From: Bill Lucy 

In article ,
rgparker{at}west.net says...
MPG.1380e037f88a962098984f{at}news.barkto.com>, note these cogitations
> from blucy{at}mediaone.net Bill Lucy:
> > One, a recently published book -- "Unspeakable Acts,
Ordinary People: The
> > Dynamics of Torture" by John Conroy.
>
> How about that book that argued that ordinary Germans were involved in
> the Holocaust? Kinda similar theme in some respects.

I don't know of the book, but I wouldn't be surprised if the theme is the
same. We are all capable of being cruel. Many of us do it without thinking
that we are.

> >It involved an experiment done in the 80s with a 7th grade
> > social studies class in Connecticut. Almost everyone, including 7th graders
not
> > in the class, became involved in what to our eyes might be a mob action.
> >
> > It doesn't involve much abstraction to realize that the difference between
> > "thinking for yourself" and having someone think for
you are minor.
>
> How so? Seems like a big difference to me.

On a macro/societal level, just so. But an individual doesn't have that
context much of the time.

> > Of course, I think I'm free. But Juan Miguel Gonzalez also believes he is
free.
>
> You do not know that.

Juan Miguel has said on more than one occasion that he believes he is free.
I understand the difference between what someone says and what someone
actually believes, but I tend to trust what someone says. Others do not.

> > I'm not really sure that as individuals we are capable of determining
whether
> > we are free. Do you think you have the tools to do it?
>
> Bill, you have to define it first. Then ask yourself how you'd measure
> it.

> Look, one can define it all sorts of ways. But I'm wary of the sorts of
> definitions that seem to have as their purpose to obliterate more
> classical definitions. I have a rather Lockean and Enlightenment view of
> what constitutes freedom. If someone tells me I'm not free whereas by
> the definition I use (a political definition for the most part) I think
> I am then either they are using a different definition or one of us has
> our facts wrong.

I value much more the political definition rather than some moral
definition ("Freedom from Want" is just a Norman Rockwell
painting to me). I suspect that's pretty much your view. But it also means
I'd much rather focus on Algernon Sidney's close equivalence of freedom
with revolution -- from which Jefferson originally took his quote about the
need for our government to have a revolt every few years.

If "we" choose to revolt, we will for a time be in the grips of
totalitarianism
-- it's not possible to succeed without it. If we choose not to revolt, are we
truly "free"?

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5