You can’t likely have no oppressors you dodo.
Let’s ignore for a second human nature and take another view- it’s the same as the tolerance paradox.
If you have no oppressors that requires oppressing those who would oppress.
The question has never really been about freedom- freedom itself is a paradox as true freedom is anarchy and anarchy is the law of nature- but like nature, chaos sorts itself out by natural order. Hierarchies are established from whatever the new status quo is.
More over, in a state of complete freedom you are not truly free- you only have the opportunity to be free because you can only do the things your own strength allows or others feel like using their freedom to assist you with.
Would you say a nation was free if upon going outside the police had a 50-100% chance of killing you on sight? In nature a bear or lion can do the same. So if you can’t go to get food without serious risk of being killed- does it matter if it is a pack of wolves or local police or a militia or a gang? The end result is that you don’t actually have freedom to conduct basic business freely.
This is really simple. The strong have the ability to allow the weak freedom discretionally.
If the most powerful person on earth wants something badly, they will use their power to get it, even if they must harm or restrict you. They will use their power to defend threats to their ability to live the life they want, and if you have something- it is largely just because they don’t want it. Not because you are free, but because you are unnoticed or un threatening.
Every revolution in history* has been out with the old tyrant, dictator, oppressor, and in with the new.
It isn’t so much a question of ending people being oppressed or exploited or left out and more a question of WHO gets exploited.
This is the nature of war. Given the choice between being at the mercy of another and having others be at our mercy, most will chose to the be the ones in charge.
Short of a complete change in the way humans think or some mechanism to control people at an internal level- you’ll always conceivably have people with mutually exclusive goals or stances that can’t or won’t be reconciled of compromised.
When it comes to that the outcomes are either if possible- no one gets what they want and everyone is unhappy, or someone gets what they want and is the “winner.”
For most people, especially that they feel strongly about or impacts their self interest greatly, they will not want to lose even if it means the other person does. They will want to have their way. The other party is likely the same. Unless forced- most people will not agree to a “lose/lose” scenario in arbitration. If it is lose/lose then logically the other party loses no matter what- but that is true from the perspective of both parties isn’t it? We have already established both parties cannot have what they want, and the only reason both parties must lose is for arbitrary sake of some concepts of “fairness.” Which most people will value their wants or especially needs over arbitrary fairness. Even if both do not, one likely will and if one will not stop until they win and the other will concede for morality or ethics- the one willing to win less “nobly” will tend to make all the decisions.
If the person making all the decisions has already shown They prize their interests above others or ethics- the rules and this the system they run on will reflect that and be stilted towards them and those like them. The only fairly consistently successful counter measure is for all sides to put forward the representative from their group most willing to do anything to win. Thusly power and politics tend to be full of the corrupt and unethical or those with flexible integrity because we tend to choose those people who have the most effective records of getting their way to represent us and in theory, get us our way. Of course tjst only works when what benefits is is of greatest benefit to that representative-
Because of course, someone who wins over all usually is motivated by personal interest so they will see to their own first.
If it is so old and well known- why does it repeat? Because of you mostly.
Because again- what is your alternative? Put you lot in and stale your lifestyle or even your life on someone who says they will gladly lose with their head held high because they can sleep with a clear conscience? If the other side has a mad dog tyrant who will lie and cheat and steal to get their way and has done well at it, you’re going to throw a boyscout into the fight and say “the things inwant and need, I might not get with this person, but I’ll know I took the high road…”
No. You’ll elect a bully and a cheat and a thief because even if they put theme laces first you’d rather get what little hood they may do you in your life than gamble in getting nothing from the person who plays nice. You will vote for the oppressor because wether you admit it or not, you’re on standing in other people to keep or improve your quality of life and your families. You want the leader that will do the things that keep you living that way and you don’t want a “fair” world, you want a world that feels fair TOWARDS YOU.
Let’s ignore for a second human nature and take another view- it’s the same as the tolerance paradox.
If you have no oppressors that requires oppressing those who would oppress.
The question has never really been about freedom- freedom itself is a paradox as true freedom is anarchy and anarchy is the law of nature- but like nature, chaos sorts itself out by natural order. Hierarchies are established from whatever the new status quo is.
More over, in a state of complete freedom you are not truly free- you only have the opportunity to be free because you can only do the things your own strength allows or others feel like using their freedom to assist you with.
This is really simple. The strong have the ability to allow the weak freedom discretionally.
If the most powerful person on earth wants something badly, they will use their power to get it, even if they must harm or restrict you. They will use their power to defend threats to their ability to live the life they want, and if you have something- it is largely just because they don’t want it. Not because you are free, but because you are unnoticed or un threatening.
It isn’t so much a question of ending people being oppressed or exploited or left out and more a question of WHO gets exploited.
This is the nature of war. Given the choice between being at the mercy of another and having others be at our mercy, most will chose to the be the ones in charge.
Short of a complete change in the way humans think or some mechanism to control people at an internal level- you’ll always conceivably have people with mutually exclusive goals or stances that can’t or won’t be reconciled of compromised.
When it comes to that the outcomes are either if possible- no one gets what they want and everyone is unhappy, or someone gets what they want and is the “winner.”
If it is so old and well known- why does it repeat? Because of you mostly.
Because again- what is your alternative? Put you lot in and stale your lifestyle or even your life on someone who says they will gladly lose with their head held high because they can sleep with a clear conscience? If the other side has a mad dog tyrant who will lie and cheat and steal to get their way and has done well at it, you’re going to throw a boyscout into the fight and say “the things inwant and need, I might not get with this person, but I’ll know I took the high road…”