
Originally Posted by
Suburbanelite
Well, first, we know he's trying to suggest we aren't really free because our lives are limited to a certain pattern.
However, if you were completely free by whatever definition of free you like to use (even a guartz definition of free), what would you do?
Chances are you'd live by a certain comfortable pattern that's no more or less constricting than the one written on that wall.
First, we have to work. Whether we're capitalists, communists, or anarchists, we have to eat and live somewhere. Whether you grow your own food or barter with someone else for it, it has to happen somehow. We're bound to life and the restrictions of a living organism, so any defintion of free has to accomodate that.
Next, your kids should be educated somehow. Whether you do it yourself or let the government or a private school do it, its in your best interest to educate them. I'd imagine that a totally free individual would choose of their own free will to ensure their children's education.
As for following fashion and acting normal, there's plenty of people who do neither, and people really are free to do whatever they want in this regard. How "free" you are just depends on your own willpower and how much you care what others think.
Walking on the pavement is stupid, I'd walk on the sidewalk. Not because I'm made to, but because I want to stay alive and uninjured. A free person would probably make the same decision. Wild animals, perhaps the epitome of freedom, make natural decisions all the time based on their survival instinct. A free person could certainly choose to walk in front of a car, just because they can... but just because you can doesn't mean you should, and exercising restraint doesn't mean you're not free.
Watching TV is another thing that a free person may choose to do. Nobody is forcing you to watch TV, you do it because you want to.
Saving for old age is another example of prudent free-will choices. You have to work to live anyway, and its not government's fault. It's God's fault for making us need crap to survive.
Obeying the law is supposed to be for our own best interests as a society, but I'll admit there's plenty of examples of laws that may or may not really be in our best interest so I'll give him that. But as a society, we're probably better off with structure than without. The only complaint is about the exact nature of that structure, however the broad concept of "law" is not a bad one. In fact, if done right, it can allow us to be freer than we would under complete anarchy.