Freedom is not a universal desire

[ML]

We are watching a history of world series from "The Great Courses" on DVDs (one of several topics we have watched over the years).  This company puts out some really good stuff from award winning professors.

Anyway . . . what was sort of surprising was his repeated statements that desire for Freedom is not a universal desire.

The USA, and some other countries previously and concurrently, have 'intervened' or even been forced into war carrying the idea that freedom will be provided to the people of a particular country.

However, he points out, going back 2-3,000 years or more, the vast majority of people inhabiting certain areas of the globe do not desire freedom as we know it.  They are content with and even desire to be ruled by a powerful leader, even when such leader is a despot.

Perhaps not surprisingly to most here (even as they may not want to admit it) he states that the  Russian people fit this narrative.

And to add to the fire here . . . this narrative does not fit the Ukrainian people.
Hint:  One of the major reasons for the difference relates to the historical productivity of the land.
Who gave the greatest resistance to collectivization of farms ?

Of course the reasons why are stated clearly and cover long time periods.
This series of lectures is somewhat different from standard history textbooks, etc., in that he focuses more on the reasons why something happened, the resulting consequences, and what should be the lessons learned thereof.

See "The Wisdom of History" by Professor J. Rufus Fears

[Steamer]

However, he points out, going back 2-3,000 years or more, the vast majority of people inhabiting certain areas of the globe do not desire freedom as we know it.  They are content with and even desire to be ruled by a powerful leader, even when such leader is a despot.

It's the choice of living free or living in peace.
It's hard to live your life in a war zone, that's why the kings had large standing armies and the people were good with it.

[krimster2]

wars aren’t fought over freedom
that’s just the noble sounding cause you tell the foot soldiers
every war is always about power
but it’s hard to get other people to die for that
that’s why the fiction is needed

[msmob]

ML,

I disagree with your suggesting Ukrainians and Russians can BE that different different in mentality  ..

Various parts of Ukraine have been part of the Lithuanian-Polish/ Austrian-Hungarian/ / Imperial Russian Empires and Soviet Union for for the last c.200 years .... Nationalism was a dream and statehood in short-lived bursts..

The population was thoroughly mixed up - less so in the West, but there many 'Poles became Ukrainian'..thanks to the pact with the Nazis ..

Only 1 generation has only known Ukraine as being a nation ( and that doesn't apply in Crimea or the Donbas basin )

Don't you remember the storming of the Moscow  'White House' in 1991 AND  '93 ? ...

[Gator]

wars aren’t fought over freedom
that’s just the noble sounding cause you tell the foot soldiers
every war is always about power
but it’s hard to get other people to die for that
that’s why the fiction is needed

Some wars, yes, but not all wars.  Certainly not the important wars. 

The Revolutionary War by virtue of its name was clearly about freedom.  Power?  After the war ended, the general who led the US could have become the ultimate powerful leader short of starting a monarchy.  He turned it down, reluctantly accepting the Presidency.  And he helped create our constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives making decisions in a balanced form of government.  The government has prevailed over time, while those who gained too much power (e. g., robber barons) were throttled. 

There are others.  The Civil War, from the perspective of the northern states, was about freeing the slaves and preserving the union. 

[krimster2]

"clearly about freedom."

really?
to me it was clearly about power, the crown vrs locals and the locals won that one
that's all freedom is
is who gets the power
you, or someone else
so, it's ALWAYS about power
and the powerful need to brainwash the masses
to do the fighting for them
so you control the narrative about why they're fighting
not because you don't like the crown's control over your economic interests
which mainly only effected the 1% of either side
but ya gotta convince all those colonials to take up muskets for you some how
so yeah, why not just say the struggle is over freedom
so much easier to get folks to die for this
instead of saying, "the crown doesn't permit me to do this business, or taxes my business too much, so I wanna fight"
wars are fought for practical reasons, not ideas, the ideas are always the cover story

[calmissile]

I think both sides are taking a simplistic view of a complex issue.  I believe the title of the thread is accurate... Freedom is not a universal desire.

As someone educated in America, I was somewhat surprised by the attitudes of some Ukrainians when I discussed political and economic systems with them.  The surprise was that some Ukrainian citizens (mostly older folks) were more satisfied under the Soviet system rather than a more free market economy.  Their explanation was easy to understand.  Many were content to have stability in their lives as opposed to having to fend for themselves in a free market economy.  Jobs were guaranteed and as long as you did not screw up too bad, you were guaranteed food and shelter, cheap public transportation, etc.  Not much effort required to meek out an existence under those conditions.  As I understand it, there was not much incentive to work harder to get ahead because there was little reward for doing so.

As the stories went on, there were always complaints about the oligarchs and party higher ups that got special treatment and favors, but to the average worker there was not the jealousy that exists in many other systems whereby you become jealous because your neighbor has a bigger house, a better car, etc.  As long as the working class was fed and sheltered many seemed content.  Anyone wanting to improve their lifestyle had to do it by connections with party officials, ratting out your neighbor for something that was considered against the interests of the state, etc.

I have seen much of the same attitudes in some American workers as well, particularly those employed by government.  So, as a general observation I tend to agree with the title of the thread.  Some people are satisfied with a socialistic style of economics as long as their neighbors are at the same level as they are.

The problem I see is that the mix of socialism and capitalism (free economy and personal responsibility for ones welfare), is that when someone is entrepreneurial or ambitious and works hard to improve their lifestyle then eventually those that have been content to live the socialistic plan become jealous of those that have legitimately achieved more success.  I can think of no better example than the USA for this same psychological condition.  Over the past 50-60 years, Americans have been obsessed with working harder, working more hours, having more than one job in order to "keep up with the Jonse's".  We have gone from a 2 parent family with one primary wage earner to a broken family unit and in most cases of intact families, both adults having full time jobs.

Also, I should note that I do not buy into the notion that the breakup of the family unit and both adults having to work to survive is necessary.  I have worked with some employees that have only one full time working family member and they manage to have a happy family and are not receiving any kind of welfare.  It is a choice!  How well you manage your resources and how "high on the hog" you want to live.  One of the biggest problems I see in our capitalistic free market is that as soon as you start to see benefits of your hard earned labor, the government wants to start punishing you for your success by taking the fruits of your labor by increased taxation.  As long as the 'have nots' have the ability to take the fruits of your "extra" hard work, then there is an incentive to not work so hard because the rewards in the end are not worth it.

Further proof of being able to survive on a single income is evident in some of the diverse cultures we have in the USA. For example, my experience with many Hispanic citizens is the realization that many of them value the family unit much more than Caucasian Americans.  It is a quality I admire, even though I have not supported it in my own life.

I don't pretend to have the answers to whether one system or the other is best for the populations of the world other than I have a strong belief that the freedom to select your choices and have minimal government intrusion in your life should be an objective.  There must be some responsibility on the individual for his/her own destiny, otherwise we must all become robots and submit to the wishes of a state mandated system.  It seems the human mind seems to fall into one camp or the other.  Either you want the state to dictate your life (and have stability) or the other camp that wants the individual to have the freedom to make their own choices and be rewarded by their success.

[Trenchcoat]

It's women that control society, men are just reactionary to what women want. It's women that create Capitalist society, men follow. It's the women that dream of living in a fairy tale castle and the men that can provide that fairy tale get hot women. The women hence keeps the Capitalism system going. The man really cares little for materialism, he just wants sex with hot women, well us straight ones do anyway. He knows he has to get as much wealth as possible to provide as close to a fairly tale castle that he can, he isn't really bothered that much about living in a fairly tale castle but the woman makes it the trade off for hot sex. Since feudal times and probably before this has been the case. Given the choice the man would happily pass on materialism if he could get hot sex from a women by other means, some can through looks, social skills, etc but its the women that makes materialism an ongoing importance in most societies.

Few if any are really free in this system least of all the men. Women have prescribed the values they must live by and aspire to - materialism and the fairy tale castle. The man is then chained to this ambition and faces being punished the more he falls short of this value. It's a pretty old system that has been churning around a long time now but women are loathed to give up on it, it gives them what they want and the power over men. They may not always do better than a man by it but it no doubt delivers for them more often than not.

[calmissile]

I don't know where you got your life experience or how old you are but you are making a huge exaggeration of the amount of control women have over men.  While there is some truth that clever women can have a favorable influence over men, your depiction that men are not materialistic is absurd.

[ML]

Doug, you are talking about a different type of freedom.

It is a little bit hard to understand, at least for me, because the Professor in the lecture talked about 3 kinds of freedom.

1. Individual Freedom
2. Political Freedom
3. Nation Freedom

And he pointed out how a person could have zero, 1, 2, or 3 of the above.

As I understood it, 1 involved being able to live mostly as you want as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else.

2 involved full Voting rights in a democratic system (not just voting yes or no on the one candidate presented).

3 required that your nation not be under the control of another nation.

[ML]

Only 1 generation has only known Ukraine as being a nation . . .

The concept 'being Ukrainian' does not require that there be a globally recognized nation named Ukraine at a particular point in time.

[msmob]

The concept 'being Ukrainian' does not require that there be a globally recognized nation named Ukraine at a particular point in time.

Good point, well-made..

However, I note YOU didn't accept that Russians weren't the passive type you seemed to be suggesting )

[Trenchcoat]

I don't know where you got your life experience or how old you are but you are making a huge exaggeration of the amount of control women have over men.  While there is some truth that clever women can have a favorable influence over men, your depiction that men are not materialistic is absurd.

Men only become materialistic because women determine it is off value.

[msmob]

Trench, you just proved you misunderstand BOTH sexes .... i.e people in general 

[krimster2]

yes, I agree with what my dear friend Trench is saying
BUT...
conversely, money (as long as you have some in the FIRST PLACE!)
can be easily configured into
a precision tool to manipulate a young beautiful FSU girl
into sleeping with you...
and they will do it early-on, no long drawn out seduction game!
no!
not AT ALL!

one sure fire seduction method, is to rent a mercedes in a big Russian/Ukrainian city with local plates and on a “bad weather day” go and cruise “down town”  in your bolshoi chorny machina
you stud you!
for example, in Kyiv, cruise the ulitsaya around Khreschatyk
but stay “in parallel” with the ulitsaya on the Dnipro river moy brat! horrosho!
at either right before working hours, lunch time, or quitting time...
and just cruise and look for hot looking women walking on the sidewalks who are “in distress” because of the weather
and when you see one, flash your high beams at them and then reach over and unlock the passenger door and then pull up next to her....

for me the average "cruise time" required to snag a passenger during quitting time, when you give them a ride home
was about 30 minutes, because I was "really picky" with the women back then
I PREFERRED a certain looking kind of woman
young 20ish, tall with dark hair, pretty looking

if you "snag one"
it's 100% guaranteed she will get in the car with you....
so you take her to her work or her home
and you make a plan to pick her up later and "have dinner"

the women I met
didn't need to speak English with me
because I have conversational spoken Russian skills
so that allowed me to expand my search territory quite a bit
from at first,  just the English Majors in Taras Shevchenko Univ
who were almost all young and pretty and female and spoke very good English
and hung out in a certain part of the library
these women were mesmerized by my voice!
they were "super easy"....

my sudden emergence on a table right next to them
sent a shock wave through the whole library
you should have seen the look on their faces
and the back and forth whispering

I opened up my Gucci leather briefcase
and took my IBM laptop out and powered it up
and then I took out a Sotheby's catalog and began drawing comments on it
this spectacle prompted the girls to make non-sense back and forth trips
so they could walk behind me, just 3 feet away, and they could see what I was working on
and I could see their reflection on my laptop
their eyes wide
lips lightly parted

it was a piece of cake guys!!!
when you introduce yourself to them in your heavily accented Russian
they almost swoon
then when they respond in English to you
and you say something clever and charming in mid-Atlantic US English
and you watch their faces flush and turn red
and you realize they probably "just came"
you have them TOTALLY HOOKED now!

you wanna know what I used to like them to do
lay in my lap naked
while I held them
in front of a fireplace with burning oak and pine
while reading Keats to them
until they fell asleep
and I'd pick them up and take them to bed
both of us naked
and spoon with them
to keep warm
having a Ukrainian "bed warmer" is very handy for those cold, winter nights

once you get a women to accept going on a date with you
then do the next step however you want,
I always chose to cook the first meal I eat with an FSU woman MYSELF!!
why?
because yet another 100% score here, oh my brothers!!!
cuz lemme tell ya cuz’
you cook for ANY FSU woman
and on FREAKING TOP OF THAT!
it’s the best tasting gourmet meal she could ever imagine
100% guaranteed you will be having sex
after the third glass of Moldovan or Massandra

I'm just tell ya'll the way it "used to be" "back in the day"
cuz
that whole period of history
will be over and done with
6 months from now
when we get 100,000 infections per day
in the second peak

meanwhile simple mathematical relationship between employment figures, hence the economy, and the infection rate
inverse exponential relationship

how fast and how much the virus goes up
is proportional to how much and how fast the economy will come down

I am EXTREMELY DISMAYED to not NOT SEE any steps being taken to protect critical infrastructure in the USA, none, zero, WTF?
so what's gonna happen 6 months from now when food and medical distribution supply chains face shutdowns due to high rates of worker infections
from a MUCH MORE SERIOUS second peak infection
that is likely to begin just 13 weeks from now
with the start of flu season

I mean WTF is wrong with ya'll
ya'll are doin the EXACT OPPOSITE of whatcha should be doin!!!
if I see the image at tonight's Trump's Nuremberg Rally with thousands of maskless people all shouting "hail Trump"
in an enclosed stadium together
I am just going to hit my head against the wall
over and over
until this behavior makes sense to me


so yeah, that's right, while the USA is now heading into ITS HIGHEST PEAK YET!!!!
Trump wants to hold a maskles rally of 20,000 to 30,000 loyal koolaid drinkers
to help pass the koolaid to their family and friends

so, yeah, this winter, ya'll are gonna have to live with
100,000+ Corona cases per day
plus
200,000+ influenza cases per day

in no time, ICU utilization goes to 100%
and triage has to be used
based on having the highest number of survivors
older patients. generally are considered to have lower survival probability
so if there is competition for a particular medical resource
this protocol demands it goes to the younger, healthier patient who has a higher chance of survival

it's likely that everyone in the USA will be floating in this leaking boat this winter
no matter where you live

happy I have a new fireproof roof
 

 but OMG
you guys really don't see what's coming?

[Gator]

so yeah, why not just say the struggle is over freedom
so much easier to get folks to die for this
instead of saying, "the crown doesn't permit me to do this business, or taxes my business too much, so I wanna fight"

wars are fought for practical reasons, not ideas, the ideas are always the cover story

If you had higher principles, you might understand. 

[krimster2]

and what I'm trying to tell ya, is that the "higher principles" is all a scam to get serfs like you to die for them
where was Trump when you were "in country"??

the higher principle is always power

[Confederate]

and what I'm trying to tell ya, is that the "higher principles" is all a scam to get serfs like you to die for them
where was Trump when you were "in country"??

the higher principle is always power

Aren’t you so very very special?

Not really, in fact Gator hit the nail on the head.

[msmob]

Aren’t you so very very special?

Not really, in fact Gator hit the nail on the head.

Explain, your 'conclusion', please

[Trenchcoat]

and what I'm trying to tell ya, is that the "higher principles" is all a scam to get serfs like you to die for them
where was Trump when you were "in country"??

the higher principle is always power

I agree, it's why if I worked in the NHS at the start of this pandemic I would walk. The gov here don't care about NHS staff though they say to the contrary of course. NHS staff don't owe anything to anyone though of course they have it put upon them public duty, etc by the media, work colleagues, NHS organisation and the community. Truth is their contact says they can walk at anytime giving due notice and their is nothing in there beyond that other than a labour for wages deal.

I know the gov don't really value working people. That was shown here in recent days when student nurses that broke off from their studies to work a six month service to help desk with Coronavirus got told it was going to end in three months leaving them high and dry without pay, etc. Only a social outcry made the gov back down but it shows what those in power are like. I believe most of those in power behave the same, doesn't matter which party is in power.

In School all of us plebs get it ingrained in us to not lie and not cheat and get punished for doing so, it's heavily stressed. Yet how many people in top positions in power have been caught lying & cheating? How much off that goes on with those in the classes of power but we never find out about? I'm guessing a lot does. The funny thing is those in power only know that lying and cheating works so well for them only when all of us plebs are brainwashed into not doing the same. If we all went out lying and cheating they wouldn't get the easy power over us they crave, winning and being in power is what matters to them. Incidentally if someone who is not of their class is found doing the same lying and cheating they are it is heavily stamped upon, they can't risk everyone joining in on the same gravy train or it would no longer work for them. They count on the general population to go out fulfill some pointless tedious job, get scant pay and pay homage to them. The more lucky ones of us get a pleasant enough lifestyle but that's nothing compared to what they enjoy all for little to no work.

[Gator]

and what I'm trying to tell ya, is that the "higher principles" is all a scam to get serfs like you to die for them
where was Trump when you were "in country"??

Don't deflect this to Vietnam and Iraq wars.   Let's talk about wars that made America. 

the higher principle is always power

In your mind because of your personal values.   We are all different here, and you have revealed your set of personal values in a thousand posts. 

During the Revolutionary War, you are correct that about one-fifth of the American colonialists were focused on power, retaining power. They were called Tories.  They lost,  and moved to Canada, Bermuda, elsewhere.
 
Examine the Founding Fathers.  So you believe in the war for independence from the King the following:

       -  George Washington was duped by a young Alexander Hamilton into fighting for eight years and staying away from his beloved Mt. Vernon?  How do you explain the fact that after the war when forming a new government, Washington declined the immense power offered to him.

       -  Thomas Jefferson was in it for the money when he was already a billionaire in today's money?  He was already enjoying life as a brilliant renaissance man?  Don't confuse developing greatness with greed and power grabbing. 

Yes, there were former serfs who fought the King.  Consider what compelled them and their forefathers to move from Europe and start a new life in the New World.  They were persecuted religious sects.  They were indentured servants.  They were landless serfs.  Some opportunists may have organized their immigration, yet once here they wanted independence.   

When young, your education was not complete. 

[msmob]

Consider what compelled them and their forefathers to move from Europe and start a new life in the New World.  They were persecuted religious sects.

Gator, many were wacko zealots and you were welcome to them

[Confederate]

Don't deflect this to Vietnam and Iraq wars.   Let's talk about wars that made America. 


In your mind because of your personal values.   We are all different here, and you have revealed your set of personal values in a thousand posts. 

During the Revolutionary War, you are correct that about one-fifth of the American colonialists were focused on power, retaining power. They were called Tories.  They lost,  and moved to Canada, Bermuda, elsewhere.
 
Examine the Founding Fathers.  So you believe in the war for independence from the King the following:

       -  George Washington was duped by a young Alexander Hamilton into fighting for eight years and staying away from his beloved Mt. Vernon?  How do you explain the fact that after the war when forming a new government, Washington declined the immense power offered to him.

       -  Thomas Jefferson was in it for the money when he was already a billionaire in today's money?  He was already enjoying life as a brilliant renaissance man?  Don't confuse developing greatness with greed and power grabbing. 

Yes, there were former serfs who fought the King.  Consider what compelled them and their forefathers to move from Europe and start a new life in the New World.  They were persecuted religious sects.  They were indentured servants.  They were landless serfs.  Some opportunists may have organized their immigration, yet once here they wanted independence.   

When young, your education was not complete.

Two thumbs up! 👍 👍

Excellent summary Gator, thank you.

[2tallbill]

wars aren’t fought over freedom
that’s just the noble sounding cause you tell the foot soldiers
every war is always about power
but it’s hard to get other people to die for that
that’s why the fiction is needed

If you wrote that wars aren't started to protect freedom then
your point would be better made, because once invaded people
fight back for reasons unrelated to power.

[Gator]

Gator, many were wacko zealots and you were welcome to them

The huge tracts of land welcomed all, including prisoners of the Crown.

  Through the colonial history, Britain sent about 60,000 men, women, and children, who were considered ex-convicts, across the Atlantic

Prisoners of the Crown then were not so much hard criminals as destitute.