Classical Liberalism

[Violet]

I meant something a bit different. Besides of the fact that I should have said "alone in the jungle" rather than simply "in the jungle" (that's because a society can exist in a jungle too).

Alone in the jungle, you still rule all of that which you have power over. And you cannot be alone in a jungle.

You know, there are a lot of things you are not allowed to do (which is called, restricted freedom). As an extreme example we know that "if you kill, you will be punished". So, do you have the freedom to kill? No, It's prohibited! So you don't have the freedom to do what you want. (Don't understand me wrong, I don't want to kill anybody).

One could say that I infact do have the freedom to kill. Is it a restriction of movement to shoot someone after they move? No, it is a consequence of movement. Restriction is prevention. I was inaccurate above when I used it to mean 'consequence'. Anyway, this is pedantry on my part, I'm moving on...

There are also more important things than that above: First off, there is the "spirit of the crowd" - i.e. every man has the strong tendency to behave and believe the same as the main group does (which goes against individualism) - the same way fashion works too. And what happens if somebody does not want to follow the crowd? He is regarded as an alien at best - the worst case is when he's surrounded by idiots - idiots are, by 'nature', intolerants.

Rather, at first it is the main group that is comprised of the most common set of beliefs and behavior of the individuals. The above only sets in after a enough time passes with that group as the common group.

Also, many times, for many persons - perhaps it also depends on the region you live in - you cannot manifest yourself the way you are, but only among friends - because there are idiots that listen carefully to what everyone is saying and everyone is doing and say it to all others, many even twisting how things are - and you don't desire somebody making you a bad reputation based on crap; there are also people that seek weak spots in others and try to exploit them, people that for no reason seek to do evil to others, people that have foolish reasons for hating you (many times, envy - even if the cause of envy is that you're doing fine and they don't) and therefore seek to do evil to you, and all kinds of things.

I have a reason to do all of these things to people: self interest. You can always 'manifest' yourself as you are... but it would be foolish to dream there would be no consequences for honesty where there is only delusion and lie

And the things get to be as the saying: "One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves."
That's a kind of... staying among potential enemies, people whose purpose in life is not necessarily (or, quite) to do good to everybody else and to treat nicely everybody and to help others, etc.

One need not be a fox to detect danger nor a lion to inspire fear.

One also has the prohibition to speak his mind: many times you can't say to an imbecile: "You're an imbecile!" because he may do to you a lot of trouble afterwards (in real life, I'm not speaking about forums and stuff). And people love you if you agree with them (with what they believe, with what they say, with what they do) and dislike you (some even hate you) if you disagree with them (with what they believe, with what they say, with what they do). To a drunk man or a very angry man you cannot speak reason. To idiots you can't speak reason, either, because they despise it and are only attracted by mockery, basic needs, fashion and their idols (idols = people that they overly appreciate and see their words as divine words - of absolute truth and authority).

So where the HELL is the freedom of speech, if you must watch every word you say?

I did say that even in anarchy there are laws, did I not?

Where is tolerance, if the idiots hate anybody that is different than themselves (and as a result, they do not tolerate them)? If some people see thing X as evil and disgusting and other people see the same thing X as good and pleasant, how can there be tolerance among them? well, if all people were good-intended, nice, kind, and wise, there could be tolerance, or a resolution of how thing X really is, but most people are not so at all.

There is no tolerance of difference where all must be the same Plenty of tolerance to similarity though...

Where is the freedom of individual, if the society attempts to make people be in the same way (to believe the same things, to do the same things, etc.) and when the "spirit of the crowd" is pushing every individual to the main group, to be just like all the rest (where he loses his individualism)?

Where the individual decides it to be. Are you free to butcher the lot of them? WELL ARE YOU?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O_IQ__zwB8