What is Freedom

[pgabriel]

In response to the continual bumping of the wire tapping thread I would like to start a new discussion. What is Freedom. There is a one off discussion going about why no one seems to care about the attacks on civil liberties. I think sometimes members of this forum tend to forget that we are not represntative of the population.

I posted a poll in the thread that 50% of americans either don't care or happy with the the new powers of the government since sept 11. if americans are willing to give up those freedoms, its freedom that allows them to. keep in mind that usually in a situation when we are willing to give the gov't more power over us, we don't think it will be us that gets caught in the cross fire.

The latest bump of the thread is a greenwald piece lambasting democrats because now they are in power they are extending the powers given to gov't. the article incorrectly suggests that democrats battled against the new powers of the gov't. i pointed out that the original patriot vote in the senate passed 98-1.

is it the right of the people to give up their freedoms? if people want to give up their freedoms for what the think provides more safety is there anything inheritly wrong with that? the continual bumping of the other thread continues to miss the point that people are willing to give up these freedoms. now i'm not saying its right or wrong, but that's a big part of the discussion. if you are fighting against the gov't's new powers even though the people want them, who are you fighting against?

[basso]

simple.

Wiretapping by Bush: an affront to democracy and individual liberty.

Wiretapping by Obama: Freedom.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally Posted by basso simple. Wiretapping by Bush: an affront to democracy and individual liberty. Wiretapping by Obama: Freedom.

seems to me most of the folks complaining about Obama's wiretapping are the same ones who complained when Bush instituted the problems.

[CrazyDave]

Freedom's just another word... for... nothin' left ta lose.

Originally Posted by FranchiseBlade seems to me most of the folks complaining about Obama's wiretapping are the same ones who complained when Bush instituted the problems.

QFT.

[RedRedemption]

True Freedom = Anarchy.
And I'm pretty sure nobody here wants anarchy; that's just plain stupid.

[Rockets Pride]

spread the wealth baby!!

[thadeus]

Originally Posted by basso simple. Wiretapping by Bush: an affront to democracy and individual liberty. Wiretapping by Obama: Freedom.

basso: please provide examples of people who opposed the PATRIOT act (and other violations of our civil liberties) under Bush but who now support those same measures under Obama.

If you cannot do so, then you lose this argument and must admit that everything you will ever say in this forum is so saturated with partisanship that no one should feel compelled to take you seriously.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[rockbox]

Having a voice and opportunity with the absence of fear. Fear of the government, fear of criminals, fear of somebody taking things away from you.

[Phillyrocket]

A balance between an individual's rights and the safety of the body politic.

[Rashmon]

a myth

[ima_drummer2k]

I've been looking for freedom.

[javal_lon]

Freedom means to not give a damn!!!... I've been free all my life

[thadeus]

I was thinking about this, in general terms, yesterday while listening to Obama's speech at Westminster Hall. He went on and on about how the British/U.S. system of law, and N.A.T.O., were instruments of "freedom" and, really, that's only true for a segment of the population of the world. No one sitting in a cell without a trial or for a crime they didn't commit would call the law an agent of freedom.

Politicans are all demagogues so it's no surprise that they always relate their systems/ideas to "freedom", but the word gets tossed around a lot by people who seem to have never even bothered asking themselves - what is freedom? and how much of it do I really have?

So, this is how I define freedom: Freedom is the degree to which you can do what you please without meeting resistance - and, as a corollary, it's the degree to which you can overcome resistance to doing what you please.

No one has absolute freedom. We are all constrained to one degree or another, and cannot possibly do everything we want to do. This is good in many respects - it restricts (or attempts to restrict) some of the most destructive people among us from indulging their impulses without, at least, the threat of repercussion.

But, beyond this generalization, it's apparent that there are vast differences in the degrees of freedom that different people have.

So, if there are differences in the degree of freedom that people have - who has the most freedom in our society? Who can do as they please with the least resistance, or can easily overcome things that keep them from doing what they please? I think it's obvious that the wealthy and the politically powerful and, maybe, some celebrities are some of the most "free" people in our society. Also, note that the overlap between "wealthy" and "politically powerful" means that there are many, many people who are members of both groups. But, in the most bare analysis, more wealth means more freedom - the wealthy aren't subject to as much scrutiny as politicians, and wealth can be used to exercise strong influence over the political process (either to pursue a particular set of ends or to remove obstacles to that pursuit) - so the "most free" people in our society are those who possess the most wealth. In a sense then, more power means more freedom. The more powerful you are, the more freedom you have.

Moving on ... I assume that none of us are billionaires, so this begs the question: What about the rest of us? How much freedom do we have? To answer this, I think it works best to use an old standard of "liberty" (which, for me, means pretty much the same thing as "freedom" in this context) that, I think, Kant came up with about 200 years ago. We have "positive" freedom and "negative" freedom - positive freedom means we are free to do something and negative freedom means we are free from something. In the most basic terms, negative freedom is "freedom from" and positive freedom is "freedom to." Note how well this coincides with our historical conception of freedom - Freedom of speech is "freedom to" speak our mind, and (at least in concept) "freedom from" prosecution in the courts for doing so (note that I specified "the courts" - you may speak your mind about how much you hate Chuck Hayes, but Chuck Hayes may kick your ass for doing so).

Now put this in terms of your day-to-day life - how free are you? How much are you free to do? How many unpleasant things do you have freedom from? Do you have freedom from obstacles that prevent you from doing what you're free to do? Think of this in the most practical terms: There is no law barring you from building a moon colony on the moon, but does this really qualify as genuine freedom? Also keep in mind the obstacles that prevent you from doing what you please: who put them there? Are those obstacles placed there by someone else's freedom of choice? If so ... which one of you has more freedom?

Think about the things you would love to do, but can't - then think about the reasons you can't. Who or what is preventing you from doing so?

I think, if you do a very honest analysis of your own situation, you'll find that you really have very, very little freedom. I also believe you'll find that the reason you have very little freedom is because someone, or some group of people, has the freedom to prevent you from doing what you'd please. Their aim may not be to prevent you from doing what you please, but they have the freedom to create a set of circumstances that effectively limit your freedom. So, really, how free are you?

The question then is: Who limits your freedom? Since freedom is equal to power in most respects, think in terms of a zero sum game: you deal with individuals, organizations, groups everyday whose exercise of freedom, their exercise of power puts obstacles in front of you daily. Their exercise of their freedom reduces your power. The people who have power over you use that power to take more from you. Many of their expressions of power are through actions/systems that threaten your power.

And that's where the idea of civil liberties, the PATRIOT act, and so forth come in. Our civil liberties are, to a great degree, expressed in terms of negative freedom. We have (or had) "freedom from" government invasions of our privacy, "freedom from" excessive interference in our day to day lives, "freedom from" conviction without a trial. Why would people give the government more positive freedom ("freedom to") that directly threatens our negative freedom? Why are we okay to give governments the freedom to threaten our freedom from them?

Originally Posted by rockbox Having a voice and opportunity with the absence of fear. Fear of the government, fear of criminals, fear of somebody taking things away from you.

Here's how the trick worked: We were compelled to fear the freedom of others. People who may harm us. People who may steal our stuff. People who may just look scary. Many of us are fearful of the freedom of others to a much greater degree than we are covetous of our own freedoms. But, with this relationship, who benefits? Who gets more freedom from our fear? It should be obvious here ...

And, from another angle: Our freedom from government invasions of our privacy without warrant, though negative are very real - not so much in what they do for us in our day-to-day lives, but because they expressively limit what the government has the "freedom to" do to us. Now, we essentially traded in some of this freedom to be free from the fear of the freedom of others. But what did we get in exchange? Are we really safer? Are we free from fear? We gave away our very real freedoms for ... what exactly?

[thadeus]

Something else concerning freedom that I believe is necessary to understand before one can really estimate how "free" one is:

Originally Posted by http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince09.htm BUT coming to the other point — where a leading citizen becomes the prince of his country, not by wickedness or any intolerable violence, but by the favour of his fellow citizens — this may be called a civil principality: nor is genius or fortune altogether necessary to attain to it, but rather a happy shrewdness. I say then that such a principality is obtained either by the favour of the people or by the favour of the nobles. Because in all cities these two distinct parties are found, and from this it arises that the people do not wish to be ruled nor oppressed by the nobles, and the nobles wish to rule and oppress the people; and from these two opposite desires there arises in cities one of three results, either a principality, self-government, or anarchy. Besides this, one cannot by fair dealing, and without injury to others, satisfy the nobles, but you can satisfy the people, for their object is more righteous than that of the nobles, the latter wishing to oppress, whilst the former only desire not to be oppressed. It is to be added also that a prince can never secure himself against a hostile people, because of their being too many, whilst from the nobles he can secure himself, as they are few in number. The worst that a prince may expect from a hostile people is to be abandoned by them; but from hostile nobles he has not only to fear abandonment, but also that they will rise against him; for they, being in these affairs more far-seeing and astute, always come forward in time to save themselves, and to obtain favours from him whom they expect to prevail. Further, the prince is compelled to live always with the same people, but he can do well without the same nobles, being able to make and unmake them daily, and to give or take away authority when it pleases him.

...though there doesn't seem to be much discussion here (I'm sure my previous post qualifies with a "tl;dr" from most people).

I'll ask again - how free are you? do you actually know or is "freedom" just some vague and empty word that people like to say on the 4th of July?

[Rocket River]

Originally Posted by pgabriel In response to the continual bumping of the wire tapping thread I would like to start a new discussion. What is Freedom. There is a one off discussion going about why no one seems to care about the attacks on civil liberties. I think sometimes members of this forum tend to forget that we are not represntative of the population. I posted a poll in the thread that 50% of americans either don't care or happy with the the new powers of the government since sept 11. if americans are willing to give up those freedoms, its freedom that allows them to. keep in mind that usually in a situation when we are willing to give the gov't more power over us, we don't think it will be us that gets caught in the cross fire. The latest bump of the thread is a greenwald piece lambasting democrats because now they are in power they are extending the powers given to gov't. the article incorrectly suggests that democrats battled against the new powers of the gov't. i pointed out that the original patriot vote in the senate passed 98-1. is it the right of the people to give up their freedoms? if people want to give up their freedoms for what the think provides more safety is there anything inheritly wrong with that? the continual bumping of the other thread continues to miss the point that people are willing to give up these freedoms. now i'm not saying its right or wrong, but that's a big part of the discussion. if you are fighting against the gov't's new powers even though the people want them, who are you fighting against?

Your title asks the right question . . .then you went a different direction.
1
The title - what is freedom? This is the fundamental question at hand. What are the rights we have? Are they immutable? etc.
THAT IS THE 1st discussion to be had


2
Do people have the right to give up their freedoms?
Do the Iraqi people have the right to 'elect a Saddam'?
How about the Taliban?
Around the world. . when Americans see 'oppressive' governments
we immediate say it is wrong.
We justify it through various means. . [Claim Fraud elections or Force acceptence or some such] . . the the core of it . .is we seem to have a fundamental belief that such things are inherently wrong and unacceptable.

So . . why would it be acceptable here????

3
Next . . in our democracy . . .supposedly. . .
even if the people have the right to give up their rights
they DO NOT have the right to give up mine!!!
At least I did not think so . . but more and more. . . i maybe wrong

Rocket River

[Rocket River]

Originally Posted by thadeus I'll ask again - how free are you? do you actually know or is "freedom" just some vague and empty word that people like to say on the 4th of July?

You are as free as you can afford.

Rocket River

[tallanvor]

The word has been corrupted over time.

Originally Posted by F A Hayek To the great apostles of political freedom the word had meant freedom from coercion, freedom from the arbitrary power of other men, release from ties which left the individual no choice but obedience to the orders of a superior to whom he was attached. The new freedom promised, however, was to be freedom from necessity, release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice of all of us, although for some very much more than others. Before man could be truly free, the ‘despotism of physical want’ had to be broken, the ‘restraints of the economic system’ relaxed. Freedom in this sense is just another word for power or wealth.

[thadeus]

Originally Posted by tallanvor The word has been corrupted over time.

So, what do you believe that Hayek quotation means?

[meh]

I know this is a quirky analogy, but...

Freedom is like watching the Rockets without being irritated by refs. Yes, you know you need the refs, and you know what they do matters. But you don't want to know these people's names and you want to innately trust they always do the right thing. So there is control, but it is done in a way that it doesn't affect the flow of your everyday life.

[Honey Bear]

Originally Posted by thadeus The question then is: Who limits your freedom? Since freedom is equal to power in most respects, think in terms of a zero sum game: you deal with individuals, organizations, groups everyday whose exercise of freedom, their exercise of power puts obstacles in front of you daily. Their exercise of their freedom reduces your power. The people who have power over you use that power to take more from you. Many of their expressions of power are through actions/systems that threaten your power.

I think pointless material consumption is what really limits the freedom of the average American. The need for a 3 car garage, the need for a LV purse, the need to one up your frat bro, the need for things... you don't really need. It's naive to think in a free market there won't be winners at the expense of losers. It's naive to think you can rally your troops based on this inherently flawed argument so they can stick it to the "man" who's taking all this freedom away from them. The masses are sheep, they need direction and they need instructions on how to live their life. Too much freedom will only corrupt them and make them lose their values.

Billionaires aren't living a wild life by any stretch of the imagination. They have a set routine, a fixed way of looking at things, and they make sure to retain the values that made them who they are. These are the traits that make up a winner.

Now what happens when you give a loser too much freedom... have you seen that documentary on people who win the lottery? They basically ruin themselves because they have no direction, no focus, no need to follow norms and no freedom constraints. They completely lack the self-awareness that allow winners to regulate their lifestyles.

You're too bitter.