Freedom

[Slizor]

Since there is no good topics I thought I'd start one with a bit more intellectual flavour (which is not yet apparent.)

So, what is freedom?

[Adept-Omega]

At 10/17/03 03:42 PM, Slizor wrote: Since there is no good topics I thought I'd start one with a bit more intellectual flavour (which is not yet apparent.)

So, what is freedom?

It depends on what stand you take on the concept of freedom.

From a purely idealistic standpoint, freedom would be the free will to do whatever one wants with one's life without imposed forces.

From a more realistic standpoint, total freedom would be the ability to make any choices or preform any actions without external forces imposing on your ability to do so.

However, that is merely freedom of self. The best way to have freedom without imposing on the freedom of others is compromise -- I do not have freedom to murder someone, and therefor, I cannot remove their freedom to live forcibly, thus giving them freedom from murder. However, to have a system like this, you need an external force which will attempt to stop people from murdering and/or convict murderers. In that sense, equal freedom for everyone is not total freedom, but I'm certain we can agree that it is much better than having to live in fear of nutcases.

America, however, still doesn't fit to this system. I think that an accurate definition of freedom, from an American standpoint, would be something along the lines of this:

Freedom is the ability for a person to behave, speak, and think in virtually any way without fearing institutionalized suppression or control, under the exception that their actions do not compromise the freedom of other people to do the same, or infringe the rights of another individual, and so long as these actions do not lead to chaos or disorder, deliberately spread dangerous political or economic misinformation, are not some form of slander or libel, and do not make threat of crime or abuse.

That is, freedom allows you to get informal sanctions in return for your actions -- sneezing all over someone's plate of food might get someone mad enough to slap you, and that is a form of control (physical aggression), but it's not a formalized sanction (such as the anti-sneeze wing of the military taking you off to a jail in cuba at gunpoint).

Does this make sense?

[Ravens-Grin]

Freedom seems to be an illusion by the ones in power to eliminate uprisals and overthrows. Without a sense of freedom, the people have a greater chance that they will create havoc because they do not believe they have control of the government. With freedom on the otherhand, people seem to feel that taxes are Ok because they are allowed to live out their lives.

Freedom in its pure sense to myself is restraints from all rules of a pre-established organization. The rules that you follow with freedom are established by the currently living people, the society itself.

[Slizor]

From a more realistic standpoint, total freedom would be the ability to make any choices or preform any actions without external forces imposing on your ability to do so.

Okay, so for example say there is a person and she wants to buy property, there are no external forces imposing on her ability to do so, but she has no money. She can not buy the property, is she free to do so?

[Payne-to-the-max]

Freedom is something that cannot be explained. There are too many reasons,questions,answers to freedom. Really noone knows about freedom until they're locked in a cage in Korea while all of the little soldiers get bamboo sticks and jam them up your freakin' nails so the whole thing pops off and your in excrutiating pain!!!!!!!!!!! You don't know what freedom is until it's taken away from you.

Darkfuryofsouls

[Adept-Omega]

At 10/17/03 05:11 PM, Slizor wrote:

From a more realistic standpoint, total freedom would be the ability to make any choices or preform any actions without external forces imposing on your ability to do so.

Okay, so for example say there is a person and she wants to buy property, there are no external forces imposing on her ability to do so, but she has no money. She can not buy the property, is she free to do so?

From the very next paragraph...

"However, that is merely freedom of self. The best way to have freedom without imposing on the freedom of others is compromise -- I do not have freedom to murder someone, and therefor, I cannot remove their freedom to live forcibly, thus giving them freedom from murder. However, to have a system like this, you need an external force which will attempt to stop people from murdering and/or convict murderers. In that sense, equal freedom for everyone is not total freedom, but I'm certain we can agree that it is much better than having to live in fear of nutcases."

If the people want to give away property for free, more power to them, but until then, it's their property, and they have freedom to give any reasonable price for it. If she took it, it would be theft, and infringement of the current owner's freedom. Freedom for everyone is not, indeed, total freedom for one's self.

[Slizor]

Okay, so for example say there is a person and she wants to buy property, there are no external forces imposing on her ability to do so, but she has no money. She can not buy the property, is she free to do so?

If the people want to give away property for free, more power to them, but until then, it's their property, and they have freedom to give any reasonable price for it. If she took it, it would be theft, and infringement of the current owner's freedom. Freedom for everyone is not, indeed, total freedom for one's self.

You failed to answer my question, is she free to own property? Surely, if property is a freedom (and that's a big if) then it should be instantly accessable? Isn't freedom of speech like that, freedom of thought and freedom of movement?

Put this another way, if there are no laws against me moving, but I am chained to a post, can I move? Is freedom not only the lack of legal constraints but also the lack of constraints altogether (this refers to specific actions, it is not however, an endorsement for licence.)

[Pseudoname]

At 10/18/03 05:20 AM, Slizor wrote: Put this another way, if there are no laws against me moving, but I am chained to a post, can I move?

Yes. Only as far as the chain allows you to move however. Which, in essence, describes the freedom within this world. There is no such thing as freedom anywhere in this world. It is a controled device. Take freedom of speech for instance. You have the freedom to say anything you want. As long as you don't offend anyone.

Everybody falls under a set of constraints set either by the government or by nature. Everyone has the freedom to try anything in this life. Whether they succeed or not depends on what they try. True freedom is nothing buy an illusion created by pictures and movies.

[karasz]

freedom= doing what you want when you want

[Adept-Omega]

You failed to answer my question, is she free to own property? Surely, if property is a freedom (and that's a big if) then it should be instantly accessable? Isn't freedom of speech like that, freedom of thought and freedom of movement?

Freedom of speech isn't necessarily like that. It takes energy to take impulses from the mind and convert them to syllables, and even moreso if you have physical complications in that area. Everything has some sort of cost -- freedom doesn't mean free material without any cost. It means liberty to use that at your disposal (say, energy) to do what you want. And that energy requires maintenence too (nourishment of the body), so essentially -- freedom isn't the same as costless gifts.

Put this another way, if there are no laws against me moving, but I am chained to a post, can I move? Is freedom not only the lack of legal constraints but also the lack of constraints altogether (this refers to specific actions, it is not however, an endorsement for licence.)

You are still bound by limits. Freedom of speech? How fast can you comprehensibly talk? That's your limit. Maximum talking speed.

Freedom of assembly? The cost is time! The cost is risk! The cost is the marginal cost of doing it.

Property isn't a freedom. You seem to be confusing freedoms and rights. A right is something you are allotted -- such as property, minimum wage, etc. A freedom is something you are allowed to do. You have freedom to seek property. You have a right to at least minimum wage if you are employed. Etc.

[Slizor]

Freedom of speech isn't necessarily like that. It takes energy to take impulses from the mind and convert them to syllables, and even moreso if you have physical complications in that area. Everything has some sort of cost -- freedom doesn't mean free material without any cost. It means liberty to use that at your disposal to do what you want. And that energy requires maintenence too (nourishment of the body), so essentially -- freedom isn't the same as costless gifts.

What sort of argument is that? I mean, come on. Essentially, your argument leads to the idea that nourishment should be provided in any state which values freedom. Now, as for this

"It means liberty to use that at your disposal to do what you want. "

Does this mean that a rich person is ore free than a poor person? With more things at their disposal they would have to be more free. How then, is that freedom? If someone has no means at their disposal, thus they can't do anything, how are they free?

Put this another way, if there are no laws against me moving, but I am chained to a post, can I move? Is freedom not only the lack of legal constraints but also the lack of constraints altogether (this refers to specific actions, it is not however, an endorsement for licence.)

You are still bound by limits. Freedom of speech? How fast can you comprehensibly talk? That's your limit. Maximum talking speed.

Biological restraints are things which we can not be freed from, monetary restraints are.

Property isn't a freedom. You seem to be confusing freedoms and rights. A right is something you are allotted -- such as property, minimum wage, etc.

So I have a right to property?

A freedom is something you are allowed to do.

So if property isn't a freedom, I'm not allowed to have it?

[Slizor]

freedom= doing what you want when you want

How are you free if you are at the mercy of other people's freedom?

[Cobby]

freedom is different fo different people. someone may class freedom as being able to break free from an oppressor and to rule yourself. other people may think that freedom is to be able to stay up watching tv late. it just depends how you think about it, lol

[clichealias]

In my opinion total freedom could never be possible, ones freedom usually interupts anothers. Or at least most freedoms worth having. We need restraints to have some sort of freedom, if that makes since.

You might want to be a bit more specific, like what form of government gives you more freedom than the other one? should freedom of speech be restricted as with Reverend Phelps? did the constitution for get anything or included too many things or things that have become obsolete?

As for what is freedom.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=freedom
yup

[Pseudoname]

At 10/19/03 09:41 PM, Anti_Society wrote: In my opinion total freedom could never be possible, ones freedom usually interupts anothers. Or at least most freedoms worth having. We need restraints to have some sort of freedom, if that makes since.

I think that goes back to what they were discussing earlier. Where does the restraints begin and the freedom end ?

[clichealias]

I think that goes back to what they were discussing earlier. Where does the restraints begin and the freedom end ?

Freedom of speech for example, we have so called "freedom of speech". But then, people can file harassment charges. Is that freedom of speech? I used that as an example because it gets in the way of other peoples rights, or their freedom, freedom to life,liberty and pursuit of happiness.

[Slizor]

freedom to life,liberty and pursuit of happiness.

I've always thought this was quite interesting. You wouldn't believe it but the original saying was "life, liberty and property" (I think it was J.S. Mill, I forget.) Anyhow, since the founding fathers changed it from property to happiness, it highly suggests that they would not like the current, property-driven (as in "I'll shoot you if you're on my land") state America is in.

[JMHX]

At 10/20/03 07:19 AM, Slizor wrote:

freedom to life,liberty and pursuit of happiness.

I've always thought this was quite interesting. You wouldn't believe it but the original saying was "life, liberty and property" (I think it was J.S. Mill, I forget.) Anyhow, since the founding fathers changed it from property to happiness, it highly suggests that they would not like the current, property-driven (as in "I'll shoot you if you're on my land") state America is in.

I've looked at this a few times as well, Slizor, and I can agree. Even though at the time property was one of the major signifiers of wealth, class, and political ability, I think that is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to get away from. We had (more) income equality in the United States right before and right after the Revolutionary War, and with that, the idea that all men are created equally. "Happiness," is just vague enough to allow all sorts of readings.

[E-Rayz]

It what ur able to do and say whcih other people can't.