Why are there more societies where the people are oppressed than free?

[noblegas]

Why do you think that there are more people throughout human history and up to modern times, you have more people who in societies with oppressive governments and have all of their natural rights not recognized by the authority in power governing them. You would think that f we supposedly have natural rights like the right to pursue the ownership of property as written by people like John Locke,more people would resist having these rights stripped away from them and you would think they be , I would not say rare, but you would think that the world would consist of a lot less people who were not oppressed , and there would be a lot more societies that ether had absolute freedom , or at least relatively free democracies like those in the United States and western europe, that were formed historically recently. But both historically and today, there have only been a handful of free societies and millions of football stadiums of oppressive societies. Most people I expect don't like to be dominated and you would expect that the societies that would formed would be relatively free societies as a result of the nature of the human being not wanting to be dominated by another against there consent. I suppose one explanation would be that most people were ignorant and relied on guidance from another person rather than guidance from there unrecognized rational mind. But then you would have to explain why it took so long for human beings to acquire a rational mind rather than relying on superstitution and folktales to explain why the world they live in operates the way it does. The other explanation for why their are more oppressive societies than free societies is because humans for so long have been relying self-appointed members of the group to lead them to their next destination that they just grown accustomed to group think rather than engaging in any mode of indepedent thinking because in earlier times I suspect that it was a given for humans to be in the groups because of the dangers of traveling alone.

 

[DaveC426913]

I am trying to decipher your thoughts but they are not organized. Insertion of paragraphs and elimination of run-on sentences would go a long way towards clarifying them.

There are a lot of hidden assumptions:

"...have all of their natural rights not recognized by the authority in power..."

Natural rights do not come free. They must be defined and recognized by a higher power (such as an international coalition) and then enforced.


"...You would think that f we supposedly have natural rights like the right to pursue the ownership of property..."

Might makes right. The stronger tribe tells the weaker tribe what rights it has.


"...more people would resist having these rights stripped away from them..."

What makes you think they had those rights in the first place such that they could be stripped away? We rose from dictatorships, so the default is not having rights.

 

[noblegas]

Natural rights do not come free. They must be defined and recognized by a higher power (such as an international coalition) and then enforced.

I would say that natural rights do not come easily rather than not come freely. I say that people who want to have their rights recognized must put up resistance against forces that want to suppressed their rights. Natural rights are supposed to be universal among humans, no matter what society they are born into and should be completely independent of laws that are created in the country or region they reside in . I think that rights need to be recognized by individuals rather than higher and self-appointed authorities because most likely authorities would want to keep the people that they are governing ignorant of the fact that they are born to walk free as a human being and only subjected to obey their own will because the people in authority want to maintain their power. Ignorance of a bulk of the populace gives advantage to the people in power.

Might makes right. The stronger tribe tells the weaker tribe what rights it has.

No, might doesn't necessarily make right. Ignorance allows those being oppressed to give that illusion by those who are trying to be the one at the center of dominance, but it does not make the actions of the ones in power right.

What makes you think they had those rights in the first place such that they could be stripped away? We rose from dictatorships, so the default is not having rights.

. Because human beings are self-autonomous and were not born out of the womb to be dominated by other human beings.If natural rights did not really exist, the mind of a human being would not be constructed in a way were all of our actions and are thoughts are derived from the human mind and not some other person . Humans beings control and only control their own thoughts and actions, so it perplexes me that many societies exist where the decisions being made in their life are being made by other people.

 

[Evo]

I would say that natural rights do not come easily rather than not come freely. I say that people who want to have their rights recognized must put up resistance against forces that want to suppressed their rights. Natural rights are supposed to be universal among humans, no matter what society they are born into and should be completely independent of laws that are created in the country or region they reside in . I think that rights need to be recognized by individuals rather than higher and self-appointed authorities because most likely authorities would want to keep the people that they are governing ignorant of the fact that they are born to walk free as a human being and only subjected to obey their own will because the people in authority want to maintain their power. Ignorance of a bulk of the populace gives advantage to the people in power.

I don't know where you have gotten your ideas on natural rights, but natural rights really depend by what "rights" those in power wish to grant you. Although it is argued that humans should have some basic rights, which some refer to as "natural, or "universal" rights, that is an argument that has been around a long time.

Perhaps you should read up a bit on human rights, you can start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights then come back to this thread when you have a better understanding.

 

[noblegas]

I don't know where you have gotten your ideas on natural rights, but natural rights really depend by what "rights" those in power wish to grant you. Although it is argued that humans should have some basic rights, which some refer to as "natural, or "universal" rights, that is an argument that has been around a long time.

Perhaps you should read up a bit on human rights, you can start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights then come back to this thread when you have a better understanding.

I've read the article and the article supports the premise that I have exactly been arguing for. sure there is much debate throughout human history on what natural rights are, but virtually all of the thinkers on this topic agree that people are born with these rights, and therefore they are universal throughout the world, indepedent of the customs and laws of a given society. Here are a few quotes from the article:

Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss.

,

Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or unalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.

,Another quote from the stoics view on nautural rights.

It is a mistake to imagine that slavery pervades a man's whole being; the better part of him is exempt from it: the body indeed is subjected and in the power of a master, but the mind is independent, and indeed is so free and wild, that it cannot be restrained even by this prison of the body, wherein it is confined.[6]

t, natural rights (also called moral rights or unalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity.

Natural rights and legal rights are not the same thing . It was philosophers like John Locke and Thomas paine, not necessarily the people in power that have increased our understanding of what natural rights are as opposed to legal rights. I don't know what gave you the notion that I was trying to redefine the meaning of natural rights. There is nothing in any of my posts that contains content that contradicts what is written in this article you have suggested to me that I have read. I really want to understand why there are more tyrannical societies than relatively free societies today and for most of human history.

 

[DaveC426913]

No, might doesn't necessarily make right.

Of course it doesn't. The point of the saying is that not that it is true, but that it is de facto.

The farmers delaring their basic rights does little more than get their heads chopped off by the King's militia. That is the default out of which we have to come. Freedom and rights are taken, usually through bloodshed; they're not given freely.

 

[jambaugh]

First point, the level of freedom is not boolean, i.e. one is not absolutely free nor absolutely enslaved. You can look for example at the Roman republics which established certain civil liberties to Romain citizens while at the same time had institutionalized slavery.

The second point I'd say is that liberty is not stable in the same way as tyranny. Power begets and hordes power. In a hierarchical monarchy the intermediate privileged oppressor has a vested interest in the power structure. Power is granted from the top down. Of course being stable it is also stagnant and tends to weaken until external forces topple it. Again look at history especially the Roman empire.

Free societies are rather quasi-stable maintaining a dynamic equilibrium rather than static stability. The stability of free societies are intentional rather than natural in the sense that they are principle guided.

You may consider the rough analogy of living organisms vs non-living organic matter. Maintaining life, like maintaining freedom, is a tricky matter requiring constant vigilance on the part of the interacting components to maintain the state of life or freedom.

Ideally we (freedom lovers) want a diverse community of free states (not a world state except in a very confederate form) in which then the tyrannies are not able to compete nor isolate their citizenry/serfs from the knowledge of freedom and as well where competition between free states leads to group stability in the individual states' recognition of freedoms. The state which begins increasing oppression of its citizens will loose, relative to its neighbors, the economic and power advantages in innovation, prosperity, and public support.

I foresee the trend toward constitutional democracies continuing into the next century and eventually traditionally tyrannies dying out. This would, I believe, have occurred much more quickly in the middle east had there not been all that oil sitting just under the sands which provided an artificial economic advantage sustaining the medieval monarchies in that region. The battles of the future will be between the degree of collectivism vs individual liberties in the constitutional democracies.

But again trying to predict the future is always iffy. We may see next century the whole world under the thumb of a theocratic oligarchy or some "emergency government" preserving its power through fear of some artificially inflated threat such as global warming.

 

[Evo]

I really want to understand why there are more tyrannical societies than relatively free societies today and for most of human history.

Then you will need to throw out you modern notions of natural rights.

How far back do you want to go? If you go back to early groups of humans, the ones that were stronger and could protect a group, organize them, control them, etc... usually made the rules. If you wanted to be part of the group you followed the rules. If you disagreed with the rules, then if allowed, you could leave the group to start your own group, but that wasn't always an option, if you were more powerful physically, or could sway enough people in your group to overthrow the current ruler, you could take over, but quite often one bad ruler just replaced another bad ruler. Most people simply had their hands full just trying to keep a roof over their head and food in their stomachs and couldn't or wouldn't get involved in changing things.

You would need to read about the histories of different cultures, ruling classes, and societies to get an understanding of how and why each society evolved the way they did.

 

[noblegas]

Of course it doesn't. The point of the saying is that not that it is true, but that it is de facto.

The farmers delaring their basic rights does little more than get their heads chopped off by the King's militia. That is the default out of which we have to come. Freedom and rights are taken, usually through bloodshed; they're not given freely.

Thats what I said in one of my earlier posts. Natural rights are not granted or even recognized by authorities freely , people have to put up resistance against those who want to imposed their will on you. We are not in conflict on this subtopic of the topic of the thread. My main contention is that most people allow other people to dominate them instead of putting up a fight to the natural rights they were born with as indicated by how most societies and governments are structured around the world. Defending natural rights is like defending your child from predetators who would pounce all over your child even though the child naturally belongs to your care.

 

[DaveC426913]

My main contention is that most people allow other people to dominate them instead of putting up a fight to the natural rights they were born with

One must weigh the costs. One cannot be home to feed ones child if one is out sharpening farm implements for battle.

 

[Hurkyl]

The natural rights debate leads us down a false road. The energy spent in arguing which rules exist should better be spent deciding which rules we should make. The "perfect freedom" Locke described "to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit... without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man", does not dictate the existence of rights; instead it leaves us perfectly free to legislate them.

I prefer this freedom, which seems to me simple and clear: we are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe.

(reference)

 

[russ_watters]

Why do you think that there are more people throughout human history and up to modern times, you have more people who in societies with oppressive governments and have all of their natural rights not recognized by the authority in power governing them.

Evolution.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Humans are social animals and have a tendency to follow leaders like any other social animal. It creates a more cohesive "pack". Occasionally one must compromise or sacrifice for the good of everyone but if all or most people tended to be staunch defenders of their supposed "natural rights" then far fewer would be willing to sacrifice or compromise. Human society would be far more fractious and more difficult to organize. While people might be more "free" if they were more individualistic and protective of their "natural rights" I think that we might not have necessarily come as far as we have if that were the case.

 

[Phrak]

"Natural Rights"...

is a completely human invention without objective foundation, historically provincial, and of typically human variation in content. The set varies from author to author dependent upon preference and desire.

It would be better to state what your particular set includes rather than using ill defined structures. I'd recommend, to effectively communicate, use the old adage, "say what you mean, and mean what you say."

 

[noblegas]

One must weigh the costs. One cannot be home to feed ones child if one is out sharpening farm implements for battle.

Yes that's true. But most mothers had a tendency to take care of their children while the fathers would go back and bring home the food and necessities for survival.So, the fathers would have the opportunity and go out keep a watchful eye on those who want to overthrow the society that they resided while gathering food for the family. And The self appointed leaders had children and wive(s) too, so raising their children was not such a distraction in that it got in the way of their plan to attempt to restrict the freedoms that people were naturally exercising.

 

[tomkeus]

There are more opressive societies than free ones simply because freedom and democracy are very expensive, both in resource and in energy terms.

Democratic society with broad freedoms is very decentralized structure, thus requiring lot of social interactions to function and make decisions. Each new interaction within society comes at a price in energy and resources. Western Europe, and its historical extension, USA-Canada, had access to wast amounts of resources and food, first domestically, and later in their colonies which gradually led to creation of various democratic institutions during the course of 400 hundred years or so. No other society ever had, or will have, access to such mind-bogglingly amount of resources as Western Europe and USA-Canada had.

That is why, I believe, worldwide democracy is impossible, and if current demographic and economic trends continue, we will see worldwide trend towards more authoritarian organization.

 

[noblegas]

Natural Rights"...

is a completely human invention without objective foundation, historically provincial, and of typically human variation in content. The set varies from author to author dependent upon preference and desire

So you are saying that the concept of natural rights is purely relatively? Okay then, so you think that people would not then put up a resistance if a stranger completely came into their habitat , whether it be your hut or house and said that this property is now theirs and that they must leave , you think that in some cultures, people would gladly walk away and find or create some other habitatsto live in?I have a hard time believing this assertion. I think all humans have some fundamental idea, whether it is imprecise or very precise , of what property rights are. I believe that if at least one person from every culture on earth, let's say owned a piece of property they have acquired such as a car and a stranger came up to their car and scraped it with a piece a metal, I believe most owners of the car would produce pretty much the same reaction , which of course would be negative, if there car was scratched up .I believe all humans would put up some form of resistance, if they tried to forced themselves upon them sexually. I believe that most people of the world would not take it to kindly if some try to force you to the ground and proceeded to behead you with a hatchet. Given that there must be some innate tendency to preserved yourself against external forces therefore all humans most have some innate sense of rights that they ascribed themselves. I am aware that the concept of the individual is pretty much a western concept, but then again quantum mechanics was pretty much discovered by western physicists, at least the written records indicate, but that does not make quantum mechanics any less valid in non-western cultures just like the concept of natural rights and individualism is not anymore valid in non-western cultures.

I don't want this to turn into a discussion on definition of what natural rights are I want to understand why Large masses of people allow a dictator to rise to power even though their are more people being ruled than the people that were propped up to power. Another characteristic of power that I noticed in humans, is that when a so called revolution occurs in human societies , whether it be the French Revolution or the russian revolution or the cuban revolution or the chinese mao revolution,where the main advocates of the push for the revolution to overthrow the ruling elite, they managed to be dictators themselves. Even the American revolution had its flaws because that revolution was based on overthrowing British colonial rule because of exorbitant taxes , but we managed to have a larger tax system than the tax system we had during colonial rule.

 

[arildno]

Note:

Property rights take up a lot of the Roman law code, and also the Germanic, "barbarian" law codes.

The "haves" in those societies were VERY concerned about regulating the ways "have-nots" could interfere with their own property, or, for that matter, acquire property.

 

[noblegas]

Evolution.

That is not a very adequate explanation. Self-preservation are products of human evolution as well as the propensity to want to overpower other human beings. That still does not explain why humans are more prone to not defending themselves against people who want to overpower them and dictate their lives.Other than that humans are too ignorant to know that they are being overpowered and that leaves me with the question of why ignorance is so widespread other than the explanations to they are busy with their personal lives that they are oblivious to what is going on around them

 

[noblegas]

There are more opressive societies than free ones simply because freedom and democracy are very expensive, both in resource and in energy terms.
.

I don't know. I suspect that it would be very expensive for one group of individuals to control all of the resources in the area that they are ruling over , and would be less expensive for societies that allow individuals to have access to some of the resources like we have set up here in the United States.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes that's true. But most mothers had a tendency to take care of their children while the fathers would go back and bring home the food and necessities for survival.So, the fathers would have the opportunity and go out keep a watchful eye on those who want to overthrow the society that they resided while gathering food for the family. And The self appointed leaders had children and wive(s) too, so raising their children was not such a distraction in that it got in the way of their plan to attempt to restrict the freedoms that people were naturally exercising.

I still think you're looking at it backwards. You keep thinking they start with freedom and risk it being taken away.

Most people were born into the oppressed culture, or at least into dictatorships. This is what I mean by default state. They would have much(ish) of what they needed to survive, including looking after their families. This is what they know.

A man (or woman) would have to make a choice to risk everything he already has to rise up against a government. I wasn't being flippant when I suggested sharpening farm implements; a farm implement (and farmer) that has been turned into a weapon (and fighter) is not at home to till the field, and likely will never come home.

In a nutshell: you can't have both. You choose to till your land, or you choose to sacrifice your livelihood to fight to gain freedom for others. Worst case, you will not live to see the benefits of your toils. Best case, you will spend your early years away from your family.

 

[arildno]

To risk your capacity for reproduction (i.e, life) in order to gain moral comfort is not very intelligent, adaptively speaking.

THEREFORE, it is more likely that coping strategies have evolved for harsh environments, rather than revolutionary strategies aimed for reformation towards individual rights.

It is easier to develop:

1. Fatalism, i.e, I can't change it anyhow, so why try? Best not to think much about it.

2. Flight strategies, i.e (I hope they don't catch me)

3. Preventive anxiety: It could get even worse than it is already, so I'll put up with it.

4. Internalization of the norms from those around you.

5. opportunism: If I work with them, advantages will accrue to me, too.

Collaborating cowardice is a more widely distributed trait than confrontative courage.

 

[DaveC426913]

To risk your capacity for reproduction (i.e, life) in order to gain moral comfort is not very intelligent, adaptively speaking.

THEREFORE, it is more likely that coping strategies have evolved for harsh environments, rather than revolutionary strategies aimed for reformation towards individual rights.

It is easier to develop:

1. Fatalism, i.e, I can't change it anyhow, so why try? Best not to think much about it.

2. Flight strategies, i.e (I hope they don't catch me)

3. Preventive anxiety: It could get even worse than it is already, so I'll put up with it.

4. Internalization of the norms from those around you.

5. opportunism: If I work with them, advantages will accrue to me, too.

Collaborating cowardice is a more widely distributed trait than confrontative courage.

Not to mention: Bliss. They do not know any different. It is only retrospectively that we see it as oppression because we know we can expect more.

Even the serfs, who paid most of their earnings to their feudal lords, had a pretty sweet deal compared to simply dying of starvation (by not being part of a co-op village) or being eaten (by entering the wrong cave).

 

[tomkeus]

I don't know. I suspect that it would be very expensive for one group of individuals to control all of the resources in the area that they are ruling over , and would be less expensive for societies that allow individuals to have access to some of the resources like we have set up here in the United States.

You misunderstood me.

Authoritarian societies keep order by force, by prohibiting everything that is not allowed by ruling elite.

Free society does not impose order on its population, it rather depends on order coming from its population. For example, in Sweden, state isn't spying on each and every citizen with police waiting to jump even on tiniest signal of unwanted behavior. Rather, state steps down with repressive measures and excessive regulation, expecting from it's citizens to behave in socially appropriate manner for themselves.

Now, you cannot expect from man whose bare survival is in danger for the lack of food, or roof for his family, to behave in line with some social conventions.

Then, there is also the question of democratic institutions, and I don't talk just about official institutions, like Parliament and parties. I'm talking about whole setup of democracy, which includes media, NGOs, universities, etc, which involve large numbers of people upkeep needs lots of surpluses from other portions of society.

Simply speaking, in order to have freedom and democracy, you need population with good standards of living.

Western democracy had its roots in the conflict of economically powerful elite without political rights and aristocracy who held all the political control. Agricultural and resource richness of Europe, and later, of it's colonies is what created large surpluses, boosted trade and gave demand for various crafts which in turn spawned economically powerful citizens and later powerful cultural and scientific elite.

Complex interaction of this elites and general population is what created, and what maintains democracy today. Maintenance of these elites is costly. Good standards of general population are also expensive, but shut them down, and you shut down democracy.

 

[dacruick]

I think religion has a lot to do with how things played out. When you put your faith in a higher power, one that is all knowing, you are easily taken advantage of. Another intrinsic quality of humans as a whole is greed. There are always individuals who want more money and more power. and as we know, money begets money and power begets power. So all it takes is a select few individuals to control a population. As thestatutoryape touched on above, humans always want to be followers, to be controlled. Which brings me back to my relgiion statement. Religion was a powerful tool for uniting people. But at the same time religion unites the people involved in it, it also creates strong barriers between religions. These barriers were used by the rich and powerful, in tandem with propaganda, to fuel the populations hatred for others. That hatred was used for war, which then made the rich people more money. And so begins the cycle of life.

 

[dacruick]

I know, I'm very cynical haha.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So you are saying that the concept of natural rights is purely relatively?...

I suppose it has to do with how you define natural rights which is really a discussion more suitable to the philosophy forum. In short though most of the things which you describe are easily explained by necessity and instinct. As well, before rule by law, most people did give into the wishes of more powerful individuals because there was not much else that they could do. As Dave notes "Might makes right" was the rule of the land for quite a long time. Your "rights" are expressed only by your ability to defend them or the willingness of others to defend them.

This is getting a bit philosophical but it leads into the OP. As Tomkeus notes (though I do not fully agree with him/her in regards to the direction of the world) freedom and rights were more or less bought. The increase of wealth of a nation does, to some degree, "trickle down" after a fashion. General increase in wealth increases education and political influence eventually leading to a proletariat with power enough that it will take its "rights" if they are not given to them and an increase in "softer" more compassionate bourgeoisie (sorry I am reading Dumas' The Last Cavalier at the moment) who no longer need to oppress and exploit others to accrue and maintain their wealth. It seems to me that there is a natural balance of power necessary to survival. The more primitive the conditions the more necessary it is to for "weaker" individuals to kowtow to the "stronger". When the meek gain education and resources, as is necessary for the wealthy to maintain and increase their wealth, the tables begin to turn. The wealthy must sacrifice to maintain their position.

That is not a very adequate explanation. Self-preservation are products of human evolution as well as the propensity to want to overpower other human beings. That still does not explain why humans are more prone to not defending themselves against people who want to overpower them and dictate their lives.Other than that humans are too ignorant to know that they are being overpowered and that leaves me with the question of why ignorance is so widespread other than the explanations to they are busy with their personal lives that they are oblivious to what is going on around them

"Self-preservation are products of human evolution as well as the propensity to want to overpower other human beings."
Human beings survive better as a group. Groups work best under a leader. An instinct to work against the leadership, unless one is capable of leading themselves, would work against the group and the advantage to survival. We've only recently, it seems, come to a time in history where individualism can be advantageous.

To risk your capacity for reproduction (i.e, life) in order to gain moral comfort is not very intelligent, adaptively speaking.

THEREFORE, it is more likely that coping strategies have evolved for harsh environments, rather than revolutionary strategies aimed for reformation towards individual rights.

It is easier to develop:

1. Fatalism, i.e, I can't change it anyhow, so why try? Best not to think much about it.

2. Flight strategies, i.e (I hope they don't catch me)

3. Preventive anxiety: It could get even worse than it is already, so I'll put up with it.

4. Internalization of the norms from those around you.

5. opportunism: If I work with them, advantages will accrue to me, too.

Collaborating cowardice is a more widely distributed trait than confrontative courage.

It would seem, more or less, an intellectualization of the evolved "pack" mentality of social animals. Not to harp on.

 

[arildno]

It would seem, more or less, an intellectualization of the evolved "pack" mentality of social animals. Not to harp on.

Sure.

To be in a pack feels better than not being in a pack.

Individualism will only thrive if the pack is nice to begin with and let's its members slouch about on their own business..

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think religion has a lot to do with how things played out. When you put your faith in a higher power, one that is all knowing, you are easily taken advantage of.

It is not an original idea but it would seem that the mechanic behind religion is a reflection of the common social dynamic. Come to think of it it may have even been somewhat liberating for people in an earlier society to believe that there was an order of things above the nobles and masters that was benevolent in nature. That they would receive a reward for being a "good" person regardless of their social position.

 

[MotoH]

Rising up against the government is for the young and ignorant. Once they are done being "free spirits" fighting the government for the day, they go home to supper with mommy and daddy, who just so happen to enjoy the life they live because they have a job, and the crime rates are low.

 

[dacruick]

It is not an original idea but it would seem that the mechanic behind religion is a reflection of the common social dynamic. Come to think of it it may have even been somewhat liberating for people in an earlier society to believe that there was an order of things above the nobles and masters that was benevolent in nature. That they would receive a reward for being a "good" person regardless of their social position.

Of course it was liberating for people to believe that there was a higher power. Heck, it still is. Think of how many people in this world take comfort in the fact that God is seeing over them and so forth. But this is the key to what I was saying. Governments used religion(regardless of their beliefs) to unite and control the lower class. Yes they also take comfort in the fact that there is a higher power than nobles and masters, but many rulers claimed divine heritage. So it makes them even more powerful if they were to say that God appointed them to the position. And you are absolutely right, they used religion as a reward system. Like every time you listen to your teacher you get a gold star, and if you get enough gold stars you win a prize. It is a form of manipulation and organization. Very powerful tool...not so much use in modern society though.

 

[noblegas]

I still think you're looking at it backwards. You keep thinking they start with freedom and risk it being taken away.

Who's to say that the oppression of people has always existed? I know that oppressive societies have existed a lot longer than free societies with relatively little force imposed on the people, but that does not tell me why this progression continues and how it got started, other than the possible reasonable explanations that parents were too busy raising their children and dealing with matters on a familial scale was more practical rather than matters that extended beyouond a familial scale.

Most people were born into the oppressed culture, or at least into dictatorships. This is what I mean by default state. They would have much(ish) of what they needed to survive, including looking after their families. This is what they know.

I don't dispute this claim. But you would still have to explain why more people are born into a dictatorship than a democracy or a republic that respect individual rights. I understand why direct democracies would not have formed in hunter and gatheriung societies because you would have to be involved equally in political affairs as well as family affairs. But why wouldn't representative democracies would not be formed

A man (or woman) would have to make a choice to risk everything he already has to rise up against a government. I wasn't being flippant when I suggested sharpening farm implements; a farm implement (and farmer) that has been turned into a weapon (and fighter) is not at home to till the field, and likely will never come home.

They would not risked everything if all families came together as a unit and acted against the person who tried to oppressed them, but I supposed if you subjugated the people that you oppressed to ignrorance it would be very challenging to come together as a unit since you were submersed in ignorance to a degree where someone else does all the critical thinking for you . I tell you , the people who rose to the top and into oppressers did a fine job of keeping people very ignorant for the bulk of human existence. I agree with the premise that the wealth of a nation has to increase before knowledge and education could increase, and therefore then the idea of free societies permeated in the minds of many humans. Now the question that could be asked is why it took humans such a long time to move beyond their own ignorance? Why couldn't the Elighthment epoch happen earlier in human history? I don't see why people could not turn to science first rather than superstitious explanations. It does not take wealth to apply critical thinking skills to everyday situations.

 

[dacruick]

They would not risked everything if all families came together as a unit and acted against the person who tried to oppressed them, but I supposed if you subjugated the people that you oppressed to ignrorance it would be very challenging to come together as a unit since you were submersed in ignorance to a degree where someone else does all the critical thinking for you . I tell you , the people who rose to the top and into oppressers did a fine job of keeping people very ignorant for the bulk of human existence. I agree with the premise that the wealth of a nation has to increase before knowledge and education could increase, and therefore then the idea of free societies permeated in the minds of many humans. Now the question that could be asked is why it took humans such a long time to move beyond their own ignorance? Why couldn't the Elighthment epoch happen earlier in human history? I don't see why people could not turn to science first rather than superstitious explanations. It does not take wealth to apply critical thinking skills to everyday situations

First of all, ignorance is bliss and there is not a truer statement than that. And you're right, you don't risk everything if everyone revolts. But there have to be bad enough conditions to make revolting worth it. And the worse the conditions become, the more dangerous the consequences of revolt. It is all a balance between what you have to gain and what you have to risk. If you have read 1984 by George Orwell I think that it is an accurate depiction of a dictatorship, which is no doubt exaggerated in some senses. Continuing to a point I made earlier on, religion was used as the foundation of every society. There was not the science, technology, or globalization to counteract religion at that time. To tie it all together, religion also creates boundaries, which impairs the interaction between separate peoples. I think that once you begin to realize that there are 3000 different religions you begin to question some previously assumed truths. I also believe that there was no place for critical thinking in most past societies. It provides nothing but problems for the progress of the tribe or group. People needed to be manipulated to be successful I think. It sounds stupid but I'm pretty sure I would do the same.

 

[calculusrocks]

There are more opressive societies than free ones simply because freedom and democracy are very expensive, both in resource and in energy terms.

Democratic society with broad freedoms is very decentralized structure, thus requiring lot of social interactions to function and make decisions. Each new interaction within society comes at a price in energy and resources. Western Europe, and its historical extension, USA-Canada, had access to wast amounts of resources and food, first domestically, and later in their colonies which gradually led to creation of various democratic institutions during the course of 400 hundred years or so. No other society ever had, or will have, access to such mind-bogglingly amount of resources as Western Europe and USA-Canada had.

That is why, I believe, worldwide democracy is impossible, and if current demographic and economic trends continue, we will see worldwide trend towards more authoritarian organization.

If so, then what is your explanation for the United States beating the Russians in the Cold War? Or the outcome of WWII for that matter...

 

[calculusrocks]

"Self-preservation are products of human evolution as well as the propensity to want to overpower other human beings."
Human beings survive better as a group. Groups work best under a leader. An instinct to work against the leadership, unless one is capable of leading themselves, would work against the group and the advantage to survival. We've only recently, it seems, come to a time in history where individualism can be advantageous.


It would seem, more or less, an intellectualization of the evolved "pack" mentality of social animals. Not to harp on.

I don't think this takes on an adequate representation of individualism. Think of a fast-food restaurant for instance. The cashier, the fry lady, the manager, everyone has an incentive to do their part with matching customers with deliciousness. Individuals frequently decide it is in their own best interest to work as part of a team. This is not the same as surrendering themselves to a collective because while being part of a team, their motive is firstly to benefit themselves. They work fast and meet quality expectations, because they don't want to be fired and may receive a raise for accomplished work.