Freedom

[editec]

Notice how people want freedom but they also want to go to heaven?

Is heaven free?

No in fact its the least free place we can think of.


Ain't no ying without yang, kiddies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

'Freedom' is heard often: as an ideal, a goal, sometimes apology. Some claim they represent freedom and others are presumably opposed to freedom. Certain ideas make freedom possible while others do not. So what is freedom? Is it just a word that changes meaning dependent on the user or use? Or is there a real thing called freedom?

Freedom is a concept that would require you to admit you are wrong when you insist that the government is there to provide things to people by stealing stuff from others, which is why you will never understand it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeah, lots of equivocation and ambiguity around the word. The kind of freedom I'm interested in preserving essentially boils down to being able to live our lives without being bullied. Protecting this freedom is the core purpose of government in my view.

Well, for one thing, how the fuck is the government supposed to prevent you from being bullied? Are they supposed to follow you around 24/7 to save you from all the people who might say something mean to you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeah, lots of equivocation and ambiguity around the word. The kind of freedom I'm interested in preserving essentially boils down to being able to live our lives without being bullied. Protecting this freedom is the core purpose of government in my view.

That is often called negative freedom, not being coerced, how about positive freedom, what can we do? Many think government's role is coercion? Thanks for input, hopefully some of those who throw around the word reply.

The 'positive' and 'negative' freedom distinction doesn't work for me. It just seems like an attempt to expand the role of government by playing games with words. It's well established (in the US) that government should protect our freedoms, so there's been a movement to smuggle in an entirely different concept trojan style, and pretend it's 'just another kind' of freedom. It's not.

Regardless, 'positive' freedom (which boils down to nothing less than the "right" to coerce others into others providing you with goods and services) isn't something government should allow, much less protect.

Yet you argued that the primary purpose of government is to impose your definition of proper behavior on others. Could that be why you get so confused when you try to stake out a coherent position?

 

[dblack]

That is often called negative freedom, not being coerced, how about positive freedom, what can we do? Many think government's role is coercion? Thanks for input, hopefully some of those who throw around the word reply.

The 'positive' and 'negative' freedom distinction doesn't work for me. It just seems like an attempt to expand the role of government by playing games with words. It's well established (in the US) that government should protect our freedoms, so there's been a movement to smuggle in an entirely different concept trojan style, and pretend it's 'just another kind' of freedom. It's not.

Regardless, 'positive' freedom (which boils down to nothing less than the "right" to coerce others into others providing you with goods and services) isn't something government should allow, much less protect.

Yet you argued that the primary purpose of government is to impose your definition of proper behavior on others. Could that be why you get so confused when you try to stake out a coherent position?

I did?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The 'positive' and 'negative' freedom distinction doesn't work for me. It just seems like an attempt to expand the role of government by playing games with words. It's well established (in the US) that government should protect our freedoms, so there's been a movement to smuggle in an entirely different concept trojan style, and pretend it's 'just another kind' of freedom. It's not.

Regardless, 'positive' freedom (which boils down to nothing less than the "right" to coerce others into others providing you with goods and services) isn't something government should allow, much less protect.

Yet you argued that the primary purpose of government is to impose your definition of proper behavior on others. Could that be why you get so confused when you try to stake out a coherent position?

I did?

Are you retracting your argument that the primary purpose of government is to prevent people from bullying you?

 

[dblack]

Yet you argued that the primary purpose of government is to impose your definition of proper behavior on others. Could that be why you get so confused when you try to stake out a coherent position?

I did?

Are you retracting your argument that the primary purpose of government is to prevent people from bullying you?

No. Are you pretending that that's the same thing as 'imposing my definition of proper behavior on others'?

 

[Flopper]

When there were no walls or fences, land was free for the taking, no crowded expressways, and no factories polluting air and water, there was little need for government regulations and intrusive laws. For society to function today, one person's freedom must end where another's begins and those boundaries are shrinking. It's not a question of whether government will be more intrusive in our lives, but to what degree? Much of the debate between conservatives and liberals is about that degree.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I did?

Are you retracting your argument that the primary purpose of government is to prevent people from bullying you?

No. Are you pretending that that's the same thing as 'imposing my definition of proper behavior on others'?

How is it not imposing your definition of proper behavior on others?

Some people claim it is bullying for me to insist that I have a right to call Mohammad a pedophile, I insist that they don't have a right to not be offended. Either position you take imposes your definition of proper conduct on others if you back it up with the force of arms that is inherent upon giving government the power to chose between those positions.

Government is not there to prevent bullying. At its best it exists to protect rights, and it is never at its best.

 

[dblack]

Are you retracting your argument that the primary purpose of government is to prevent people from bullying you?

No. Are you pretending that that's the same thing as 'imposing my definition of proper behavior on others'?

How is it not imposing your definition of proper behavior on others?

Because that's not my definition of proper behavior. It's a desire to be protected from those who would force their definition of proper behavior on others. You can't see that distinction? Do you recognize a difference between initiating violence and defending yourself?

Government is not there to prevent bullying. At its best it exists to protect rights, and it is never at its best.

What conception of bullying doesn't amount to violating rights? That's certainly how I'm defining it. For what it's worth, I'd agree with the statement that government exists to protect rights. You seem to be looking for something to disagree on here. I'm not sure it's there.

 

[midcan5]

'Freedom' is heard often: as an ideal, a goal, sometimes apology. Some claim they represent freedom and others are presumably opposed to freedom. Certain ideas make freedom possible while others do not. So what is freedom? Is it just a word that changes meaning dependent on the user or use? Or is there a real thing called freedom?

Freedom is a concept that would require you to admit you are wrong when you insist that the government is there to provide things to people by stealing stuff from others, which is why you will never understand it.

Calling freedom a concept is meaningless. Check its meaning. As a concept how would that 'require' me to do anything? I've never 'insisted' government steal stuff to provide for others. I think it is you who are having a hard time understanding freedom as well as lots more, including responsibility and purpose. You seem not to understand basic language - freedom means I have the freedom to be wrong. But that would entail you at least understand the fundamental argument or discussion points. You missed the target as you always do.

Anyone care to answer my questions (post 39) above? Or can anyone define freedom that stands up for at least a moment?

 

[Unkotare]

Freedom is being in tune with life and the universe. When desires are one with what is happening, we are abundantly free.

If you have desires you are not free.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. Are you pretending that that's the same thing as 'imposing my definition of proper behavior on others'?

How is it not imposing your definition of proper behavior on others?

Because that's not my definition of proper behavior. It's a desire to be protected from those who would force their definition of proper behavior on others. You can't see that distinction? Do you recognize a difference between initiating violence and defending yourself?

I get it now, you want government to have, not just a monopoly on force, but an exclusive franchise.

You should phrase your position better because what you are saying essentially removes all right to self defense from the individual because that would be imposing his definition of proper behavior on someone else.

Government is not there to prevent bullying. At its best it exists to protect rights, and it is never at its best.

What conception of bullying doesn't amount to violating rights? That's certainly how I'm defining it. For what it's worth, I'd agree with the statement that government exists to protect rights. You seem to be looking for something to disagree on here. I'm not sure it's there.

I never said it wasn't, did I? I just don't expect government to defend my rights because no government in history has ever cared more about the rights of individuals than it has its own power.

I am not looking for something to disagree with, I am just pointing out that your language is ambiguous, and that government doesn't actually do what I want it to. I blame the latter on the fact that government always attracts people who want power. We need to find a way to get people who don't want to accumulate power and put them in charge. If we accomplish that we might have a real government that actually does its job.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

'Freedom' is heard often: as an ideal, a goal, sometimes apology. Some claim they represent freedom and others are presumably opposed to freedom. Certain ideas make freedom possible while others do not. So what is freedom? Is it just a word that changes meaning dependent on the user or use? Or is there a real thing called freedom?

Freedom is a concept that would require you to admit you are wrong when you insist that the government is there to provide things to people by stealing stuff from others, which is why you will never understand it.

Calling freedom a concept is meaningless. Check its meaning. As a concept how would that 'require' me to do anything? I've never 'insisted' government steal stuff to provide for others. I think it is you who are having a hard time understanding freedom as well as lots more, including responsibility and purpose. You seem not to understand basic language - freedom means I have the freedom to be wrong. But that would entail you at least understand the fundamental argument or discussion points. You missed the target as you always do.

Anyone care to answer my questions (post 39) above? Or can anyone define freedom that stands up for at least a moment?

Freedom only exists as much as each individual is willing to exercise it. Nothing I can do can give you freedom, nothing you do can take it way from another. In other words, freedom requires you to take it by any means necessary. Until you do that, you can't understand its reality, or how a mere concept can be real.

Did you consider the possibility that you just validated my point?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The nation's debt has been reduced by half since Obama was elected, does that mean our freedom is only reduced by some intangible amount now?

What fucking planet do you live on? The debt was just over $11 trillion when Obama took office, and is now $17.2 trillion. That is an increase of over 50%, not a decrease.

If a child is born into the world in poverty does that mean they are less free than those who are privileged in society?

If a child is born into a religious sect that manages their environment and knowledge is that child free?

If a person because of their natural abilities is unable to perform tasks and actions that a normal person would be able to do, is that person free.

Does society have a responsibility for any of the above situations if we assume, and I think we can, that these children or persons are less free than those born into privilege or ability?

Freedom is not defined by what you can do, it is defined by how you think.

 

[Votto]

...Freedom, to me, means to be able, willing and ready to live my life without the constraints of marriage or religion. Living one's life by the Golden Rule, brings individual freedom and everyone wins....

While the Golden rule is an excellent concept, in life we do not find it very often. Think only of intolerance based on personal or religious convictions.

'

The Golden Rule is good? Does that mean that since Congress imposed Obamacare on us all that they should also participate?

Hmm? That's just plain crazy man. Next thing you know you will suggest that those in Congress who impose Social Security on us should lay aside their million dollar retirement packages off to the side and collect Social Security.

As for intolerance, I suppose I should now get my tax information together for expressing my views here in anticipation for an audit.

 

[midcan5]

Freedom only exists as much as each individual is willing to exercise it. Nothing I can do can give you freedom, nothing you do can take it way from another. In other words, freedom requires you to take it by any means necessary. Until you do that, you can't understand its reality, or how a mere concept can be real.

Did you consider the possibility that you just validated my point?

That's too simple even for comment but hey maybe you'll learn something. What is it I am free to do that has no consequences? Name something, be specific this time and make sure you include agent and context.

Freedom is not defined by what you can do, it is defined by how you think.

So a slave would only need to think? You should have been around to advise President Lincoln.

The Golden Rule is good? Does that mean that since Congress imposed Obamacare on us all that they should also participate?

Hmm? That's just plain crazy man. Next thing you know you will suggest that those in Congress who impose Social Security on us should lay aside their million dollar retirement packages off to the side and collect Social Security.

As for intolerance, I suppose I should now get my tax information together for expressing my views here in anticipation for an audit.

No, why consider it in that direction? How about congress provides their healthcare to others. That would be the golden rule. You seem to be a hole viewer rather that a donut viewer, that must be hard. No need to worry about an audit, Reagan et al screwed up regulation as the great recession demonstrated clearly. Too big to fail applies downward too.

But I note often in this forum, this is about philosophic questions, not knee jerk whining over politics.

Deficit: http://www.businessinsider.com/deficit-to-gdp-falling-obama-chart-2013-10

 

[Esmeralda]

'Freedom' is heard often: as an ideal, a goal, sometimes apology. Some claim they represent freedom and others are presumably opposed to freedom. Certain ideas make freedom possible while others do not. So what is freedom? Is it just a word that changes meaning dependent on the user or use? Or is there a real thing called freedom?

Freedom is an abstract concept. There is a general understanding of belief in what it is, but any precise definition or desciption is impossible because it is dependent on every individual's perception of what it is. It's a lot like love. Everyone wants it, but it means different things to different people.

Essentially, it is impossibe to determine exactly and precisely what freedom is.

 

[AquaAthena]

'Freedom' is heard often: as an ideal, a goal, sometimes apology. Some claim they represent freedom and others are presumably opposed to freedom. Certain ideas make freedom possible while others do not. So what is freedom? Is it just a word that changes meaning dependent on the user or use? Or is there a real thing called freedom?

Freedom is not the chance to do as you please. Freedom is the opportunity to do what is right or wrong and we have President Robin Hood, with no executive experience in working for anything but the government or community organizing low-info people, telling us he knows what is right for our country's citizens and the kicker is, it isn't out of compassion for sick people, it is out of acquisition of votes for a socialist ambition with total power and control. It is for redistribution of wealth.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Freedom only exists as much as each individual is willing to exercise it. Nothing I can do can give you freedom, nothing you do can take it way from another. In other words, freedom requires you to take it by any means necessary. Until you do that, you can't understand its reality, or how a mere concept can be real.

Did you consider the possibility that you just validated my point?

That's too simple even for comment but hey maybe you'll learn something. What is it I am free to do that has no consequences? Name something, be specific this time and make sure you include agent and context.

What the fuck are you babbling about now? What does the existence, or non existence, of consequences have to do with anything? Do consequences magically prevent people from doing things? If not, what the fuck do you think you are saying?

Next time you think something is too simple for comment take the advice of Abraham Lincoln to keep your fucking mouth shut.

Freedom is not defined by what you can do, it is defined by how you think.

So a slave would only need to think? You should have been around to advise President Lincoln.

Is that what I said?

Didn't think so.