Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
'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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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'?
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?
Government is not there to prevent bullying. At its best it exists to protect rights, and it is never at its best.
'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.
Freedom is being in tune with life and the universe. When desires are one with what is happening, we are abundantly free.
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?
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.Government is not there to prevent bullying. At its best it exists to protect rights, and it is never at its best.
'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?
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?
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, 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.
'
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?
Freedom is not defined by what you can do, it is defined by how you think.
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.
'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 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 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.