How Do You Define Freedom?

[Foxfyre]

How do you define freedom? Those on the left and Obama supporters define it one way. The much-maligned Tea Partiers and Taxpayer groups define it another way. The Founders defined it as our unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with the understanding that one man's rights end where the next man's rights begin. What is your definition?

What rights must be included in our definition of freedom. How do we define life? How do we define liberty? How do we define the pursuit of happiness?

Listen to this excerpt from a recent speech delivered by Judge Napolitano in defense of freedom and in protest to freedoms that are gradually being chipped away. And then share what part of freedom you would fight for or put it all on the line for:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n2m-X7OIuY"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n2m-X7OIuY[/ame]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thomas Sowell's record is a failure. Let's move on.

 

[2Parties]

I don't. It means too many different things to too many people.

 

[midcan5]

"The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do." Eric Hoffer


Four woman live in two different countries, one is a democracy and the second totalitarian. All the woman believe that they live in complete individual freedom. That value is written into the governing documents of each country. One day the two woman from the democracy decide to go on vacation. One woman buys her ticket and gets on a plane to Bermuda. The other woman has limited resources and when she gets to the airport is told she cannot board the plane without a ticket. Finally after much dispute she is arrested and thrown into a state jail.

One day the two woman in the totalitarian state decide to travel abroad. One works in government and gains permission to go to Bermuda. The other woman checks with her local commissar and is told she cannot travel to Bermuda. Travel to Bermuda is not allowed. She disputes the decision and is soon thrown into a state jail. Two woman exercised their freedom, two couldn't yet each held the same value.

If our original premise is they all have equal freedom, why are the results within these two distinct states similar? While the answer is obvious can we then say a person with limited resources is free?


"Where freedom is real, equality is the passion of the masses. Where equality is real, freedom is the passion of a small minority." Eric Hoffer

good read on freedom

http://www.counterpunch.com/green11242007.html

 

[2Parties]

While the answer is obvious can we then say a person with limited resources is free?

Every human being has limited resources.

 

[midcan5]

Every human being has limited resources.

True, but then can we say they are free? or do we need to place freedom along some continuum. I am thinking of children and say UHC for those in need. See link I added as I think the Judge is a complete idiot.

 

[Foxfyre]

Every human being has limited resources.

True, but then can we say they are free? or do we need to place freedom along some continuum. I am thinking of children and say UHC for those in need. See link I added as I think the Judge is a complete idiot.

What did the Judge say specifically that you thought was idiotic?

Whose freedom and property are you wiling to take so that those children and/or those in need can have healthcare? Who gets to decide? Who gets to decide who decides? What criteria will be used to determine who will not have freedom to use their own industry, property, resources as they choose and who will be able to claim another's industry, property, or resources for their own benefit?

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote..." -Ben Franklin

 

[Foxfyre]

"The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do." Eric Hoffer


Four woman live in two different countries, one is a democracy and the second totalitarian. All the woman believe that they live in complete individual freedom. That value is written into the governing documents of each country. One day the two woman from the democracy decide to go on vacation. One woman buys her ticket and gets on a plane to Bermuda. The other woman has limited resources and when she gets to the airport is told she cannot board the plane without a ticket. Finally after much dispute she is arrested and thrown into a state jail.

One day the two woman in the totalitarian state decide to travel abroad. One works in government and gains permission to go to Bermuda. The other woman checks with her local commissar and is told she cannot travel to Bermuda. Travel to Bermuda is not allowed. She disputes the decision and is soon thrown into a state jail. Two woman exercised their freedom, two couldn't yet each held the same value.

If our original premise is they all have equal freedom, why are the results within these two distinct states similar? While the answer is obvious can we then say a person with limited resources is free?


"Where freedom is real, equality is the passion of the masses. Where equality is real, freedom is the passion of a small minority." Eric Hoffer

good read on freedom

David Michael Green: If Conservatism is the Ideology of Freedom ....

So that I do not misunderstand you, would you please clarify?

Let's set aside the absurdity of saying that something or somebody is free when obviously it or s/he is not.

But are you saying that nobody is free who does not have the same resources as everybody else and/or achieve the sames results as everybody else? That whenever there is imbalance, there is no freedom?

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't. It means too many different things to too many people.

Yes, already I see some here disagreeing with my definition of freedom and/or liberty. And of course your definition also won't agree with many here.

But do you have a definition? What does freedom/liberty look like to you? What conditions have to exist before you feel that you have liberty?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liberty and freedom are two different concepts, foxfyre. They meant differently to the Romans from whom the Founders, particularly Adams, Jefferson, and Madison, drew upon for their political philosophies. Your teabaggers are not founded on those meanings.

 

[code1211]

"The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do." Eric Hoffer


Four woman live in two different countries, one is a democracy and the second totalitarian. All the woman believe that they live in complete individual freedom. That value is written into the governing documents of each country. One day the two woman from the democracy decide to go on vacation. One woman buys her ticket and gets on a plane to Bermuda. The other woman has limited resources and when she gets to the airport is told she cannot board the plane without a ticket. Finally after much dispute she is arrested and thrown into a state jail.

One day the two woman in the totalitarian state decide to travel abroad. One works in government and gains permission to go to Bermuda. The other woman checks with her local commissar and is told she cannot travel to Bermuda. Travel to Bermuda is not allowed. She disputes the decision and is soon thrown into a state jail. Two woman exercised their freedom, two couldn't yet each held the same value.

If our original premise is they all have equal freedom, why are the results within these two distinct states similar? While the answer is obvious can we then say a person with limited resources is free?


"Where freedom is real, equality is the passion of the masses. Where equality is real, freedom is the passion of a small minority." Eric Hoffer

good read on freedom

David Michael Green: If Conservatism is the Ideology of Freedom ....

When the commissar is the gatekeeper, no amount of planning or preparation can solve the woman's travel dilemma. On the other hand, if the cost of a ticket is the only barrier to the travel, then the woman who freely decided to not do what it took to travel decided her travel conclusion with no help from others.

Failing to plan is planning to fail.

A similar outcome in your story has absolutely nothing to do with the causes and there is no parallel here.

 

[code1211]

Every human being has limited resources.

True, but then can we say they are free? or do we need to place freedom along some continuum. I am thinking of children and say UHC for those in need. See link I added as I think the Judge is a complete idiot.

What did the Judge say specifically that you thought was idiotic?

Whose freedom and property are you wiling to take so that those children and/or those in need can have healthcare? Who gets to decide? Who gets to decide who decides? What criteria will be used to determine who will not have freedom to use their own industry, property, resources as they choose and who will be able to claim another's industry, property, or resources for their own benefit?

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote..." -Ben Franklin

Franklin had the knack of economy of words with the skillful use of humor. As we are seeing right now, a majority in a democracy can exercise tyranny. We lambs may need to become armed to help decide what the luncheon menu will be.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Tyranny in a democracy only occurs when the rights of the minority are violated. No such violations are occuring right now. The minority participated in the constitutional process, they lost the election, and now they will abide the just and constitutional process of the majority making the rules. The American electorate simply will not accept government-inspired fear and tax cuts for the rich as acceptable majority programs anymore. Until the minority comes up with reasonable and acceptable alternatives, the minority will remain exactly that.

 

[Dr Grump]

[Whose freedom and property are you wiling to take so that those children and/or those in need can have healthcare? Who gets to decide? Who gets to decide who decides? What criteria will be used to determine who will not have freedom to use their own industry, property, resources as they choose and who will be able to claim another's industry, property, or resources for their own benefit?

If you want to be an island, go live on one...preferably deserted...so you can be truly free!

 

[Foxfyre]

[Whose freedom and property are you wiling to take so that those children and/or those in need can have healthcare? Who gets to decide? Who gets to decide who decides? What criteria will be used to determine who will not have freedom to use their own industry, property, resources as they choose and who will be able to claim another's industry, property, or resources for their own benefit?

If you want to be an island, go live on one...preferably deserted...so you can be truly free!

I have no desire to live on an island. I prefer to live amicably with fellow humans under a social contract that infringes on nobody's unalienable, civil, legal, or Constitutional rights and that allows each to otherwise embrace, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

But the questions asked are pertinent to this subject and deserve an answer.

1. Who decides whose property, industry, or liberty will be taken in order to benefit others?
2. Who decides who will get to decide that?
3. What criteria should be used to determine who will not have freedom to use their own industry, property, resources as they choose and who will be able to claim another's industry, property, or resources for their own benefit?
4. And at one point does denying some the freedom to use their own industry, property, and resources as they choose and providing that to others become something other than freedom?

You can boil it down to simpler equations.

1. If you are smarter than I am and you earn a 4.0 grade point average while I am failing, do I have freedom to take away some of your grade point and add it to mine?

2. If you are industrious and capable and prepared yourself to be an asset to your employer so that you are promoted and earn a good living, and I preferred television and novels to school, or an apprenticeship, and/or a full time job so that I am not really getting by, do I have license to take away a portion of your earnings to add to mine?

3. If you save up your money so that your household has two servicable vehicles and I have none, does your world view require you to give me one of yours or buy me one?

If it is incumbant upon some to see to it that others have healthcare and food and shelter and transportation and an income and clothing and security and want for nothing, who decides who gets to determne who gives and who gets? And is healthcare more important than food? Shelter? Clothing? If people have the right to one, why not all?

Is freedom having the price of a train ticket? Or is freedom having the right to work for and save up so that a train ticket can be purchased?

These are not easy questions but they do have answers.

 

[eots]

freedom is to be fearless

 

[Foxfyre]

True, but then can we say they are free? or do we need to place freedom along some continuum. I am thinking of children and say UHC for those in need. See link I added as I think the Judge is a complete idiot.

What did the Judge say specifically that you thought was idiotic?

Whose freedom and property are you wiling to take so that those children and/or those in need can have healthcare? Who gets to decide? Who gets to decide who decides? What criteria will be used to determine who will not have freedom to use their own industry, property, resources as they choose and who will be able to claim another's industry, property, or resources for their own benefit?

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote..." -Ben Franklin

Franklin had the knack of economy of words with the skillful use of humor. As we are seeing right now, a majority in a democracy can exercise tyranny. We lambs may need to become armed to help decide what the luncheon menu will be.

Yes. A careful review of the docments our Founders left us so that we could better understand the reasoning that went being the writing and ratification of the U.S. constitution tells us that they, to a man, feared a tyranny of a minority and a tyranny of a majority. The Constitution is exquisitely written to ensure that unalienable, civil, legal, and Constitutional rights cannot be infringed by either.

Certainly in those matters that do not violate the rights of others, a democratic vote is the way to decide things. In the matter of individual rights, the law must decide, not the opinions of the people on any given day.

The Founders viewed individual rights as that which required no contribution from any other person and which treaded on nobody else's rights. Boy has that definition been turned on its head in modern times. There are some who honestly believe it is their right to have others buy for them what they want.

 

[ihopehefails]

[Whose freedom and property are you wiling to take so that those children and/or those in need can have healthcare? Who gets to decide? Who gets to decide who decides? What criteria will be used to determine who will not have freedom to use their own industry, property, resources as they choose and who will be able to claim another's industry, property, or resources for their own benefit?

If you want to be an island, go live on one...preferably deserted...so you can be truly free!

I prefer to have other people to shut the fuck up when they think what is mine somehow belongs to them or the community.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am sure you do, yet you have benefitteted from the social compact of the community and its tax-supported activities.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Much of mens freedom has evaporated over time.
Im not sure what freedom really is.

History, in general, only informs us what bad government is.Thomas Jefferson

The fact is the government has grown far beyond its legal bounds

We have little say or the time to change laws were our money is spent on things we object to .

Your entire life could be spend fighting for the freedom to not have your earning confiscated and spent in ways you find morally reprehensible .

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.Thomas Jefferson

Your freedom to procure military hardware to keep the government from doing what it has done was taken away long ago

(George Soros )The man who is now virtually synonymous with Progressivism, Herbert Croly (The Promise of American Life), was himself both the son of a noted proponent of Comtian positivism and the student of Harvard's Josiah Royce, a disciple of Hegel. All of these thinkers contributed to what would become the ethical foundation of the Progressive Movement: a contempt and loathing of "individualism" -- and its political expression in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution:

§ Croly: "The Promise of American Life is to be fulfilled ... by a large measure
of individual subordination and self-denial."

§ Sociologist Lester Ward: "The individual has reigned long enough."

§ Antitrust leader Henry Demarest Lloyd: Individualism is "one of the historic
mistakes of humanity."

§ The Outlook editor Lyman Abbott: "ndividualism is the characteristic of
simple barbarism, not of republican civilization."

§ Baptist minister Walter Rauschenbusch: "ndividualism means tyranny."

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2oOoCdFblc[/ame]

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.Thomas Jefferson