Classical Liberalism

[Zenith]

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.

If you know how to survive in a jungle (or, let's not be extremists... alone in a region, like a mountain, an isle) then you can be alone and live there.
And, in another manner of speaking, you are always free to do whatever you want - as we don't say things like "I don't have the freedom to fly like superman!" - the reason being that everybody allows you to do so. But when we talk about "freedom" I guess we usually refer to things that other people allow us to do.

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...

In another manner of speaking, everybody always had the freedom of speech. Only that some were butchered, burnt at the stake, stoned, etc. when they did that. Yet, because "freedom" mostly (or always) refers to what others allow you to do, many people in many places had not and now have not the "freedom" to speak contrary to the religion of the land (because they were & are killed if they did/do that).

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.

Actually I believe it sets in immediately: once the majority sees their beliefs everywhere. There needn't be a guy shown on TV declaring that "most people believe X". Also, the spirit of the crowd is strictly related to leaders: you have a leader that is idolized by people (by most), and then, whatever that leader declares, the majority (his fans/worshipers) believe and apply, and they also despise, hate and even kill the minorities that do not idolize that leader and do not do the things the majority does.

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

If they can harm you if you are honest with everything and talking to everybody as to your close friends, then it means that you are being restricted the freedom of speech by the people around you.

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.

Metaphorically speaking... you know, lion = strong, fearful, leader; fox = uses tricks and stuff, is cunning. By the way, that saying belongs to Niccolò Machiavelli (if you were curios).
And "inspire fear" does not mean "to everybody", but to those that hate you only. For instance, a king can be loved by his friends and by the people and feared by his enemies (they think thrice before attempting anything).

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?

Yeah, and even in anarchy the freedom is restricted - and what kind of "freedom" is that, which is restricted?

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...

I know, and that's the BIG problem. Tolerance will always and only be when people are the same - which is done by indoctrination, extermination of the minorities, etc. and minorities (which are different) will ALWAYS appear. So "tolerance" is yet another foolish dream: there can never be tolerance among people. You always tolerate people that do the things that you agree with, and there are always things you do not agree with, so you are always intolerant to people that do things that you do not agree with.

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

I am not free to butcher the lot of them. BUT, if there was a button that, if pressed, would destroy the whole earth with all of its inhabitants, and I would be physically capable of pushing it, then I would have the freedom to kill everybody (but, as about them, they would not have the freedom to live, in this way). But, as things are currently, I cannot say that "I do not have the freedom to kill everybody", because it's improper. The correct words are "I'm incapable of killing everybody".

And that panda was not free to eat, because he was not allowed by his 'master' (his master could have denied it from him any time he wanted).