bits of wisdom

What is freedom? What is democracy. Before I answer these questions I tell you a few words about modern societies.

I don't believe in organized conspiracies, because for what would anybody need them. Things are going to a certain direction by itself, if there are enough people, whose personal interest is in question.

Politicians, the police, the media and the voters form a whole whose parts interact with each other.

Politicians need the media to get into power and stay there. The police need politicians to obtain more resources and power. The media require the police to obtain news of accidents and crimes. The police need the media to maintain a positive public image. Businesses need the media in order to sell their products. Citizens are a motor that rotates the wheels of the system by voting in elections.

The one who plays the best, increase their share of power.

This does not apply to common citizens because the citizens have nothing to gain. They have only to lose - namely freedom. The only ones who can win in this game, are the politicians and the police. Media is just a merchant who make a profit by selling the hangman the rope, to which it is eventually hanged.

In order to understand the current world you should keep in mind the law of nature, according to which the limited resources will inevitably lead to competition, and in the competition those who are the strongest will win. Thus, the resources - be it economic power or political power, or just about anything - simply pile up to a small minority. One percent of the U.S. population owns nearly forty percent of the property, and the concentration of property in few hands is still going on. (The law of nature)

If you try to remove economic inequalities by political measures, it may happen that an apparently economic equality is achieved yes, but after that one per cent of population owns 99 per cent of political power. The result is an equality of misery. North Korea is a living example. Economic equality can not be maintained except in extreme duress.

The accumulation of power in few hands has a tedious feature that, if the accumulation is prevented in some sectors, the power searches for new channels and begins to pile up in some other area. Power greedy people go to where power is available. If this is not noticed, the dictatorship comes to a society via a side entrance.

Aren't we living in a democratic society. Doesn't it prevent all kind of aspirations to dictatorships by nature. It depends what kind of democracy we are talking about.

Totalitarian democracy is a system in which the majority, either directly or through their representatives, have the absolute authority to adopt rules which also the minority must be respected.

In equality-based democracy, no one has the right to impose or to subject anyone, but anyone has the right to prevent the subjugation.

The difference between totalitarian democracy and equality-based democracy is that in a totalitarian democracy, the value of individual freedom is zero, but in the gender-based democracy, it is infinite. This makes democracies very different. The modern state systems represent a totalitarian democracy – some more, some less. Sometimes, however, has been a different ideal of democracy.

The French Declaration of Human Rights, which was published in 1789, begins its finding of that "people are born and live in freedom, and they have the same rights." The declaration specifies the society to safeguard human freedom. It also sets out that "freedom means the power to make any kind of things, which do not harm other people."

In his book "On Liberty", published in 1859, English philosopher John Stuart Mill pointed out originally the idea of freedom, which he said was already in jeopardy. He wrote: The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle...” and this principle is that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.”

The current state is a travesty of the original thought of freedom. Although the freedom of people should be irrevocable birthright, politicians cut slices of it like it was a low-priced sausages. Any criterion, which members of parliament happen to invent, is valid.

We need to begin a political campaign to stop our society becoming a totalitarian police state and dictatorship. Let's find an equality party and fight for freedom. That honorable word is strongly undervalued.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man, which was approved 225 years ago in France, states that people are born and live in freedom and have the same rights. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else.

In the spirit of this declaration and the freedom ideals of the age of Enlightenment, English philosopher John Stuart Mill – who is also known as a defender of women's rights as well as freedom of expression and freedom of religion - summed up the essence of freedom in his book “On Liberty”. He wrote that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.

The Declaration of of the Rights of Man was inspired by the United States Declaration of Independence, which stated that all men are created equal, and that they have certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

United Nations Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 is based on the original Declaration of the Rights of Man, but it has been watered down from the original edition. Although it states that people are born free, it does not mention that people should also live in freedom. The Declaration does not define what freedom is, so each dictator can define it as he wants.

The principle of the inviolability of the liberty of citizens is no longer recognized. Freedom of the individual is no longer relevant. The imagined interest of individual - and in many cases actually only imagined - is considered sufficient reason to violate his freedom. Parliament enacts laws, which reduce the freedom of people to decide their own affairs. Citizens' personal freedom, which the major philosophers and statesmen a couple of hundred years ago defined as an inviolable fundamental right, is being sold by politicians like slices of cheap sausage. (Half-naked politics)

Extreme leftist, who want to establish communism and totalitarianism, do not appreciate the true freedom of the individual, because the pursuit of happiness - such as the The Declaration of Independence says – leads to economic disparities. Some are always more successful than others in seeking to achieve happiness. Individual freedom will also frustrate attempts to create socialism, because free men are unwilling to submit to the socialist system. They vote with their feet if nothing else helps . This is why socialism always includes suppression of freedom and erection of walls. Socialist model also includes the notion that a private citizen does not need a personal freedom, because he cannot use it properly. He is not able to decide what is good for him, and what is good for the society. Decisions must therefore be made by the political minority and elite, which knows what is best for all. There are lot of examples of the kind of happiness what socialist societies can achieve, but still many people believe in them.

The concept of Liberty is so old and so common that even the socialists have not been able to totally abandon it. They have come up with a new definition of freedom, "freedom to something " - as opposed to the old definition "freedom from something”. In literature the names are positive liberty and negative liberty. The later is of course not real freedom. It is more a possibility to something.

The socialist way of thinking has crept insidiously in activities of non socialist states. The technique is the same, with which the Soviet dictatorship was justified . All restrictions were intended only for the happiness of people, even though people did not always get it.

When the value of the freedom of the individual is close to zero, and when the right to security has been increased at the highest value of society, liberties can be taken away from the people completely arbitrary. Even a small improvement in the theoretical security allows the massive reduction of individual freedom.

Society has become a totalitarian dictatorship of security in which a small clique of politicians and authorities has the sovereign right to decide what are the security issues, and after that decision it has the sovereign right to use coercion in these "security issues". Security* is the magic word with which the democratic debate is silenced. National security, the security of individuals, the security of Internet - any one of these is a sufficient reason to take off the last remnants of our freedom. And when this is happening, we are rejoicing and cheering and waving flags without noticing what is actually happening. And no deadline exists. This is going on and on. A small elite of better knowing people make compulsory laws in order to increase citizens' happiness. Actually such laws reduce happiness. The concept of "right to security " is an essential part of political liturgy nowadays, and it is used to fool people. When something is prohibited, it is said that the decision was necessary because of the people 's right to security. (Bottomless) * (sanottu vahingossa: Society)

Although the world has changed, I still appreciate the original freedom of the individual , and I believe that it is best realized in a democratic and equality based society. Not in a society in which somebody is pulling the strings behind the scenes to set up a dictatorship. None of the political parties seem realize this. The concept of liberty is not used in political speeches any more. The politicians do not promise more freedom. They promise more security. And this means dictatorship.

I am in favor of freedom, even though I know it is considered to be old-fashioned . I don't like uniforms. They are not symbols of freedom. (A few words about freedom)

Citizens' freedom has decreased and will decrease. The members of The Parliament are giving it away like they were in some kind of a trance. They think, that people have given them a commission to do that. This is a wrong idea. Even if the people had given a commission, it is worthless. Nobody has a right to make decisions in the name of others. Everybody can give a permission to take away his personal freedom, but nobody can give a permission to take away other person's freedom. This kind of a permission has no more value than a terrorist's bomb. The meaning of both these things is just to oblige and to oppress.

The last phase has been achieved in brain-washing and oppressing people. In the first phase the attempts to subjugate people lead to resistance. This kind of actions are not accepted. At the second phase attempts to oppress people lead to demands to justify the matter and to discuss about it. And finally in the third phase oppressed people are so totally under apathy, that the oppression does not produce discussion or any resistance. Humble and silent people accept all possible mad things, which are ordered. All think, that there is no point to talk about things, because it would not lead to anything. In this phase the oppressors are arrogant and full of feeling of the power. They subjugate people just because they enjoy to do so.

In this kind of a society we are living.