How Do You Define Freedom?

[JW Frogen]

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

Well then, you are sure to loose what freedom you have.

The first prerequsit of a free human is knowing what they feel must be a sacred place no government or person can inflict on, if you do not know who or what you want to be, then you can not be free.

 

[DiamondDave]

"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 ....

Wow... lookie here.. midcan with yet another excuse to linkk to another winger site... that's a real shocker

 

[uscitizen]

One thing to keep in mind. Many think freedom allows them to take advantage of others
without government interference.

ie no regulations.

Let your factory poison downstream for everyone else. That is their right!

And if the idiot was not smart enough to figure out your ponzi scheme, well too bad. Let the buyer beware.

 

[JWBooth]

How Do You Define Freedom?

pipe dream

 

[Charles Stucker]

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.

So what you are saying is that for you freedom means the freedom of a slothful majority to impose on the industrious minority conditions of enforced servitude.
Which means your version of "freedom" means You have the freedom to enslave people who work harder and mange their money better than you. I call that slavery and tyranny of the masses.

Excessive taxes destroy the ability of the 'working man' to save enough capital to rise up to the position of capitalist. Many people could never make that transition in the best of situations as they lack the desire or frugality to accumulate capital. Those many are the ones who, through desires that exceed their capacity to earn, push for socialism.

I reject both your socialism and your concept of freedom.

For me freedom is the right of states to secede. With that freedom the abuses of the federal government would self mitigate until they disappeared. The 'welfare' states (like NY) would fail and the hardworking states (like TX) would prosper.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What a reactionary talking bobble head you are, Charles Stucker. First, no excessive taxes are in sight. Second, millions upon millions of Americans are learning frugality and the acquistion of capital right now because of the right-wing caused great recession. Third, health care is inevitable, and you will pay your fair share for it. Government regulation is not socialism.

I reject your fear of social justice, political accountability, and unregulated corporatism.

And secession? Want century do you live in? Do you live with othe other moonbats in the Overton, Republic of Texas compound, someday which will become known as Camp FEMA?

 

[Foxfyre]

One thing to keep in mind. Many think freedom allows them to take advantage of others
without government interference.

ie no regulations.

Let your factory poison downstream for everyone else. That is their right!

And if the idiot was not smart enough to figure out your ponzi scheme, well too bad. Let the buyer beware.

Some are obviously pondering freedom within a framework of individual rights here and are drawing various conclusions. But in my opinion, our Founders saw the great American experiment as one of individual rights rather than a one-size-fits-all society as decreed by a monarch or authoritarian government. By their definition, if each of us does not have freedom to choose our own destiny and follow the desires of our own heart within that definition of individual rights, then there is no freedom at all.

The US Constitution is our social contract intended to secure our liberty (unalienable rights) by laws allowing each to follow the desires of his/her own heart and profit and fail by virtue of his own industry but not to the points where we infringe on or violate the liberty (rights) of others.

Again, unalienable rights are those that require no contribution from anybody else. Our social contract therefore secures our unalienable rights but says that we cannot violate the next guy with impunity. Only by defending everybody's individual rights (life, liberty, property, rewards of one's own industry, pursuit of happiness) can we be a free people.

So I have no right to pollute the water you must use, and I have no right to cheat you for the purpose of taking what you have for my own benefit or anybody else's benefit. The social contract requires us to respect that all must use the water and the social contract respects your property as yours that you are free to use for your own benefit or squander it as you choose so long as you don't violate the rights of the next guy.

It is good that we have laws that prevent us from doing violence to each other's person or rights with impunity.

But what about laws that allow one person or group to take from another with impunity?

What does that do to our freedom?

 

[uscitizen]

One thing to keep in mind. Many think freedom allows them to take advantage of others
without government interference.

ie no regulations.

Let your factory poison downstream for everyone else. That is their right!

And if the idiot was not smart enough to figure out your ponzi scheme, well too bad. Let the buyer beware.

Some are obviously pondering freedom within a framework of individual rights here and are drawing various conclusions. But in my opinion, our Founders saw the great American experiment as one of individual rights rather than a one-size-fits-all society as decreed by a monarch or authoritarian government. By their definition, if each of us does not have freedom to choose our own destiny and follow the desires of our own heart within that definition of individual rights, then there is no freedom at all.

The US Constitution is our social contract intended to secure our liberty (unalienable rights) by laws allowing each to follow the desires of his/her own heart and profit and fail by virtue of his own industry but not to the points where we infringe on or violate the liberty (rights) of others.

Again, unalienable rights are those that require no contribution from anybody else. Our social contract therefore secures our unalienable rights but says that we cannot violate the next guy with impunity. Only by defending everybody's individual rights (life, liberty, property, rewards of one's own industry, pursuit of happiness) can we be a free people.

So I have no right to pollute the water you must use, and I have no right to cheat you for the purpose of taking what you have for my own benefit or anybody else's benefit. The social contract requires us to respect that all must use the water and the social contract respects your property as yours that you are free to use for your own benefit or squander it as you choose so long as you don't violate the rights of the next guy.

It is good that we have laws that prevent us from doing violence to each other's person or rights with impunity.

But what about laws that allow one person or group to take from another with impunity?

What does that do to our freedom?

Ohh like eminent domain for corporate gain?

Be it a hotel, mall or football stadium.

 

[Foxfyre]

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 .

Our Founders would say that our freedom won by precious blood and treasure should never be squandered by apathy or denial. They were fully aware that there would be many who would try to take our freedom from us and it would require a lifetime of conviction and due diligence to defend it.

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

What would be your solution here? If a man, for instance, is a conscientious objector, should his taxes be used to fund a war? Or does the social contract that hands the government the mandatory task to secure and defend the people from enemies, foreign and domestic, override ones abhorence for war? What would Jefferson, who composed the defense clauses of the Constitution, say?

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

I'm torn on this one. I am a huge Second Amendment advocate, but I am fully aware that military might has surpassed the ability of the common man to defend himself against tyranny of his own government. Or has it? To be truthful, I would not like for my neighbor who regularly gets drunk and disorderly that increase his paranoia to have a fully armed Bradley tank in his back yard nor would I like bank robbers to have easy access to a 105mm recoiless rifle. I don't know who would win if the US government should be taken over in an unscrupulous coup and it became necessary for the people to take it back. I think at least most of the military would side with the people though.

(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."

I don't think there can be freedom without individualism. By implied social contract we can all agree to certain standards of etiquette, decency, propriety, community spirit etc. and can even enforce these within our collective society, but a free man can nevertheless speak against them or disapprove of them or hate them with no fear of reprisal from his government. And, if societal rules become too disagreeable, is at liberty to leave to find some place ore to his liking.

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

Mr. Jefferson got this one right. I think more damage has been done to this country by the government taking property from Citizen A and giving it to Citizen B than any other bad policy they've come up with. It has been absolutely the most corrupting force in our national experience both for those in government and the recipients of the benevolence.

 

[uscitizen]

Those same founders that made the Whiskey tax? And summoned more troops to enforce it than for any revoloutionary battle? And specified it be paid in Specie? When the westrern lands used whiskey for trade and had little official money?

 

[amrchaos]

Pure Freedom is the unrestricted to act or carry out my will.

Like if I wanted to go to the Playboy ranch and have sex with all the bunnies and not pay because I do not want to pay--that is pure Freedom.

Walking into a Bank, taking all the money and walking out without a hassle or need of a weapon--that is pure freedom

Slapping rev Wright across the mouth and crapping down his throat without some lawyer or officer trying to arrest me--that is pure Freedom!!

America talks about Freedom, but it citizens do have pure freedom. Just a set of liberties that is being stolen from them by the government!!

 

[Charles Stucker]

What a reactionary talking bobble head you are, Charles Stucker.

I'm so sorry, did I offend your lazy liberal tax and spend sensibilities?
And before you go off on some lame "better than a spend and not tax" line - I want the spending ended. So all the lazy, slothful, slugs like you have to either plan ahead for their retirement or live on private charity.
There is a huge gap between regulating commerce to insure no state imposes restrictions on trade and lamebrain liberal socialist idiocy which interprets commerce as the right to tell a small business owner he must obey every whim to come from congress. That is tyranny and it is what the retards who want more government spending are all about.
Take more from the hard workers to give it to the lazy bums, like you Jake.

 

[Foxfyre]

Those same founders that made the Whiskey tax? And summoned more troops to enforce it than for any revoloutionary battle? And specified it be paid in Specie? When the westrern lands used whiskey for trade and had little official money?

While I think your view of history may be a bit skewed here, do you consider an income tax on one's industry to be a more moral tax than a usage tax? Is a tax on everybody to build an obscure road somehow more moral than a toll paid by those who use the road? Our first government required some funds to carry out its Constitutionally mandated function and chose the least regressive means of doing that as was available to them at the time.

So how would you have advised them to raise funds other than the whiskey tax?

 

[uscitizen]

Those same founders that made the Whiskey tax? And summoned more troops to enforce it than for any revoloutionary battle? And specified it be paid in Specie? When the westrern lands used whiskey for trade and had little official money?

While I think your view of history may be a bit skewed here, do you consider an income tax on one's industry to be a more moral tax than a usage tax? Is a tax on everybody to build an obscure road somehow more moral than a toll paid by those who use the road? Our first government required some funds to carry out its Constitutionally mandated function and chose the least regressive means of doing that as was available to them at the time.

So how would you have advised them to raise funds other than the whiskey tax?

Ohh I am not against taxes in general.
But some seem to think there should be no corporate taxes. All taxes should be paid by the consumers.
The whiskey tax shows that our founding fathers thought differently.

 

[amrchaos]

Those same founders that made the Whiskey tax? And summoned more troops to enforce it than for any revoloutionary battle? And specified it be paid in Specie? When the westrern lands used whiskey for trade and had little official money?

While I think your view of history may be a bit skewed here, do you consider an income tax on one's industry to be a more moral tax than a usage tax? Is a tax on everybody to build an obscure road somehow more moral than a toll paid by those who use the road? Our first government required some funds to carry out its Constitutionally mandated function and chose the least regressive means of doing that as was available to them at the time.

So how would you have advised them to raise funds other than the whiskey tax?

Pillage the land, sell the women and children into slavery?

P.S.--to citizen. All taxes are paid by the consumer. It is just a matter of where the tax is applied that makes the difference on who pays.

 

[Foxfyre]

Pure Freedom is the unrestricted to act or carry out my will.

Like if I wanted to go to the Playboy ranch and have sex with all the bunnies and not pay because I do not want to pay--that is pure Freedom.

Walking into a Bank, taking all the money and walking out without a hassle or need of a weapon--that is pure freedom

Slapping rev Wright across the mouth and crapping down his throat without some lawyer or officer trying to arrest me--that is pure Freedom!!

America talks about Freedom, but it citizens do have pure freedom. Just a set of liberties that is being stolen from them by the government!!

Your definition of freedom is one definition of freedom, but it does not agree with the Founders' definition of freedom. Their definition of freedom was that if everybody's individual freedom/liberty/unalienable rights were not secure, then nobody was truly free. So if you can take the (cough) industry of the Playboy bunnies with impunity for your own pleasure or benefit with impunity, then the next guy can take yours just as easily. So you are not free. You are at the mercy of all who are stronger than you taking what you have.

That is why the Founders were opposed to anarchy as it denies freedom to all but the strongest and fittest. The Constitution distributes freedom to all equally and empowers us to take advantage of it or not as we choose.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

The 'welfare' states (like NY) would fail and the hardworking states (like TX) would prosper.

New York pays more in taxes to the federal government than it takes out. Texas, on the other hand takes more federal money it pays in. Texas is free to go at any time. As my friend who tours with a band once said, "Other than Austin, Texas is the butthole of the US."

 

[Foxfyre]

Those same founders that made the Whiskey tax? And summoned more troops to enforce it than for any revoloutionary battle? And specified it be paid in Specie? When the westrern lands used whiskey for trade and had little official money?

While I think your view of history may be a bit skewed here, do you consider an income tax on one's industry to be a more moral tax than a usage tax? Is a tax on everybody to build an obscure road somehow more moral than a toll paid by those who use the road? Our first government required some funds to carry out its Constitutionally mandated function and chose the least regressive means of doing that as was available to them at the time.

So how would you have advised them to raise funds other than the whiskey tax?

Pillage the land, sell the women and children into slavery?

That would be one way of doing it, but it would hardly fit the definition of liberty or freedom.

So what is your definition of freedom?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

What would be your solution here? If a man, for instance, is a conscientious objector, should his taxes be used to fund a war? Or does the social contract that hands the government the mandatory task to secure and defend the people from enemies, foreign and domestic, override ones abhorence for war? What would Jefferson, who composed the defense clauses of the Constitution, say?



.

With a righteous constitutional government manned by thoughtful statesmen willing to trust the people with the truth. If a case for war arouse they would be able to articulate its need and few educated thoughtful citizens would object .
Educated thoughtful citizens are in deliberate short supply
What the government has created is a citizenry who are fearful useless eaters ignorant of the basics of being civil neighbors.

The constitution is not a suicide pact unless it is the hands of tyrants who can come in many shades , treacherous friends who wish to help you to death or greedy globalist with visions of conquest .

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I'm torn on this one. I am a huge Second Amendment advocate, but I am fully aware that military might has surpassed the ability of the common man to defend himself against tyranny of his own government. Or has it? To be truthful, I would not like for my neighbor who regularly gets drunk and disorderly that increase his paranoia to have a fully armed Bradley tank in his back yard nor would I like bank robbers to have easy access to a 105mm recoiless rifle. I don't know who would win if the US government should be taken over in an unscrupulous coup and it became necessary for the people to take it back. I think at least most of the military would side with the people though.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/92046-which-side-do-you-come-down-on.html

A thread on that, interesting results