# Freedom



## 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?


----------



## dblack

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.


----------



## midcan5

dblack said:


> 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.


----------



## spectrumc01

Freedom is the gilded cage, but is it so bad?

True freedom can only be achieved when you are alone.  The moment you introduce a second person into the mix freedoms are immediately restricted.  The first person does not have the right to kill the second person or visa versa.  The more civilized you become the more freedoms you sacrifice.  

So the question becomes what freedoms are we willing to curb and which ones are we not willing to sacrifice, and that will tell us what kind of society we want.


----------



## dblack

midcan5 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Mr. H.

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose...


----------



## jillian

Mr. H. said:


> Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose...



and nothin' was all that bobby left me...


----------



## there4eyeM

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


----------



## dblack

there4eyeM said:


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



There's also "free" as in "free beer", but I think it's safe to say the OP is discussing freedom in the political context - i.e. constitutionally protected rights.


----------



## Oddball

dblack said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

"Negative freedoms" has become the latest socialist/progressive buzz moniker, as a route by which to cynically sell the notion of gubmint _*positively*_ ordering around hoi polloy as chattel property, rather than being limited by enumerated powers (the Constitution) and a list of "thou shalt nots" (the BoR).

And you're correct in mentioning coercion, as the proactive use of physical force is the only tool at gubmint's disposal to make us all comply with their edicts.


----------



## midcan5

The gilded cage metaphor is interesting for it gets at a truth that we'll come back to. Let's not narrow freedom down to simply political means and ends but extend the concept. The idea that one can be free simply when desire meets our personal ambitions is interesting if hard to nail down. When I give a bum, sitting on a heated vent, a dollar have I set them free. They may be more free than most already. Everyone is tied down in life. We all like to pretend (think?) we are free to do as we please but if you did so you'd soon find yourself alone.

Class, wealth, power, authority, ideology, religion, culture, security, all exert pressure on our freedoms or allow freedom. So how can we ever claim freedom exists, it brings us back to the positive versus the negative freedom question. Do some people have more freedom than others? If they do why?


----------



## dblack

midcan5 said:


> The gilded cage metaphor is interesting for it gets at a truth that we'll come back to. Let's not narrow freedom down to simply political means and ends but extend the concept.



Sure. OK. Being a political board, I sort of assumed we were focused on the political definition of freedom. But the other definitions are interesting as well. Free will is a big one.



> Class, wealth, power, authority, ideology, religion, culture, security, all exert pressure on our freedoms or allow freedom. So how can we ever claim freedom exists, it brings us back to the positive versus the negative freedom question.



Well, political freedom doesn't depend on these extraneous factors, but you indicated you want to talk about something else. It sounds like you're more interested discussing the relative states of _empowerment_ we might find ourselves in.



> Do some people have more freedom than others? If they do why?



So, if it is, in fact, empowerment we're talking about - yes, some people have more than others. The reasons for this are varied. Despite our national conviction that all people are equal under the law, we don't try to pretend that we are all equally endowed or should be equally empowered. In fact, we've adopted an economic system that thrives on unequal distribution of power.


----------



## TNHarley

Freedom is still a word? I thought it got abolished.. Kinda like the constitution


----------



## spectrumc01

Freedom is a willingness to accept consequences good or bad.  To be truly free one must be fearless in mind body and soul.


----------



## Oddball

TNHarley said:


> Freedom is still a word? I thought it got abolished.. Kinda like the constitution


Lest we forget the "W" word.


----------



## Wiseacre

To me, freedom means the right and ability to make our own choices and take actions based on those choices so long as someone's else's freedom is impinged.   I think with freedom comes responsibilities;  there are always consequences to whatever we say or do, both positive and negative, intended or otherwise.   You don't get to make a mess and then walk away, debts and obligations should be honored.


----------



## dblack

TNHarley said:


> Freedom is still a word? I thought it got abolished..
> Kinda like the constitution



The concept is frowned on. But it's still fine to use the word as a platitude or when making empty campaign promises.


----------



## BreezeWood

most other creatures in the Garden seem already to be free.


----------



## The Professor

jillian said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and nothin' was all that bobby left me...
Click to expand...


Zsa Zsa Gabor once said, "I'm a good housekeeper.  Every time I get divorced I keep the house."


----------



## Mr. H.

Freedom is a shitload of personal responsibility and dicipline. The absence of Freedom is simply dicipline. 

The abuse of Freedom is a disregard for personal responsibility. 

And these days we are an abusive society.


----------



## Arthur

Freedom is an ideal.  Ideals are concepts.  Concepts are not free.


----------



## dblack

midcan5 said:


> The gilded cage metaphor is interesting for it gets at a truth that we'll come back to. Let's not narrow freedom down to simply political means and ends but extend the concept. The idea that one can be free simply when desire meets our personal ambitions is interesting if hard to nail down. When I give a bum, sitting on a heated vent, a dollar have I set them free. They may be more free than most already. Everyone is tied down in life. We all like to pretend (think?) we are free to do as we please but if you did so you'd soon find yourself alone.
> 
> Class, wealth, power, authority, ideology, religion, culture, security, all exert pressure on our freedoms or allow freedom. So how can we ever claim freedom exists, it brings us back to the positive versus the negative freedom question. Do some people have more freedom than others? If they do why?



So, is your interest, in this thread, to talk about the general aspects of freedom? Or the negative/positive freedom characterization? I'm interested in discussing either.


----------



## akelch

For me. Freedom is to be forgiven and to forgive.


----------



## midcan5

dblack said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gilded cage metaphor is interesting for it gets at a truth that we'll come back to. Let's not narrow freedom down to simply political means and ends but extend the concept. The idea that one can be free simply when desire meets our personal ambitions is interesting if hard to nail down. When I give a bum, sitting on a heated vent, a dollar have I set them free. They may be more free than most already. Everyone is tied down in life. We all like to pretend (think?) we are free to do as we please but if you did so you'd soon find yourself alone.
> 
> Class, wealth, power, authority, ideology, religion, culture, security, all exert pressure on our freedoms or allow freedom. So how can we ever claim freedom exists, it brings us back to the positive versus the negative freedom question. Do some people have more freedom than others? If they do why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, is your interest, in this thread, to talk about the general aspects of freedom? Or the negative/positive freedom characterization? I'm interested in discussing either.
Click to expand...


I guess both but in either case it seems we need some examples. As someone noted above freedom is an ideal, an idea that gets bantered about but is hard to tackle outside time and place. Some time ago I wrote this piece: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html  Very simply my argument was with the broad brush freedom that has come to be known as libertarianism. Like the song, 'all you need is love,' for the libertarian 'all you need is freedom.' But freedom means nothing outside of context and context often involves power. It also involves responsibility as someone also mentioned above. But am I really sure?

When someone says we are losing our freedom my question becomes how are you losing something you didn't really have in the first place. If for instance the ACA becomes reality, I think it will, all of us who don't already pay for healthcare will be forced to pay up. This is then derided as a loss of freedom. But before this requirement you didn't have freedom as you really had nothing. Now you have a responsibility. Just words? Hm....


"Freedom would be not to choose between black and white but to abjure such prescribed choices."  Theodor Adorno


----------



## midcan5

While reading another thread on which I'll comment later it occurred to me that there is a place in which freedom can be [sorta] real? Any guesses.


----------



## spectrumc01

midcan5 said:


> While reading another thread on which I'll comment later it occurred to me that there is a place in which freedom can be [sorta] real? Any guesses.



In the ground.  Unless you are religious, in which case you have never been free and even after death you are not truly free as your deity will dictate what you can and can't do, think or feel.


----------



## BreezeWood

> ... and even after death you are not truly free as your deity will dictate what you can and can't do, think or feel.




*and even after death ...*


is that your physiological form your Spirit has learned to manage without and stays alive ? 

if so, the universe is a big place and the Deity may prove the least of your worries.


----------



## Votto

Freedom is something we all seek to attain, like a carrot dangling in front of us.  Then when we obtain such freedom, it gives rise to trying to make others serve us and conform to our brand of "freedom".  In short, people seek power, secure power, and then seek more power to enhance such "freedoms".  That is the ironic aspect of freedom.

Looking at the history of mankind, the human race has succeeded in causing an elite few to enslave his fellow man in large part.  Now democracy is sold to us as being our source of freedom.  The funny part is there are no democracies.  The other absurdity is that if we did live in a democracy, mob rule does not equate to freedom.

For the most part, people embrace freedom, so long as it is their brand of freedom.  Once you offend their sensibilities, however, all bets are off.  Then it is time to create laws and enforce them.


----------



## midcan5

While I consider [political or societal] freedom an abstract concept in need of context and explanation - while reading the 'transgender' thread it occurred to me there are other types of freedom. One is the fact a person online can hate, or find other people so different, their reaction is one of criticism. Imagine life lived so narrowly free that you possess the ability to say that another is aberrant [choose your pejorative]. Next thought was can we live freely in our minds? Or are we similar to computers in that our program is a given and our conscious is a reflection only of our unconscious. That is all that came before. My challenge to those who think that sexuality is a choice, orientation that is, is to imagine they are different. Since it is only in your mind and since we all assume freedom is real, can we think in that manner. I cannot for instance imagine being a woman for not only is the biology different but all options are different. But a trans person does. What thinks thou.


----------



## Michelle420

midcan5 said:


> While I consider [political or societal] freedom an abstract concept in need of context and explanation - while reading the 'transgender' thread it occurred to me there are other types of freedom. One is the fact a person online can hate, or find other people so different, their reaction is one of criticism. Imagine life lived so narrowly free that you possess the ability to say that another is aberrant [choose your pejorative]. Next thought was can we live freely in our minds? Or are we similar to computers in that our program is a given and our conscious is a reflection only of our unconscious. That is all that came before. My challenge to those who think that sexuality is a choice, orientation that is, is to imagine they are different. Since it is only in your mind and since we all assume freedom is real, can we think in that manner. I cannot for instance imagine being a woman for not only is the biology different but all options are different. But a trans person does. What thinks thou.



I know we need sleep, food and water, those are basic needs to keep us going.

Once we form a tribe or society the rest is socially constructed and relative to the majority culture or the propaganda of those who hold the power to influence the rest of the group.

Since sex and gender is also socially constructed I would think that in a natural environment you would just be who you are and there would be no problem.


----------



## midcan5

How though does a social construct come to be?  What factors create any particular society? Eskimos and Pygmies surely construct a different world? And back OT, if societies are socially constructed whither freedom?  [book below is worth your time if topic interests you]

"Politics, ideology, and power matter more than metaphysics to most advocates of construction analyses of social and cultural phenomena. Talk of construction tends to undermine the authority of knowledge and categorization. It challenges complacent assumptions about the inevitability of what we have found out or our present ways of doing things." Ian Hacking 'The Social Construction of What'


----------



## Michelle420

midcan5 said:


> How though does a social construct come to be?  What factors create any particular society? Eskimos and Pygmies surely construct a different world? And back OT, if societies are socially constructed whither freedom?  [book below is worth your time if topic interests you]
> 
> "Politics, ideology, and power matter more than metaphysics to most advocates of construction analyses of social and cultural phenomena. Talk of construction tends to undermine the authority of knowledge and categorization. It challenges complacent assumptions about the inevitability of what we have found out or our present ways of doing things." Ian Hacking 'The Social Construction of What'



It is my opinion everything is socially constructed.

I will add it to my collections of book recommends. Thank you.

I currently have a lot of reading lists so I can't say when I will get to it but I will keep it in mind.


----------



## AquaAthena

midcan5 said:


> '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, 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. 

Freedom from oppressive governmental tyranny is something to be fought for, and won. The more the government takes from one's life, the less freedoms, the victim has. It takes our power and hands it to the government, which is the goal of this administration, as of this date in time.


----------



## midcan5

AquaAthena said:


> ...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 is not absence of dependence; it is simply absence of external impediments to motion."  Hobbes from article below.

Interesting interview from a thinker on freedom.

"These writers were interested in the broader question of what it means to say of individuals  or even of whole bodies of people  that they have been made to live in the manner of slaves. The answer they give is that, if you are subject to the arbitrary will of anyone else, such that you are dependent on their mere goodwill, then you may be said to be living in servitude, however elevated may be your position in society. So, for example, Tacitus speaks of the servitude of the entire senatorial class under the Emperor Tiberius, so wholly subject were they to his lethal caprice."

Liberty before liberalism & all that » 3:AM Magazine

The above piece poses several interesting questions for the contemporary 'freedom is all you need advocate.'


----------



## dblack

midcan5 said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...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.
Click to expand...


The golden rule doesn't suffice, in my view. There are plenty of masochists in the world.


----------



## Wyld Kard

Freedom is an illusion!


----------



## originalthought

spectrumc01 said:


> Freedom is the gilded cage, but is it so bad?
> 
> True freedom can only be achieved when you are alone.  The moment you introduce a second person into the mix freedoms are immediately restricted.  The first person does not have the right to kill the second person or visa versa.  The more civilized you become the more freedoms you sacrifice.
> 
> So the question becomes what freedoms are we willing to curb and which ones are we not willing to sacrifice, and that will tell us what kind of society we want.



True freedom can come when all people value indivual property. If all people value individual property, no matter how many are introduced, all can maintain absolute freedom. 

There is no reason to lose freedom with more civilization. In fact, if you look at history, you will find the exact opposite. Think about the dark ages when people had no freedom and no private property, it was held by Kings and nobles. Now think to our time. Surely all people would agree that we are more civilized than the societies in the dark ages. And I would argue that we are more free than any of those societies of the dark ages.


----------



## hangover

Freedom is the inalienable right to smoke a joint in the pursuit  of happiness.

Anyone that thinks any U.S. citizens are free with a $17 trillion national debt, is as stupid as politicians want them to be.


----------



## midcan5

hangover said:


> Freedom is the inalienable right to smoke a joint in the pursuit  of happiness.
> 
> Anyone that thinks any U.S. citizens are free with a $17 trillion national debt, is as stupid as politicians want them to be.



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?


----------



## Spiderman

midcan5 said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom is the inalienable right to smoke a joint in the pursuit  of happiness.
> 
> Anyone that thinks any U.S. citizens are free with a $17 trillion national debt, is as stupid as politicians want them to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


Debt and deficit are not the same thing.  The debt has increased and will continue to increase.


----------



## 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

midcan5 said:


> '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

dblack said:


> 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

dblack said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *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?
Click to expand...


I did?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did?
Click to expand...


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


----------



## dblack

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you retracting your argument that the primary purpose of government is to prevent people from bullying you?
Click to expand...


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

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you retracting your argument that the primary purpose of government is to prevent people from bullying you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Are you pretending that that's the same thing as 'imposing my definition of proper behavior on others'?
Click to expand...


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

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it not imposing your definition of proper behavior on others?
Click to expand...


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

Quantum Windbag said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> '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.
Click to expand...


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

there4eyeM said:


> 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

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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.



dblack said:


> 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.
Click to expand...


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

midcan5 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> '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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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

midcan5 said:


> 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. 



midcan5 said:


> 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

midcan5 said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...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.
> 
> '
Click to expand...


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

Quantum Windbag said:


> 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. 



Quantum Windbag said:


> 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.



Votto said:


> 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

midcan5 said:


> '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

midcan5 said:


> '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

midcan5 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.



midcan5 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Is that what I said?

Didn't think so.


----------



## midcan5

Quantum Windbag said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what I said?
> 
> Didn't think so.
Click to expand...


QW, please stop you seem lost in this thread. And vulgarity doesn't help explanation. Try again. Tell me something I am free to do in reality not in that magical sphere you debate in. Name the freedoms you consider important. 

And that is what you said, if freedom is defined by thought alone, then all any subjugated person needs is a mind and a thought and they are free. Prisoners by your logic are the freest people in the world as they have lots of time for thought.  http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html

.


----------



## Unkotare

midcan5 said:


> And that is what you said, if freedom is defined by thought alone, then all any subjugated person needs is a mind and a thought and they are free. Prisoners by your logic are the freest people in the world as they have lots of time for thought.
> .





You're about halfway there.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> QW, please stop you seem lost in this thread. And vulgarity doesn't help explanation. Try again. Tell me something I am free to do in reality not in that magical sphere you debate in. Name the freedoms you consider important.
> 
> And that is what you said, if freedom is defined by thought alone, then all any subjugated person needs is a mind and a thought and they are free. Prisoners by your logic are the freest people in the world as they have lots of time for thought.  http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Once again, shove your request for me to not use the appropriate language to deal with idiocy up your ass, preferably after folding it into a shape with multiple fucking pointy places.

I suggest you go back and actually read what I write. I did not say that freedom is defined by thought, I said it is defined by how you think. I suggest you consult an English teacher for assistance in parsing that sentence because it is using active voice, not passive.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Unkotare said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is what you said, if freedom is defined by thought alone, then all any subjugated person needs is a mind and a thought and they are free. Prisoners by your logic are the freest people in the world as they have lots of time for thought.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're about halfway there.
Click to expand...


It is that about part that is getting him. He expects freedom to happen to him, which is why he has trouble with the concept.


----------



## boedicca

Freedom is the right to be left alone.


----------



## Unkotare

Quantum Windbag said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is what you said, if freedom is defined by thought alone, then all any subjugated person needs is a mind and a thought and they are free. Prisoners by your logic are the freest people in the world as they have lots of time for thought.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're about halfway there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is that about part that is getting him. He expects freedom to happen to him, which is why he has trouble with the concept.
Click to expand...




To be fair, his limitations may be beyond is control.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Unkotare said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're about halfway there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is that about part that is getting him. He expects freedom to happen to him, which is why he has trouble with the concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, his limitations may be beyond is control.
Click to expand...


I.d like to be fair, but I really don't believe that people are controlled by genetic programming. I know he isn't stupid, exactly, so I can only conclude to believe he chose to be an ignorant asswipe,


----------



## midcan5

OMG a circle jerk in the philosophy forum, consider the various of ramifications of said congratulatory yanking, and ask do we arrive at any truth through such actions? Could it be simply a consensus of the uninformed? 

But back on topic, how you think involves thought, no real difference there. So again your conceptual idea of freedom is that thinking is all you require to be free? Since you offer no substantive examples or even desires, your freedom remains an empty concept devoid of concrete meaning. 

Allow me to help you guys with a specific example. One argument for slavery in America was that the slaves were treated well. The alternate example was a factory worker had no rights as she could be fired, while the slave was housed and taken care of. So then given given this situation who was it that experienced freedom. Both one none? Note my experiential reference.  

And still no examples of what freedom consists of in the world from QW. Wonder why that is?  I think I know why.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> OMG a circle jerk in the philosophy forum, consider the various of ramifications of said congratulatory yanking, and ask do we arrive at any truth through such actions? Could it be simply a consensus of the uninformed?
> 
> But back on topic, how you think involves thought, no real difference there. So again your conceptual idea of freedom is that thinking is all you require to be free? Since you offer no substantive examples or even desires, your freedom remains an empty concept devoid of concrete meaning.
> 
> Allow me to help you guys with a specific example. One argument for slavery in America was that the slaves were treated well. The alternate example was a factory worker had no rights as she could be fired, while the slave was housed and taken care of. So then given given this situation who was it that experienced freedom. Both one none? Note my experiential reference.
> 
> And still no examples of what freedom consists of in the world from QW. Wonder why that is?  I think I know why.



Thinking is a process, thought is the result, I can't believe I have to explain that to anyone who has nerve enough to actually post in philosophy. 

Remember when I told you to talk to an English teacher? One is what you do (active voice), the other is what happens (passive voice). 

How you think, not what you thought.


----------



## midcan5

Again there is no difference, are you so dense you cannot see that. Picayune parsing of words is not helping you. Examples please, so far not a single substantive reply. We are talking about freedom, an English teacher does no teach philosophy. But I understand why you are afraid of nailing down freedom, for then you would have lost the debate.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> Again there is no difference, are you so dense you cannot see that. Picayune parsing of words is not helping you. Examples please, so far not a single substantive reply. We are talking about freedom, an English teacher does no teach philosophy. But I understand why you are afraid of nailing down freedom, for then you would have lost the debate.



There is a difference, educate yourself.

Grammar Girl : Active Voice Versus Passive Voice :: Quick and Dirty Tips ?

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/539/02/

Clear, Concise Sentences: Use the active voice

Voice:* Active and Passive


----------



## midcan5

I am therefore I think. Experience leads to thinking, thinking leads to thought, thought leads to behaviors, behaviors lead to experiences, experiences lead to thinking, thinking leads to thought.... We still have nothing from you about freedom, give us an example of freedom. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/writing/103530-fact-paradox-and-random-musings-2.html#post7656862

.


----------



## Unkotare

midcan5 said:


> I am therefore I think.
> .





Rene's gonna be pissed if you keep messin' with his dictum like that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> I am therefore I think. Experience leads to thinking, thinking leads to thought, thought leads to behaviors, behaviors lead to experiences, experiences lead to thinking, thinking leads to thought.... We still have nothing from you about freedom, give us an example of freedom.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/writing/103530-fact-paradox-and-random-musings-2.html#post7656862
> 
> .



Brilliant.

Even after I explain the difference between doing something and letting it happen, you insist that they are the same.


----------



## midcan5

QW,  so then I guess you have no idea what freedom is?  I take you give up?


----------



## Intense

Thought, word, action, effect that which is around it. There is always effect, consequence, good or bad, to whatever degree. 




> RELATION OF THE QUESTION TO DIFFERENT BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY
> HISTORY
> Free Will in Ancient Philosophy
> Free Will and the Christian Religion
> Catholic Doctrine
> Thomist and Molinist Theories
> Free will and the Protestant Reformers
> Free Will in Modern Philosophy
> THE ARGUMENT
> Proof
> Objections
> NATURE AND RANGE OF MORAL LIBERTY
> CONSEQUENCES
> 
> The question of free will, moral liberty, or the liberum arbitrium of the Schoolmen, ranks amongst the three or four most important philosophical problems of all time. It ramifies into ethics, theology, metaphysics, and psychology. The view adopted in response to it will determine a man's position in regard to the most momentous issues that present themselves to the human mind. On the one hand, does man possess genuine moral freedom, power of real choice, true ability to determine the course of his thoughts and volitions, to decide which motives shall prevail within his mind, to modify and mould his own character? Or, on the other, are man's thoughts and volitions, his character and external actions, all merely the inevitable outcome of his circumstances? Are they all inexorably predetermined in every detail along rigid lines by events of the past, over which he himself has had no sort of control? This is the real import of the free-will problem.
> Relation of the question to different branches of philosophy
> 
> (1) Ethically, the issue vitally affects the meaning of most of our fundamental moral terms and ideas. Responsibility, merit, duty, remorse, justice, and the like, will have a totally different significance for one who believes that all man's acts are in the last resort completely determined by agencies beyond his power, from that which these terms bear for the man who believes that each human being possessed of reason can by his own free will determine his deliberate volitions and so exercise a real command over his thoughts, his deeds, and the formation of his character.
> 
> (2) Theology studies the questions of the existence, nature and attributes of God, and His relations with man. The reconciliation of God's fore-knowledge and universal providential government of the world with the contingency of human action, as well as the harmonizing of the efficacy of supernatural grace with the free natural power of the creature, has been amongst the most arduous labours of the theological student from the days of St. Augustine down to the present time.
> 
> (3) Causality, change, movement, the beginning of existence, are notions which lie at the very heart of metaphysics. The conception of the human will as a free cause involves them all.
> 
> (4) Again, the analysis of voluntary action and the investigation of its peculiar features are the special functions of Psychology. Indeed, the nature of the process of volition and of all forms of appetitive or conative activity is a topic that has absorbed a constantly increasing space in psychological literature during the past fifty years.
> 
> (5) Finally, the rapid growth of sundry branches of modern science, such as physics, biology, sociology, and the systematization of moral statistics, has made the doctrine of free will a topic of the most keen interest in many departments of more positive knowledge.
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Free Will



What is Vision, Discovery, Invention? What is the motivation behind them? Purpose? Intent? Generally? Specifically?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> QW,  so then I guess you have no idea what freedom is?  I take you give up?



The fact that you are incapable of understanding the difference between active and passive voice in English in no way restricts my ability to understand complex mathematical equations.


----------



## midcan5

Freedomland: A Fable

In Freedomland there were no traffic lights, cars met willy nilly and sometimes great crashes happened. Some people would say we know you think this freedom, we think it not. So they would debate. And some in their thinking thought this is freedom, but others in their thinking thought is this freedom. Still no lights. Work in Freedomland was sometime work and sometimes not. Some inherited wealth and some a business and others lived from day to day. Work could come young or old or in-between and again some thought this is freedom and others in their thinking thought maybe not. In Freedomland's medicine sometimes the young would come in hurt and the doctors would check their pockets and say I'm sorry in Freedomland I am free to treat or not. Work would sometimes be done and sometimes not and some would have nice homes and some nice shacks, everyone was free. Often though this got some thinking is this the best that Freedomland can do. They knew that they had freedom but they knew that they could get hurt or sick or homeless too. Again the debates began because they liked their freedom they liked too to express it in all ways. And some came and some went as they talked for no one really cared they had such freedom. One Freedomlander expressed her thoughts, she said that freedom was all well and good, but that is only if you are lucky. Now this struck all the Freedomlanders as odd for what was luck when you free. But then another jumped right up and said that some were blessed and that was not just luck. This confused them all again and so they sat and thought, and others were thinking how great freedom was and others were thinking I have to work soon. So on it went this debating, and the crashes, and the worker left out in the cold, for what was more important than freedom Freedomlanders thought.


----------



## Unkotare

Perhaps the history of the nation of Liberia is appropriate to this topic.


----------



## dblack

Yeah... freedom blows. Let's move on.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> Freedomland: A Fable
> 
> In Freedomland there were no traffic lights, cars met willy nilly and sometimes great crashes happened. Some people would say we know you think this freedom, we think it not. So they would debate. And some in their thinking thought this is freedom, but others in their thinking thought is this freedom. Still no lights. Work in Freedomland was sometime work and sometimes not. Some inherited wealth and some a business and others lived from day to day. Work could come young or old or in-between and again some thought this is freedom and others in their thinking thought maybe not. In Freedomland's medicine sometimes the young would come in hurt and the doctors would check their pockets and say I'm sorry in Freedomland I am free to treat or not. Work would sometimes be done and sometimes not and some would have nice homes and some nice shacks, everyone was free. Often though this got some thinking is this the best that Freedomland can do. They knew that they had freedom but they knew that they could get hurt or sick or homeless too. Again the debates began because they liked their freedom they liked too to express it in all ways. And some came and some went as they talked for no one really cared they had such freedom. One Freedomlander expressed her thoughts, she said that freedom was all well and good, but that is only if you are lucky. Now this struck all the Freedomlanders as odd for what was luck when you free. But then another jumped right up and said that some were blessed and that was not just luck. This confused them all again and so they sat and thought, and others were thinking how great freedom was and others were thinking I have to work soon. So on it went this debating, and the crashes, and the worker left out in the cold, for what was more important than freedom Freedomlanders thought.



Do you remember me asking you not to post without quoting other people and how you thought it was a compliment? 

It wasn't. 

This post is so stupid the average 5 year old would be insulted if I used it to argue against anything.


----------



## midcan5

Unkotare said:


> Perhaps the history of the nation of Liberia is appropriate to this topic.



It certainly could be, for there's a complicated subject regarding 'freedom' in history, state, racism, and culture. 



dblack said:


> Yeah... freedom blows. Let's move on.



Glad to see you've gotten over your admiration for a noun. 



Quantum Windbag said:


> Do you remember me asking you not to post without quoting other people and how you thought it was a compliment?



My 'thanks' was tongue in cheek. But why do you find it necessary to engage in personal attacks rather than intellectual or objective responses. I care nada what you think of my posts. 


Clearly freedom is so illusive no one really knows what it is for no one can nail it down. It would follow then that when someone says 'we are losing our freedom' they are engaging only in empty rhetoric.
.


----------



## Unkotare

midcan5 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the history of the nation of Liberia is appropriate to this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly could be, for there's a complicated subject regarding 'freedom' in history, state, racism, and culture.
> .
Click to expand...



More specifically, the history of the island of Fernando Po might be instructive.


----------



## midcan5

I cam across this recently in my reading and thought twenty years old it still fits perfectly. Bold addresses on topic. 

"In the United States, despite the disappearance of the worst sorts of public racism and the emergence of a small black middle class, including some highly successful politicians, the blacks have been confirmed in their sub-working-class role. This emerges from all the statistics on unemployment, health care, mortality rates. education, prison occupation and family status. For example, infant mortality among blacks is more than double that of whites and the gap is widening. To this racial problem has been added a second sub-working-class made up of Hispanics who will be at thirty million, the largest ethnic group in the United States by the year 2000. A large number of these immigrants fuel a low-cost, low-employment-standards black market economy which escapes all social regulation. This in turn has placed great pressure on the economies of the southern states to remain or return to pre-Roosevelt conditions, which in turn has created an industrial drain from the northern states. As a further pressure on this lowest denominator style of competition, America is gradually integrating its economy with that of Mexico, a country that operates at the cheap and rough levels of the Third World. 

In Britain a similar approach has led to the creation of large pockets of new wealth and to equally large pockets of new poverty. This return to the old rich-poor society with a gap in the middle has been encouraged by a decline in universal state services - whether practical, such as transpcrtaucn, or social, such as health care, 

In other wcrds, there has been a gradual undermining of the idea of a general social consensus. All of this has been fuelled by a slavish devotion to the rational certitude that there are absolute answers to all questions and problems. These absolute solutions have succeeded each other over the last twenty years in a jarring and disruptive way. At the same time the ability of governments to effect economic development has been severely handicapped by a growing reliance on service industries for growth ~ a sector dominated not by sophisticated items such as computer software but by consumer goods and personal consumer services. These sectors, it goes without saying, also flourish on labour which is part-time, low wage and insecure, thus creating a false sense of having solved part of the job-creation problem. This growth in services also leaves the Western economies dependent on the most unstable areas of economic activity, which is the first to collapse in an economic crisis. Put another way, service industries are to the economy what the uncontrolled printing of money is to monetary stability. They are both inflation. " 

These examples of a general decline stand out in contrast to state mechanisms which have never been so sophisticated. This sophistication has reached a level of complexity so great that the systems are, in truth. incomprehensible not only to the citizen, but to the most part of the political class. The latter, in a slothful loss of intellectual and practical self-discipline, have simply accepted that this is the way things must be. The resulting void in responsible leadership has allowed an hysterical brand of simplistic politics to rise and take power on the back of truisms, cliches and chauvinism, all of which fall below the intellectual level of Jenkins' Ear jingoism.  

*When President Bush, in his inaugural address. warmed to the theme of a kinder, gentler America, he said: "We know what works: freedom works. We know what's right: freedom is right. We know how to secure a more just and prosperous life for man on earth: through free markets, free speech, free elections." No one laughed at his absurd ordering of these three freedoms. The men of reason in the other political party, in his own party, in the media and in the universities found nothing to say.* 

Every word and concept of the wars of democracy and justice has been appropriated by those who traditionally opposed both and who seek power to undo what has been done. The moral sense of the eighteenth century has not only been turned upside down, this has been done with its own vocabulary. *Thus Bush could give primacy to free markets over free men, as if to say that the right to speculate in junk bonds is more important than the removal of slavery. And Jefferson, Reagan could say, was against big government. Therefore, the forty million Americans without health care were not a government concern. But what Jefferson was against was unnecessary government - organisms which no longer contributed anything. He saw political power as a limited deck of cards. Those who held office were to play their hand carefully and endlessly, picking up old cards and putting down new ones, as old problems were solved and new problems arose. Those who seek and often gain power today use the vocabulary of the eighteenth century the way television evangelists use the Old Testament."* 

pps 237,238 'Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West' John Ralston Saul


----------



## Unkotare

midcan5 said:


> Thus Bush could give primacy to free markets over free men, as if to say that the right to speculate in junk bonds is more important than the removal of slavery.




That is not what he said or what he meant. Way to misunderstand, and way to fuck up your own thread by turning it to yet another partisan screed instead of a philosophical consideration, jerk.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Unkotare said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus Bush could give primacy to free markets over free men, as if to say that the right to speculate in junk bonds is more important than the removal of slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what he said or what he meant. Way to misunderstand, and way to fuck up your own thread by turning it to yet another partisan screed instead of a philosophical consideration, jerk.
Click to expand...


He is a partisan hack, the safest bet is to assume everything he posts is part of his screed.


----------



## midcan5

Still engaged in ad hominem, still no example of freedom, still off topic and still vulgar. We are not progressing folks. The discussion is freedom in the context of American culture. 

The quote above is from a book, talk to the author, it was written twenty years ago and it still fits today. Read it rather than whining and then come back, maybe with just a little bit of knowledge. 

"The probability, then, is that the next election will be close. It could also be fateful. Not because it is apt to enable the kind of electoral transformation the country urgently needs. But the Republican Party already has a majority on the Supreme Court, which increasingly attacks the rights of workers and consumers. If it captures the White House and both houses of Congress it will pass Draconian measures and deploy repressive tactics to stifle public dissent.* All in the name of freedom. *What to do?"  William E. Connolly  See The Contemporary Condition: The Republican Pincer Machine


The American press exists for one purpose only, and that is to convince Americans that they are living in the greatest and most envied country in the history of the world. The Press tells the American people how awful every other country is and how wonderful the United States is and how evil communism is and *how happy they should be to have freedom to buy seven different sorts of detergent.*  Gore Vidal


----------

