[PowerLiam]

Hello fellow users,

I jotted this down a little while ago on an inspiration, and was wondering if anyone has any opinions about it. Do you agree? Disagree? Think I am the stupidest person on the planet? Short of that, I wont take offense.


"A tyrant and a man who wants liberty are exactly the same. For what is liberty but the state of answering to no one? And what is tyranny but the state of having no one above you to listen to? A tyrant is simply a man whose desire for freedom far exceeds his compatriots.

The implications of this to democracy are astounding. All that a democracy actually consists of are potential tyrants, subdued by a partial sense of the freedom they are driven towards. A democracy becomes a state where each person is appeased by his/her feeling of power and freedom.

This also explains why revolutions against a dictator often end with another dictator (French, Russian…). The reason that these people are rebelling is because of how highly they value their freedom and liberty. For this exact reason, they are the most likely to pose as tyrants after the revolution is completed, as they are the ones who don’t want anyone telling them what to do.

To conclude: Absolute freedom and Absolute control are one in the same, and the drive towards absolute freedom is what leads tyrants (dictators) to gain absolute control."


Thank you for reading, I hope you have insight into this point.

[benpenguin]

Very good points I think. Absolute freedom is a hyperbole.

As long as you are living in a society, you will interact with other people and you will need to give up some freedoms. If one has absolute freedom, it will mean trampling on somebody elses' freedoms.

In that sense, freedom is actually selfishness - which is human nature and doesn't actually need to be promoted. I would think "obligation to other people" will be a far more productive value in a society. Perhaps like in oriental cultures?

Also welcome to the forums.

[Joe Liberty]

Hello fellow users,

I jotted this down a little while ago on an inspiration, and was wondering if anyone has any opinions about it. Do you agree? Disagree? Think I am the stupidest person on the planet? Short of that, I wont take offense.


"A tyrant and a man who wants liberty are exactly the same. For what is liberty but the state of answering to no one? And what is tyranny but the state of having no one above you to listen to? A tyrant is simply a man whose desire for freedom far exceeds his compatriots."

I think there's an important difference that is being overlooked, and that is: a tyrant desires liberty for himself, but at the same time he desires to impose his will onto everybody else, whereas the man who desires liberty desires that same liberty for everybody else.

[Dagoth Ur]

That's a pretty big assumption right there. Most care about their own liberty first and if other people get liberty that doesn't infringe on their own, that's cool too. Most, as the world currently shows, would allow many to be imprisoned to preserve their own freedom.

[SolarCross]

True liberty comes from the abandonment of fear. A tyrant is the most fearful person of all. Fear and narcissism drive the tyrant to his crimes and more his crime the greater his fear becomes. There are really no people more thoroughly enslaved than the tyrant, enslaved to his own fear. If the tyrant desires liberty by his deeds then he truly is a fool.

[Dagoth Ur]

Isn't that all sweet and poetic. I wonder why taxizen is trying to make tyrants seem pitiable.

[Eran]

Freedom is the wrong focal point for discussion, because it is such a vague notion as to allow the likes of PowerLiam to confuse the peaceful libertarian with the democratic tyrant.

A more useful focal point, in my opinion, is the initiation of force (aka aggression).

A peaceful person doesn't initiate force against others (nor advocate for third parties such as government to do the same). An aggressor, whether a tyrant or a lowly police officer "just doing his job" is one who does initiate force against peaceful others.

"Freedom", properly understood, as the freedom from having aggression initiated against you. Not the freedom to do as you please. The two senses overlap when a person engages in a peaceful project. Within the confines of such a project, freedom from aggression is the same as freedom to do as you please.

[Joe Liberty]

That's a pretty big assumption right there. Most care about their own liberty first and if other people get liberty that doesn't infringe on their own, that's cool too. Most, as the world currently shows, would allow many to be imprisoned to preserve their own freedom.

The question was about tyrants, who take a bit more of an active role in imprisoning people than just "allowing" it to happen.