[SpiderMonkey]

Most people don't want and couldn't handle more liberty than they have in western society. Give a person a degree of control over their workplace, or a direct and regular vote on local and national political issues, and they would not know what to do with themselves. They would immediately look for someone to take responsibility for such things away from them.

So for people to become more free, they would have to change in someway - and frankly most people aren't inclined to change. So how do you instigate such change in people without using force, taking action which would eliminate freedom in the name of creating it.

(no ideological posts pls, I posted this outside the ideology subforums for a reason)

[Zyx]

This relates with the interesting sociological phenomenon of 'certification,' without a doubt. Certification, the bureaucratic establishment that restricts the unable, according to certificates of ability, from particular activities, is a product of our economic system which, because society needs to be divided into echelons in order for society's labour to be divided, is taught as natural to the population in order for them to self-divide, sometimes against their interests. So, in a sense, to answer your question, without ideological appeal mind you, in order to make people confident one must destroy certification along with capitalism as capitalism, as now practiced, requires it. This is no ideological affront insomuch as it is a realization to the implications of a particular economic system on a people's mentality. If certification appeared in another economic system, it'd be bad as well.

[Average Voter]

Create a community group which focuses on such social work. Go on the streets, go to peoples houses or invite them over, talk to them, inspire them, convince them of the greatness of independence and self-confidence. If what you are offering is what the people are looking for then it will create an outbreak of change. People need to know what is right when giving responsibility to comfortably make decisions. Teach people what is right, and why it is right, and how to use that knowledge to handle responsibility.

[canadiancapitalist]

Liberty is not doing whatever you want. The fact that you are prohibited from shooting someone in the face, for example, does not infringe upon your liberty. Liberty means the freedom to do what you want, with the things you own and the primary expression of this is of course self ownership.

[SpiderMonkey]

Certification, the bureaucratic establishment that restricts the unable, according to certificates of ability, from particular activities, is a product of our economic system which, because society needs to be divided into echelons in order for society's labour to be divided, is taught as natural to the population in order for them to self-divide, sometimes against their interests.

I wouldn't be so broad applying that principle myself - what keeps me from being a professional footballer or a concert pianist has nothing to do with capitalism. Some division of labour is necessary for complex society, but it doesn't have to mean an unequal division of power. Just because the division of labour in capitalist workplaces and societies is painfully absurd, does not mean the concept itself has to be thrown out completely.

[Zyx]

I wouldn't be so broad applying that principle myself - what keeps me from being a professional footballer or a concert pianist has nothing to do with capitalism.

Is this a genetic argument, my friend? If not, then what do you mean? Do you mean that your can not become a professional football player because schools instead of businesses choose who joins lower tier football games and the scouting is done thereof? I do not understand what you can mean that capitalism has nothing to do with your chances of being professional without academics. Do you mean that you can not train to be dexterous? As far as I am concerned, your will to be dexterous or wise has to do much with your upbringing which is very much influenced by who the leaders of our society are. One without economic opportunities surely would not choose to focus on academics if one is at all realistic.

Some division of labour is necessary for complex society

The division of labour and the expertise of labour are separate notions, I am afraid. This is why the original Americans were so interesting: one could have been a statesperson, lawyer, poet and scientist, like Benjamin Franklin, and no one would claim him or her obsolete or unwise to diversify. Granted, this seems not to do with capitalism, but this 'seem' assumes that capitalism has no internal structure to it. That is, that capitalist try not to safeguard their superior status through the creation of institutions or myths for that purpose. Yet, this myth creation is why 'freedom' is so limited. People are deluded into believing that certificates merit qualifications, despite certificates being a false aspect of society only introduced for the purpose of ensuring power is maintained by those who have it. England once was a society where a good many of the population were doctors or medicine people; the doctors convened to control who could become a doctor and hence many became illegitimate practitioners. Just the same, Med school has a difficult test in order for doctors to not be threatened with their positions. Certification has to do with establishing power and discouraging people, but more importantly, capitalism has its aspect with control of power, hence the two go hand in hand and are inseparable.

Just because the division of labour in capitalist workplaces and societies is painfully absurd, does not mean the concept itself has to be thrown out completely.

This is precisely it, though. Modern capitalism is a system that exists only to protect its upper echelons. This protection has to do with limited freedom. If you want freedom then you break away from capitalism. So long as capital justifies power over others, institutions and myths will be created in order to discourage people from being free and encourage them towards being divided and weak, hence the many evils of the world.

[Dr House]

Liberty is not doing whatever you want. The fact that you are prohibited from shooting someone in the face, for example, does not infringe upon your liberty. Liberty means the freedom to do what you want, with the things you own and the primary expression of this is of course self ownership.

He asked for no ideological posts.

[canadiancapitalist]

His very question was ideological. It's sort of like being slapped in the face and then your opponent saying "no slapsies". Anyway that's like saying "no moral arguments". What is an amoral argument? What is a non ideological posts? Who says posters are bound by arbitrary rules created by the O.P.? Who says my post was ideological?

[SpiderMonkey]

Liberty is not doing whatever you want. The fact that you are prohibited from shooting someone in the face, for example, does not infringe upon your liberty. Liberty means the freedom to do what you want, with the things you own and the primary expression of this is of course self ownership.

This post is ideological in that you assert a concept of liberty which is fairly well confined to your ideological corner, along with the concept of personal rights stemming from property rights - another thing others consider ridiculous.

Is this a genetic argument, my friend? If not, then what do you mean?

I mean that there are some things I lack the talent for, and it isn't caused by the environment. I was encouraged both to play football and take up the piano by parents and teachers - I sucked ass at both in quite spectacular fashion. Without some quite scary transhumanist technology that is outside the scope of this thread, I cannot be 'freed' from these deficiencies. What I can be freed from is notion that the footballer or the pianist deserves to earn orders of magnitude more money than I do.

The division of labour and the expertise of labour are separate notions, I am afraid. This is why the original Americans were so interesting: one could have been a statesperson, lawyer, poet and scientist, like Benjamin Franklin, and no one would claim him or her obsolete or unwise to diversify. Granted, this seems not to do with capitalism, but this 'seem' assumes that capitalism has no internal structure to it. That is, that capitalist try not to safeguard their superior status through the creation of institutions or myths for that purpose. Yet, this myth creation is why 'freedom' is so limited. People are deluded into believing that certificates merit qualifications, despite certificates being a false aspect of society only introduced for the purpose of ensuring power is maintained by those who have it. England once was a society where a good many of the population were doctors or medicine people; the doctors convened to control who could become a doctor and hence many became illegitimate practitioners. Just the same, Med school has a difficult test in order for doctors to not be threatened with their positions. Certification has to do with establishing power and discouraging people, but more importantly, capitalism has its aspect with control of power, hence the two go hand in hand and are inseparable.

But without official certification, how are people who have chosen not to train medically tell a doctor from a quack? Also, as someone currently retraining as a scientist, I feel that with the complexity science has acquired over the past 200 years Benjamin Franklin would not have been able to be compently mix his disciplines so easily these days.

How, then, is society to judge expertise in labour without certification?

This is precisely it, though. Modern capitalism is a system that exists only to protect its upper echelons. This protection has to do with limited freedom. If you want freedom then you break away from capitalism. So long as capital justifies power over others, institutions and myths will be created in order to discourage people from being free and encourage them towards being divided and weak, hence the many evils of the world.

Coming back to the main topic; I can see how universities giving degrees in 'golf course management' to middle class kids and this then giving them access to management positions over smarter, more able working class kids, is diminishing their freedom - but it seems a fairly specific example of it. The fact is most people in such system would not know what to do with themselves if such a system were to collapse overnight and the reigns of industry and politics be given directly to the people - thus massively demotivating them to push for any kind of change in society. People are dependent on institutions such as certification, because they want to shift the responsibility on to someone else and thus toss power away whenever they get it. The only people willing to hold on to such power are those who certainly shouldn't have it.

[QatzelOk]

Just because the division of labour in capitalist workplaces and societies is painfully absurd, does not mean the concept itself has to be thrown out completely.

The married father of five who turns bolts all day for General Motors is free to turn those bolts however his boss tells him to.

And then, after his shift, he's free to buy whatever products are made available to him by merchants, and he's free to desire any products that have been implanted in his mind by commercial advertising.

The native Americans were relatively free compared to the euros who genocided the Americas, and so they had to go.

European Judeo-Christian society isn't freedom based, it's slavery based. Don't ever forget where you come from, Spidey.

[Zyx]

I was encouraged both to play football and take up the piano by parents and teachers - I sucked ass at both in quite spectacular fashion.

I can not understand how one can 'suck ass' at both of them. You do realize that no one is a 'natural' and those who excel practice much, right? Their commitment is strictly environmental, since no one is genetically endowed to pursue entertaining others. I will assume that you mean that you 'sucked ass' because there were others who were better than you and you'd prefer to read books on your free time: did you consider how often the kids who beat you at the game were at the park as opposed to inside the house reading? In High School, and probably still, I could type some 90 wpm, but this came from playing text games, not evolution.

But without official certification, how are people who have chosen not to train medically tell a doctor from a quack?

Word of mouth. See Imhotep or Hippocrates.

Also, as someone currently retraining as a scientist, I feel that with the complexity science has acquired over the past 200 years Benjamin Franklin would not have been able to be compently mix his disciplines so easily these days.

Benjamin Franklin was an avid reader on top of being an experimentalist. Furthermore, he was free to attend the most advanced lectures or read the most advanced (or classical) books on the subject. As in, one can self-teach oneself these sciences. There is nothing about sitting in a class four times a week and being tested at the end that is more informative than reading the textbook and reading another more specific one. Einstein, bless him, was certified, but not in everything that he commented on. Indeed, no one was certified in Quantum Mechanics until recently, and there is nothing intrinsic about Professors that relates with communicating materials. I forget whom, but it might have been Bohr who was completely self-taught from being a printer's apprentice.

More on science--as a fellow student of science--a lot of what one needs is the fundemental and the fundamentals are oftentimes recorded in textbooks. From the fundamentals, a wide variety of applications are allowable; moreover, one can diversify. For instance, as you should know, Thermal Dynamics has applications in chemistry (with chemical potentials,) biology (with the proportions related with the Boltzmann factor,) and Astrophysics (with the science of fermions.) To say that one knowing the sciences can not widely apply is to say that my Professor teaching basic Thermophysics is unqualified to teach the class (sort of--since it's broad) and could not move from his particularly subfield of . . . something to do with cold substances (I forget.)

In truth, one specific in Thermodynamics, could pick up a Biology textbook and see many familiar things (heck, that's what I did.) Furthermore, one doing Physics is not incapable of discussing Sociology [like we are doing.] Granted, we may not be as expertly as Sociologists, but that has to do with how much information we willfully consumed. A college degree is a symbol of having consumed much within a field and some without [liberal arts.] A graduate degree is a symbol of being able to produce within a field. Thereoretically, one who completes a college degree is on one's way to being able to produce within a field [they need more background and more experience producing (which relates with experiments oftentimes.)] However, at the heart of a college degree is consumption. This is what is limited because of the economic costs of colleges and this is maintained by our economy. Hence where as Benjamin Franklin started up Libraries in the U.S. and Ancient Egypt had large Libraries free for anyone's use, we can not be informed and guide ourselves because credentialism costs monies, so we don't act without the credentials that we can not afford. Therefore, we lack our freedoms due to credentialism a la capitalism. [Sorry, this was getting long, so I sort of jumbled it, you should be able to follow it, though.] Essentially, I can not act as a sociologist no matter how many books that I read unless I spend some 100,000 dollars to complete another degree. That's some ole bull.

The fact is most people in such system would not know what to do with themselves if such a system were to collapse overnight and the reigns of industry and politics be given directly to the people - thus massively demotivating them to push for any kind of change in society. People are dependent on institutions such as certification, because they want to shift the responsibility on to someone else and thus toss power away whenever they get it.

That is my point. People act according to the information that they have. Credentialism blocks information, and credentialism makes information meaningless to gain all it's own. Once upon a time, if one want to be a Physicist, one picked up Newton's manual, a critique thereof and requested monies for an experiment or made friends at some scientific society. Now, if I want to be a scientist, I have to pick up four years in college (and 5 years at Graduate School) at a economical expense. So, why should I even read science, if no matter my information, I won't be a scientist unless I commit, at least, four years to it? It's credentialism why people don't know what to do and why we are so largely ignorant. The capitalists want us to not know what to do and to be largely ignorant. Because then, as you say, "the only people willing to hold on to such power are those who certainly shouldn't have it[, the capitalists]."

[SpiderMonkey]

I can not understand how one can 'suck ass' at both of them. You do realize that no one is a 'natural' and those who excel practice much, right? Their commitment is strictly environmental, since no one is genetically endowed to pursue entertaining others. I will assume that you mean that you 'sucked ass' because there were others who were better than you and you'd prefer to read books on your free time: did you consider how often the kids who beat you at the game were at the park as opposed to inside the house reading? In High School, and probably still, I could type some 90 wpm, but this came from playing text games, not evolution.

No, seriously, you don't understand how badly I sucked. Genetics can't determine the content of your character but it has a fairly profound effect on whether or not you can kick a ball without falling on your arse. I have no regrets, and no envy; what David Beckham can do with a ball defies my level of coordination but I can solve the relevant equations of its motion and he almost certainly cannot.

Word of mouth. See Imhotep or Hippocrates.

This actually comes into the topic of the thread; word of mouth as we understand it in current society is crap at determining medical qualifications; hence why people go for 'alternative' medicine that doesn't do shit to help them. Given the liberty to decide which people claiming to be healers get funding, most people will quickly surrender that liberty to a certifying body or casually neglect it by going for new age rubbish that wouldn't cure a bunion.

Benjamin Franklin was an avid reader on top of being an experimentalist. Furthermore, he was free to attend the most advanced lectures or read the most advanced (or classical) books on the subject. As in, one can self-teach oneself these sciences. There is nothing about sitting in a class four times a week and being tested at the end that is more informative than reading the textbook and reading another more specific one. Einstein, bless him, was certified, but not in everything that he commented on. Indeed, no one was certified in Quantum Mechanics until recently, and there is nothing intrinsic about Professors that relates with communicating materials. I forget whom, but it might have been Bohr who was completely self-taught from being a printer's apprentice.

Quantum mechanics, as I can through recent experience testify, is a beautiful but mathematically punishing theory. Considering how hard I see law students at my university working, I find it difficult to believe anyone could become truly great at both. It is a rare and special individual that can be self-taught and competent - most are self-taught and retarded.

More on science--as a fellow student of science--a lot of what one needs is the fundemental and the fundamentals are oftentimes recorded in textbooks. From the fundamentals, a wide variety of applications are allowable; moreover, one can diversify. For instance, as you should know, Thermal Dynamics has applications in chemistry (with chemical potentials,) biology (with the proportions related with the Boltzmann factor,) and Astrophysics (with the science of fermions.) To say that one knowing the sciences can not widely apply is to say that my Professor teaching basic Thermophysics is unqualified to teach the class (sort of--since it's broad) and could not move from his particularly subfield of . . . something to do with cold substances (I forget.)

Oh, of course there is crossover in the sciences. My knowledge of atoms would give me a leg up into chemistry (although I might get uncomprehending looks when I mentioned the two completely different types of helium for instance, or implied all but two elements in the universe were called 'metals') but it still requires some training in science, and despite Carl Sagan's attempt to popularise the 'baloney detection kit' the vast majority of people are unwilling (rather than unable) to learn enough to distinguish bad science from good science.

In truth, one specific in Thermodynamics, could pick up a Biology textbook and see many familiar things (heck, that's what I did.) Furthermore, one doing Physics is not incapable of discussing Sociology [like we are doing.] Granted, we may not be as expertly as Sociologists, but that has to do with how much information we willfully consumed. A college degree is a symbol of having consumed much within a field and some without [liberal arts.] A graduate degree is a symbol of being able to produce within a field. Thereoretically, one who completes a college degree is on one's way to being able to produce within a field [they need more background and more experience producing (which relates with experiments oftentimes.)] However, at the heart of a college degree is consumption. This is what is limited because of the economic costs of colleges and this is maintained by our economy. Hence where as Benjamin Franklin started up Libraries in the U.S. and Ancient Egypt had large Libraries free for anyone's use, we can not be informed and guide ourselves because credentialism costs monies, so we don't act without the credentials that we can not afford. Therefore, we lack our freedoms due to credentialism a la capitalism. [Sorry, this was getting long, so I sort of jumbled it, you should be able to follow it, though.] Essentially, I can not act as a sociologist no matter how many books that I read unless I spend some 100,000 dollars to complete another degree. That's some ole bull.

There is some truth to that, although less so in places where education is government subsided. The problem we have here is that degrees are invented with no academic merit; I wasn't joking about 'golf course management'

That is my point. People act according to the information that they have. Credentialism blocks information, and credentialism makes information meaningless to gain all it's own. Once upon a time, if one want to be a Physicist, one picked up Newton's manual, a critique thereof and requested monies for an experiment or made friends at some scientific society. Now, if I want to be a scientist, I have to pick up four years in college (and 5 years at Graduate School) at a economical expense. So, why should I even read science, if no matter my information, I won't be a scientist unless I commit, at least, four years to it? It's credentialism why people don't know what to do and why we are so largely ignorant. The capitalists want us to not know what to do and to be largely ignorant. Because then, as you say, "the only people willing to hold on to such power are those who certainly shouldn't have it[, the capitalists]."

You'll get no argument from me on that, but I feel you are addressing a symptom rather than a cause. The corruption of education only one aspect of a system that engineers people into helplessness.

The married father of five who turns bolts all day for General Motors is free to turn those bolts however his boss tells him to.

And then, after his shift, he's free to buy whatever products are made available to him by merchants, and he's free to desire any products that have been implanted in his mind by commercial advertising.

The native Americans were relatively free compared to the euros who genocided the Americas, and so they had to go.

But the thing is, western man can know all of this, and be subject to all of this, and not want to leave any of it because furthering his liberty would be just too difficult.

European Judeo-Christian society isn't freedom based, it's slavery based. Don't ever forget where you come from, Spidey.

If Christian society listened to what Christ actually said, rather than what Paul and Constantine said, things might be very different.

[QatzelOk]

If Christian society listened to what Christ actually said, rather than what Paul and Constantine said, things might be very different.

The only Christian Society that was able to listen to what he said was the one that was around him when he was alive.

Dead prophets can never steer society.

[canadiancapitalist]

Dead prophets can never steer society.

Tell that to your friend Karl

[QatzelOk]

Karl's texts can only provide information, not direction.

And he actually wrote them himself, which means that the information in Marx's texts were intended to be read by future generations.

Whereas Jesus didn't write anything down, or commission anyone else to. This would indicate that his words were meant for his immediate audience and no one else.

[Zyx]

what David Beckham can do with a ball defies my level of coordination but I can solve the relevant equations of its motion and he almost certainly cannot.

He could probably learn how to.

As to my experience with sports, I am only bad because I do not play. Had I trained, I could likely have been dominant in many.

Given the liberty to decide which people claiming to be healers get funding, most people will quickly surrender that liberty to a certifying body or casually neglect it by going for new age rubbish that wouldn't cure a bunion.

I would not say as much. The 'quacks' are often family doctors, inexpensive family doctors. Essentially, the equivalent of heading to grandma because of a cold. It's not as if some people would not be proper medical practitioners without widespread certification, just that one wouldn't need to pay exorbitant fees for a check-up or something.

I am actually being fairly confused with "Madame Bovary." In that story, Charles is a certified medicine person but chances to perform a terrible surgery. He was not a qualified surgeon, but a big named surgeon was called in, according to his reputation in the medical community, to undue the errors that Charles did.

I mean, there are some merits to certificates, but an open and free society would likely have some mechanisms similar to certification [like peer review, vouchers or uncostly certificates.] Of course, I am not making my opposition to 'certification' as clear as I'd like. "Certification" is expensive and besides from the class/race/gender securities (or oppressions) implied, it truly is a discouragement to participate freely without certificates. For instance, some people chance to read economics for fun, but many do not because learning economics doesn't lead to any economical benefits in their lives unless they become certified through nine years of schooling. That's expensive (or at least tasking,) you get what I mean?

It is a rare and special individual that can be self-taught and competent - most are self-taught and retarded.

I wonder if this is a compliment or an insult. I joke.

Seriously, SpiderMonkey, I'd like to know what in particular makes you think that one can not self-teach a material to oneself. Furthermore, why can't one be informed at both law and quantum mechanics? I just do not get what is so incompatible about them [as in, why can't a person's brain maintain both.] I am very certain that if I wanted to double major with science and non-science, I very well could.

Also, on self-teaching, it's not as if without credentialism, there will not be 'sages' to consult about problems. I recently heard that either Stern or Gerlach had requested from Einstein to learn Physics and that, that was the story of that person's career. I mean, it's possible that they eventually soared through the trials for credentials, but it's not as if the certificate makes the knowledge or ensures as much. The certificate merely limits how much one can be a professional in--not assures.

despite Carl Sagan's attempt to popularise the 'baloney detection kit' the vast majority of people are unwilling (rather than unable) to learn enough to distinguish bad science from good science.

This relates to the thread, the 'why?' I propose that it has to do with no matter their interest in science, it's too large an investment to casually commit to. I mean, I have diverse interests, but once I graduate from University, it's off to Graduate School and from there my life is to science. This is a huge commitment. Had I not chosen the sciences to major in, then why would I be at all interested in fermions or spin-1/2 [I imagine that this is more particular than what Carl Sagan planned but it reflects on my recent learnings]? How does that knowledge help me in whatever other career that I would have had? On the other hand, what if I did not require nine years to get money for Astronomy. What if, instead, on my free time as a, say, geologist I could read on the recent Mars explorations and start making money through informed comments thereof with the help of free textbook readings? Wouldn't that be more of an encouragement, thus?

That's what I mean about 'credentialism,' it's much too expensive. After all, if I wanted to have a mastery of E&M, I would not need a courses in Thermo, Quantum Mechanics or advanced Classical Mechanics. To top that off, my degree comprises learning in Women's Studies, Sociology, French Culture and African History. My credentials for E&M are truly just expenses. Of course, and worse yet, without University, I would not have known as much, so I imagine that there are those who avoid looking into self-teaching E&M because they believe that University possesses some special powers with regards teaching them as much.

There is some truth to that, although less so in places where education is government subsided.

It's still expensive (with regards time) and unrewarding (with regards money,) hence discouraging for casual learning.

The corruption of education only one aspect of a system that engineers people into helplessness.

The system, though, is likely capitalism. Hence why my critique continuously evolves thereof. I do think that if information were free and one could contribute without committing many years and monies to something, people would think more diversely and more proudly of themselves. That we instead naturalize credentials as the justification of class differences, goes to show why we fall back to putting up class differences whenever given the opportunity to repeal them. It seemed unfocused, but I never lost sight of the OP.

Whereas Jesus didn't write anything down, or commission anyone else to. This would indicate that his words were meant for his immediate audience and no one else.

A brilliant position if any, QatzelOk. Your wisdom and intelligence is an inspiration continuously! I particularly like your method of not arguing 'existence' in order to evolve the argument into what had happened as opposed to the usual speculation. Fascinating!

POFO is great for things like this. These sort of threads are the ones to show one's children. Peaceful threads with open-minded people cognizant of the world and what it means. Thanks QatzelOk, SpiderMonkey and all of you others who are not either bitingly ignorant or bitingly rude.

[reddeath26]

Liberty is not doing whatever you want. The fact that you are prohibited from shooting someone in the face, for example, does not infringe upon your liberty.

I believe this falls into the social contract, whereby to gain certain rights you also cede others. While you give up the right to shoot someone in the face you gain the right to not be shot in the face yourself.

Liberty means the freedom to do what you want, with the things you own and the primary expression of this is of course self ownership.

So your implication is that freedom is only available to those who are able to afford the price tag?

[canadiancapitalist]

There aint no such thing as a free lunch, red death.

[reddeath26]

There aint no such thing as a free lunch, red death.

I would say yes and no to that. No in the sense that capitalism (which I assume you are hinting at) is not compatable and/or relevant to all cultures. Yes in the sense that there are other ways of contributing. This is shown quite commonly amongst the 4th world/small scale culture.