>"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings."

Freedom must be fought for an earned. We can talk about rights but the fact remains that those with the means can and will try to subvert you if it threatens their power structure.

yeah but you need to use words other than freedom and tyranny which have too many meanings/senses depending on who's using it

Megatron did nothing wrong

>>9850737
How about this one

The selection of the ruler by the people is not exclusive for democracy. Though history th people helped changing rulers by supporting coups.
In the other side, the influence of people in the everyday decisions is pretty much the same both in tiranny and in democracy.

so there is nothing special about democracy, if not its weakness, namely inauthenticity.

Not my opinion, by the way

>>9850778
Do you even know what democracy is, m8?

Starscream did nothing wrong

Read an interesting thing earlier about Simone Weil and rights and obligations in another threrad earlier today. Wish I could find it.

>>9850782
It's a system where the people elect politicians who act on behalf of their financiers who are unaccountable to the people.

>>9850741
this

>>9850741
Would it help to reduce the scope of those terms to point out that the proponents of 'freedom' come from a proletarian and academic class and the proponents of 'tyranny' come from a military and intelligence class?

>>9853819
I suppose it is a start depending on what you are trying to show/demonstrate.

>>9850910
w r o n g

>>9850910
Congratulations, you just described a republic.

>>9850737
Really, a "right" is just wishful thinking and posturing. Like most things, it practically doesn't exist (I don't mean this as abstractions don't exist, I this abstraction has no effect on the world, it amounts to fanfiction). Even so-called "human rights" are completely ignored and broken daily, they're not even taught to the world. They don't pose a valid dichotomy because they're essentially meaningless words. Most complex lifeforms are "sentient", at least scientifically but many will not include them, others will. Freedom, right, peace, tyranny, sentient - are all far too vague and basically meaningless for this purpose.

>>9850740
this
Also "freedom" itself is usually used in more narrow, contextual ways. Are you free if you escape society to live in the wilderness, only to slowly die in fear because you don't have the body or skills to sustain yourself? Or perhaps you do have the body and skills but sustaining yourself takes your entire day, you are forced to do things to survive, so much so that your entire life is just that. Is being a NEET in an easy-mode society, where you just shitpost on 4chan and pursue your hobbies all day, more free than being in the wilderness surviving? What if you kill someone to gain freedom but then you are put in jail for life for the murder, then you are mysteriously freed from jail and back to where you were? You might not be able to foresee the paths you can take in your life. Which is the one that grants the most "freedom"? Maybe certain kinds of freedoms are more useful than others to your personally. Maybe having vast land and restrictions on your person is preferable to living in a cramped city with less restrictions on your person. It seems freedom can only be talked of in a vague sense without context and specifics.

>>9855068
Good post.

File: 1449543749281.jpg (440KB, 1928x2832px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 1928x2832px

>>9855068
>mfw my boss just tells people 'we don't have enough manpower for our employees to take breaks' and acts like this somehow solves the problem that, legally, after a certain shift length, people are required to get some kind of break
>mfw he doesn't make people sign waivers
>mfw he hasn't been sued for violating labor laws in the year I've worked for him despite this and a corroded fire extinguisher with a rusted out bottom being the only flame retardant on the premises of the establishment
>mfw American