinion absolutely NOT comparable! Japan is a slightly different story but in principle there were analog reasons to germany why it would be not comparable again...

BTW.
One of the things that was done on some places was to just take the local people and show them a concentration camp. Those people were shoked. They thought it was something else before they went there. Cruel ok, but something else. Even some of the worst brownies were changed back then... Sometimes I wish that those guys from back then could nowadays take some republican wardogs at their hands and make a walk with them through Bagdad, or Faludja...


Posted by: rob_we

Flash

Hihi and I thought you would say hes my french girlfirnd in disguise
Honestly now:
I really think you need help...
google "help on conspiracy theories"


Posted by: parasionok

Flash,

Quote:
You originally cited "Martin Luther King and Ghandi" as "Lolomarseille" but then brought them up again as "Robwe".


You are at your best this glorious evening.


Posted by: tjt517

Rob we, I said that Iraq and Germany were different situations. You must have misunderstood what I said.


Posted by: rob_we

tjt517
Never mind... I got that. But you wrote freedom was imposed on japan and germany effectiviely. And I responded on this


Posted by: lolomarseille

Quote:
Originally posted by FlashingEyes
Robwe/Lolomarseille,

You originally cited "Martin Luther King and Ghandi" as "Lolomarseille" but then brought them up again as "Robwe". From these and other gaffes it's pretty obvious you're the same person posting under two accounts - "Parasionok" is your girlfriend, so really you have 3 accounts that you effectively control to try to win arguments through sheer volume (and an amazing amount of free time). But logic and your own sources defeat your arguments. Let's review:

The logical argument:

If all people were "sane" as you now call it then maybe your ideas would make some sense.

If even one person is "bad", meaning acts in his or her own interest and against the interest of others, then your ideas fall apart, and in order to have a free society we need a society of laws.

It is sad but true that some fathers will rape, beat and suppress even their own children, and only a society of laws offers some hope of protection to the innocent, contrary to your assertion that this sort of abuse never happens.

Your own source, Martin Luther King (April 16, 1963):

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws...A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God...To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just...a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal...In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist."


wonderfull
you could be a good guard in verkhoiansk
paranoid
autist
...wrong
( i don't even speak german!)


Posted by: lolomarseille

Quote:
Originally posted by rob_we
tjt517
Never mind... I got that. But you wrote freedom was imposed on japan and germany effectiviely. And I responded on this


tjt was right
you too, but it was not his point
remember morgenthau plan, critics on truman's policy

for kyoto:
don't want to sign coz they don't want to walk 300 foot
as simple...


Posted by: rob_we

lolo
but morgenthau plan was never really considered to be done seriously... I mean the guy was more into revenge. He was jewish... but it wouldn´t have worked anyway... not in germany


Posted by: lolomarseille

morgenthau was jewish, yes, and after
don't forget that the worst occupation (45/47;49) was not russian zone but little french one

destroying is very easy and it works in all cases

i've to go

r u later


Posted by: FlashingEyes

Robwe/Lolomarseille,

It really doesn't matter. You both had the same reaction when I originally deduced the Parasionok thing and now you have it here. I'm concerned that you can't respond to the argument (I'll repeat it since you seem to have overlooked it):

The logical argument:

If all people were "sane" as you now call it then maybe your ideas would make some sense.

If even one person is "bad", meaning acts in his or her own interest and against the interest of others, then your ideas fall apart, and in order to have a free society we need a society of laws.

It is sad but true that some fathers will rape, beat and suppress even their own children, and only a society of laws offers some hope of protection to the innocent, contrary to your assertion that this sort of abuse never happens.

Your own source, Martin Luther King (April 16, 1963):

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws...A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God...To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just...a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal...In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist."


Posted by: rob_we

Flash
really, honestly and absolute sure, after you posted it now the 6 or 7th time it should be enough... I can read and I think everybody else as well. You stated your idea and it doesn´t change anything if you repost it 100 times.... its ok we actually finished this topic on this thread with you 2 pages before....
so just calm down and lets do something useful...


Posted by: lolomarseille

he tries doktor goebbels way

or may be is tight like a submarine


Posted by: BradIL

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rob_we Brad:
The fact that we do not have weather and environmental data of the last 100000 years is true. The fact that the earth already WENT through some climate catastrophies seems to be prooven. The fact that carbon- dioxide and FCKW influences the environmental system is VERY likely. The fact that a change of an indicator within a chaotic system can possibly cause a huge change (butterfly effect) is prooven. would be irresponsible...[QUOTE]

Rob--- I might disagree with you on these two points. First, there is some environmental data from several thousand years ago. the air locked in glacial ice has been studied in Antartica, the Arctic & other locations. I don't know much about the research, though, only the results when they are applied to topics that catch my interest. To that end, I don't know if air trapped in glacial ice in Europe has been studied, even how old that air might be.

Second, there is some evidence that high concentrations of carbon dioxide, greenhouse gases did exist on earth. glacial ice from Antartica indicates that was true during the age of the dinosaurs, but I can't remember which geologic period it was. Scientists believe its one reason certain plants grew so prolificly & large. the plants were feasting on the gases. This occurs as the dinosaurs roamed the planet, but how many dinosaurs inhabited earth in that period we'll never know.

I'm still not certain about greenhouse gases. Data from our own NASA atompsheric probes is contradictory, and it seems to me that more gases are venting off into outer space than we may know. I still think the Mann calculations are suspect because of the method he used to correlate them.

To that end I'm worried that Kyoto is flawed in that tries to solve a problem that if it doesn't exist, its not in the form that the protocol suggests. for instance, asteroid impacts & volcanic eruptions seem to be the culprits behind any climatic change on earth in the last 10-thousand years.


Posted by: rob_we

Brad
Quote:
Rob--- I might disagree with you on these two points. First, there is some environmental data from several thousand years ago. the air locked in glacial ice has been studied in Antartica, the Arctic & other locations. I don't know much about the research, though, only the results when they are applied to topics that catch my interest. To that end, I don't know if air trapped in glacial ice in Europe has been studied, even how old that air might be.

Brad yup this data was what I was referring to when I talked about the likelihood. With this data you have no real weather data that would be needed for a close insight, its more a very rough calendar showing overall conditions in 1000 or 10000 years periods than in days What is true is that there was a some phases of higher carbon dioxide concentration in the air, those were followed by ice ages and some of them were responsible to erase far over 90% of life on the planet! An ice age lasts for several 10.000 to 100.000 years and is not really something one likes to be in. Its still the most common theory why the dinosaurs died. I actually do not really want to become one
The problematic thing is that even if this global weather system revolves in circles and there are different periods, it is still fatal to change indicators of this chaotic system!
Besides all this is the environmental pollution very harming for mankind itself, and will harm us and our childen. Besides this is oil and coal a very important source for all sorts of pharmaceutical stuff and synthetic materials. Besides that is the necessarity of alternative energy essential for mankind anyway! So to me the Kyoto protocol is one indicator to the right direction, and however you twist and turn it, theres no way around! Anything else is as I said before to me irresponsible. This is why almost all hitech countries, based on the scientific research agreed on this....


Posted by: BradIL

Quote:
Originally posted by parasionok:
I personaly think that freedom cannot be imposed on anyone, otherwise it is not freedom. I think that freedom cannot be brought or taught or shown to other countires or peoples. I think no country professes freedom, on the countrary. They enslave people and make them think as it is needed for this very moment in history to achive certain goals set by individuals with the thirst to power, money, etc. Or am I being mistaken?I think freedom is very subjective.


I agree with you that freedom is subjective, and everybody can list a few attributes they believe constitutes the defining features of freedom. But freedom defined as freedom to think, freedom to speak, freedom to associate with others who share similar sentiments, even when its unpopular, is the most immediate issue between an individual & the government he faces daily.


Quote:
I think being free means that you feel you are free inside yourself, being born in a "free" country doesn't make you a free person. Can a person free himself from all the dogmas imposed on him by the society, by his family, by books he reads, by movies he watches, by products he buys? Or freedom is something that the society imposes on you? Is nihilism a certain expression of freedom or it is just a rebelion against everything that has been set by your environment?


Well political observers would say you judge the amount/quantity of freedom, by the presence or absence of tyranny. John Stuart Mill accurately observed in the introduction of his treatise "On Liberty" (written in 1859 on the eve of the american civil war--- a divine act perhaps) that social tyrannies can oppress freedom in a fashion more formidable than the acts of public authorities. Mill says social tyrannies are broader, leave fewer avenues for an individual to escape, and enslave an individual's very soul. He inserted this description as he argued over the dangers of the 'tyranny of the majority'. Freedom can be defined as your ability to escape tyranny that oppresses your prevailing desire.

Nilhilism expresses freedom, or just rebellion? It depends on the prevailing view of the majority, or the rulers, in that society. You can argue that there is no objective standard to establish moral rules, and can cite examples to justify it. But majorities do establish moral standards, or rules, and laws that allow for punishment are established through a government.


Posted by: BradIL

Quote:
Originally posted by parasionok:
America is supposed to be the most free country... I am a smoker. Why can’t I smoke in a bar in America now? Some years ago I could and now everybody suddenly realised I was harming everybody? On the other hand, America still doesn’t sign a Kyoto protocol, knowing that the green gas emission trading can in a way (note: I am not a big fan of the UN, but what they are doing with trading points about green gas emission can at least bring some balance to pollution control and environmental protection). What is the difference? How can they tell me not to harm others whilst they are doing it on a more global level?


Para I smoke too... and I don't get it either. Primarily it has been local governments that have banned smoking... which is legal... it means bars will have to change their approach by listing themselves as a smoking friendly establishment, and no doubt paying the local government an additional fee to do this, so that non-smokers can avoid it. But the legal reasoning behind all this is not settled.

Addressing Kyoto--- the science/logic behind all this is suspect & we have a big world-wide treaty that has the potential to do nothing... since it will try to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Quote:
Why can I make love on MY OWN TERRACE to my boyfriend in Germany and why cannot I do it in America? Who am I harming there?/[QUOTE]

Now this is a good question!!! And one can sees exactlythe differences between europe & america when it comes to human intimacy. You see Para--- it isn't a matter of harm--- but a matter of taste.

[QUOTE] On the other hand, America (and Russia but not pretending to be the major democracy or freedom fighter at least) can bring freedom to other countries by invading them and killing innocent people? To free them from suppression? Excuse me, we free them by killing them?


The great irony of human existence. Killing for freedom & peace. But tyrants rarely give up their hold over a people without dying, or making the oppressed bleed to get their freedom (subjective as it is) back. War is, in fact, a political expression of a people. Perhaps the ultimate expression. In war you can try & reduce the number of casualties among the innocent, but you will NEVER eliminate them. That's a harsh reality.

Quote:
I personally think freedom is something that every individual has and it is an inner freedom. The society cannot impose anything on you unless it is in accord with your own beliefs/morals (I hope nobody here will accuse me of not speaking English properly). Otherwise we would not have any crime whatsoever.


Inner freedom is accurate enough, but how do you use it? How does this inner freedom make your life richer? How do you express it?

But society can impose standards of conduct, and punish violations of those standards, and you have to accept that or leave that society.


Posted by: BradIL

Quote:
Originally posted by rob_we
[B]Brad--- The problematic thing is that even if this global weather system revolves in circles and there are different periods, it is still fatal to change indicators of this chaotic system!
Besides all this is the environmental pollution very harming for mankind itself, and will harm us and our childen.


OK Rob... but Earth's environment has faced epochal changes in its environmental system... and bounces back. Plus, remember, in the US & Western Europe... the air & water has been getting cleaner for the last 25-30 years... and has never been cleaner than in 2004.

Any energy source that burns cleaner, is inexpensive to produce, and matches the BTU power of hydrocarbons should be exploited immediately--- agreed. So let's keep funding that research, through our government or by individuals.

Quote:
So to me the Kyoto protocol is one indicator to the right direction, and however you twist and turn it, theres no way around! Anything else is as I said before to me irresponsible. This is why almost all hitech countries, based on the scientific research agreed on this....


But its the research that I directly disagree with... and Kyoto is a group of countries latching onto it because they have nothing better at the moment. And that's because some environmentalists insist there is a problem, when the research they use to illustrate that problem is, in fact, the very source of disagreement.

I appreciate your desire to try & help the environment. But I'm skeptical that Kyoto will do anything, except cause a lot of economic hardship trying to solve a problem that may not exist.


Posted by: parasionok

Brad,

Kyoto maybe will not solve any problems but to say that there is not problem at all is not particularaly right.

From Observer:

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

Advertiser links
Digitalkamera - PCs und mehr zu Spitzenpreisen von DELL
DELL verkauft alles, was Sie für den täglichen PC-Gebrauch...

dell.de

Panasonic Digitalkameras mit Leica DC Objektiv
LUMIX Digitalkameras bestechen durch hohe Qualität vom...

lumix.panasonic.de

Digitalkameras - günstig bei BADER
Moderne Technik, niedrige Preise - versandkostenfrei...

bader.de
An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.

A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.

One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue as indefensible.

Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.

Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.'

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored.

'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.

'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.

Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.

Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.'

Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said.

'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.'

So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.

The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry's cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed 'Yoda' by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence's push on ballistic-missile defence.

Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. 'It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.'

Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,' he added.


Posted by: parasionok

Recent Press-Release from UNFCCC.

Bonn, 18 November 2004 – The 90-day countdown to the Kyoto Protocol’s entry into force was triggered today by the receipt of the Russian Federation’s instrument of ratification by the United Nations Secretary-General. The Protocol will become legally binding on its 128 Parties on 16 February 2005.

The complete document is here http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_...s041118_eng.pdf


Posted by: lolomarseille

brad:
"Inner freedom is accurate enough, but how do you use it? How does this inner freedom make your life richer? How do you express it?

But society can impose standards of conduct, and punish violations of those standards, and you have to accept that or leave that society."

well, is it possible that an european value more individual freedom than an american? this concept belongs to you...
of course inner freedom make us happier, except if we are too weak
Society impose standards yes
well, you can change the society, by the rules, or by claiming democracy, or by political assasination, or by terrorism
so sometimes society can leave people ( well, CCCP is a good example, don't you think?)


Posted by: FlashingEyes

Robwe/Lolomarseille,

I'm concerned that you can't respond to the argument (I'll repeat it since you seem to have overlooked it):

The logical argument:

If all people were "sane" as you now call it then maybe your ideas would make some sense.

If even one person is "bad", meaning acts in his or her own interest and against the interest of others, then your ideas fall apart, and in order to have a free society we need a society of laws.

It is sad but true that some fathers will rape, beat and suppress even their own children, and only a society of laws offers some hope of protection to the innocent, contrary to your assertion that this sort of abuse never happens.

Your own source, Martin Luther King (April 16, 1963):

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws...A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God...To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just...a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal...In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist."


Posted by: parasionok

Flash, everybody has got your point already after you repeated it 10 times.. It's ok, move on, say something else if you have anything to say at all...


Posted by: lolomarseille

no way...


Posted by: BradIL

Quote:
Originally posted by parasionok
[B]Brad, Kyoto maybe will not solve any problems but to say that there is not problem at all is not particularaly right.[/i]


Well this is likely the major problem surrounding Kyoto, especially as I see it. If a global warming problem surrounds it is so undefined, poorly researched, I don't see how anyone can make any judgment as to what a cure would be appropriate.

I read your Observer article posted, love all the secret report to the military chiefs business, but its all based on conjecture & opinion. We've had several years of climatological data since the Mann report. Either there is a pattern of warming or there isn't. It appears to me that we have a slight cooling trend in the Midwest USA, and winters are a little warmer than usual--- the climate here is moderating after wide variances in the 70's & 80's.

I think Kyoto will cause a lot of disruption without solving any problems. Science will have to a better job of defining this more specifically to convince me of it.


Posted by: lolomarseille

well, it's a part of america against the rest of the world
may be this part is right?
but it's doubtfull
L.


Posted by: FlashingEyes

There are people all over the world that oppose the Kyoto treaty. As usual everything lolo says is inaccurate and worthless.


Posted by: steve27t

The biggest polluter in the world opposes Kyoto, The United States of America, over 160 countries have signed to the treaty.
According to polls (see below) a majority of Americans support Kyoto.

http://www.americans-world.org/dige...warming/gw2.cfm

A strong majority of Americans have indicated their support for the Kyoto Treaty. In an April 2001 ABC News poll that presented both sides of the argument 61% expressed support (see graph). In June 2002, The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations reasked the same question and found support had increased to 70% for the Kyoto Treaty. (Graph below should be manipulated to add-in the Harris/GMF/CCFR data. Additional columns should show 70% for 'Should Join', 25% 'Should Not Join' and 5% for Not Sure/Decline.) An April 2001 Los Angeles Times poll that also presented both sides of the argument found 59% support. [1]


Posted by: FlashingEyes

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA412.html

- demonstrates worldwide opposition exists and is strong opposing Kyoto

http://www.nationalcenter.org/Kyoto.html

- unbelievable resource destroying all the myths about global warming.

Interestingly, to show how polls can be taken out of context, when Americans were asked if they would support a treaty that(according to a 1998 study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)) - would cost the U.S. economy $400 billion per year, raise electric utility bills by 86%, hike the cost of heating oil by 76% and impose a permanent "Kyoto gasoline tax" of 66 cents per gallon. In total, if Kyoto were adopted each U.S. household would have to spend an extra $1,740 per year on energy - Kyoto was overwhelming REJECTED in all polls.

When told that that the most reliable scientific evidence lends no credence to visions of climate doom, (The most accurate barometers of global temperature, NASA weather satellites, show that the Earth has slightly cooled since 1979. In addition, one of the leading scientists promoting the global warming theory, Dr. James Hansen, says he now sees no evidence that carbon dioxide is even responsible for any global warming that occurred over the last several decades.) and asked if they wanted to support the Kyoto treaty with the above economic costs Americans AGAIN OVERWHELMINGLY REJECTED it in all polls.

So really all you are saying is that given insuffecient data Americans would make a difference response on a poll answer than if they were given the economic and scientific conclusions above.


Posted by: steve27t

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.ph...licy _Research


What do you expect from a right wing think tank? The truth? No... its a political tool to advance an agenda.


Posted by: lolomarseille

this topic is nonsense; some people cannot believe that their innocent way of life is a threat for future, that things has to be changed
and believe that kyoto problems will be solved by science, as a god
of course , except energy lobbies, all the world is for or waiting about kyoto protocol
but the topic will be accurate in 20 years, when chinese will begin to really have money, even in the countryside
or if the gulf stream stopps coz of groenland( and we know it can be really fast, a few years, in a crisis), well, norvegians willl become pirats again?


Posted by: rob_we

Kyoto,
actually even if the vast majority of scientists and people on this planet are wrong (possible why not) Kyoto protocol fulfils an importat stabilizing issue. It gives third world countries the possibility to develop due to the money they receive.
What starts now the "war against terrorism" will escalate to more and more economically and socially destabilized countries as predicted in the 80ies and 90ies already. The cost to hold this bastion will exceed more and more.
The next point is that nobody can invent oil. The mentality in this case is like the mentality of a tribal group who parties until the last pig is eaten and then starve. It is almost too late to switch to alternative energy concepts already. Kyoto would help. The cost to switch is to be paid anyway. To ignore this does just increase these costs. So i think every country who does not see this punishes itself. The sad thing about this is that it most probably makes its own kids pay for that.....


Posted by: BradIL

Quote:
Originally posted by lolomarseille
this topic is nonsense; some people cannot believe that their innocent way of life is a threat for future, that things has to be changed
and believe that kyoto problems will be solved by science, as a god
of course , except energy lobbies, all the world is for or waiting about kyoto protocol
but the topic will be accurate in 20 years, when chinese will begin to really have money, even in the countryside
or if the gulf stream stopps coz of groenland( and we know it can be really fast, a few years, in a crisis), well, norvegians willl become pirats again?


Lolo it is precisely because of the flaws in the scientific evidence that people are unsure if lifestyles are causing a problem. You mentioned in an earlier post that people will have to stop driving 300 feet. I don't know of anyone who drives that short of a distance. The biggest problem that fuel restriction presents to america is the stress caused to the trucking industry, the backbone of product distribution in the US.

Indeed, the action of market prices seems to be doing a pretty good job of regulating personal mobility in the automobile in the US. A lot of unnecessary driving is eliminated.

The gulf stream stopping around Greenland? Who knows? China developing & gaining money. Good. Will they develop an auto based culture such as the US? Doubtful. Regional attitudes toward cars, how integrated they are in a culture, are easy to see in countries like Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, etc. Cars are not necessaril