NationStates Jolt Archive

"Freedom" is a word covering a multitude of different meanings, depending upon who you are, where you live, how you were raised, and what you believe. It certainly varies in definition from country to country, and many times from individual to individual.

What does the phrase "to be free" truly mean to you? Not to live under a repressive political system? To be equal to others in an economic sense? To be able to voice your views without fear of any sort of retribution?

Please be as specific as possible in your response.

freedom... the ability to say what you want, do what you want, live how you want without the government taxing, jailing, or in other ways preventing you from doing so.
or, perhaps think of a government with only two laws:
Do all that you have agreed to do
Do not infringe upon others
yeah, i think all the people here could go on and on about freedom, but i will keep my reply short.

To not be bound by laws you do not believe in

To not be bound by laws you do not believe in

But if you can pick and choose the laws you want to follow, won't that lead to a type of anarchy?

freedom... the ability to say what you want, do what you want, live how you want without the government taxing, jailing, or in other ways preventing you from doing so.
or, perhaps think of a government with only two laws:
Do all that you have agreed to do
Do not infringe upon others
yeah, i think all the people here could go on and on about freedom, but i will keep my reply short.

But if no one has to pay any sort of taxes, how will you pay for the functions of government, particularly those you would personally like to see the government take action on?

All of the poll options & to be accountable/responsible for your own actions.

All of the poll options & to be accountable/responsible for your own actions.

A very insightful answer! Can you please elaborate on how being accountable/responsible for your own actions makes you more free?

Freedom is the condition of being free from restraints. One who is generally free, is free to help or hurt himself as he wishes, to say what he wants, to own private property, to conduct any buisness on a voluntary basis, to defend himself and his property, and basically go about his life however he wants so long as he doesn't infringe upon the freedom of anyone else.

Being economically equal to others is not freedom. If you pay a slave the same as a free man earns, he is still a slave.

Freedom stops where starts the freedom of other people.
The right to do anything you want is freedom until it stops someone from doing anything he wants.
A difficult matter in fact.

A very insightful answer! Can you please elaborate on how being accountable/responsible for your own actions makes you more free?

If you don't accountantability for yourself then you're not truly free as you're always acting under the instruction/direction/wishes of someone else. To stand by what you've done & own the action (whether good or bad, or right or wrong) & thereby deal with the consequences means that you are truly being your own person.

Freedom is an unnecesery acessorie.

People do not need freedom- they do not know what is good for them. That is why the world needs to be ruled by my facist dictatorship. We tell people what to do, and if they don't, we kill them

Freedom is the condition of being free from restraints. One who is generally free, is free to help or hurt himself as he wishes, to say what he wants, to own private property, to conduct any buisness on a voluntary basis, to defend himself and his property, and basically go about his life however he wants so long as he doesn't infringe upon the freedom of anyone else.

Being economically equal to others is not freedom. If you pay a slave the same as a free man earns, he is still a slave.

Good post! Can you elaborate a bit on the phrase "one who is generally free," please.

If you don't accountantability for yourself then you're not truly free as you're always acting under the instruction/direction/wishes of someone else. To stand by what you've done & own the action (whether good or bad, or right or wrong) & thereby deal with the consequences means that you are truly being your own person.

Interesting. But doesn't holding yourself personally accountable without society holding you accountable for things the body politic decides are accountable acts lead to a type of anarchy? If each person decides for him or her self what they are to be held accountable for, wouldn't there be a lot of people with little or no accountability? Or did you mean something else?

Freedom stops where starts the freedom of other people.
The right to do anything you want is freedom until it stops someone from doing anything he wants.
A difficult matter in fact.

Good insight! What do you propose as a solution?

Quote "My right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

I did means something else!

I'm not saying that there shouldn't an accounting from society also, my point was that on an individual level, for a person to be truly free, they have to be prepared to be responsible for what they do. Take/do what you want but you have to pay for it, is a good way of summing it up, IMO

Btw.is that like an essay topic for you or something? I'm just curious as to why you're getting people to do so much work justifying their responses

Quote "My right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

Good quote. But who's to make you stop before your fist actually reaches his nose?

I did means something else!

I'm not saying that there shouldn't an accounting from society also, my point was that on an individual level, for a person to be truly free, they have to be prepared to be responsible for what they do. Take/do what you want but you have to pay for it, is a good way of summing it up, IMO

Btw.is that like an essay topic for you or something? I'm just curious as to why you're getting people to do so much work justifying their responses

I'm trying to discover how people truly feel about freedom and where individual freedom ends and the rights of other individuals, and the rights of society as a whole begin. No, it's not an essay topic that I know of. I really just want to know.

Your response clarifies your original post quite well, BTW. :)

Pure freedom does not exist save in our minds. If I were to kill someone, I would be free myself, but at the cost of the victim. We, as a society, strive to walk that balancing line, that thin line, between freedom as society and freedom as anarchy.

Some strive to break free from that line, crossing over into what our society has, somewhat arbitarily I must say, choosen to call illegal or wrong. Others strive to widen that line, seeking to limit others as they limit themselves, for moral or sociological reasons. Neither of these sides sees themselves as limiting freedoms; one in the freedom of others for their sake, the other in the freedom of others for societies sake. But that is what they do. That is what we must do.

The question is, when is it too much?

Pure freedom does not exist save in our minds. If I were to kill someone, I would be free myself, but at the cost of the victim. We, as a society, strive to walk that balancing line, that thin line, between freedom as society and freedom as anarchy.

Some strive to break free from that line, crossing over into what our society has, somewhat arbitarily I must say, choosen to call illegal or wrong. Others strive to widen that line, seeking to limit others as they limit themselves, for moral or sociological reasons. Neither of these sides sees themselves as limiting freedoms; one in the freedom of others for their sake, the other in the freedom of others for societies sake. But that is what they do. That is what we must do.

The question is, when is it too much?

Indeed! Where would YOU draw that line, and how?

Good insight! What do you propose as a solution?I'd suggest democracy, so that everyone can maximize his freedoms while taking into account other's freedoms.
If freedom is the thing they care about, that is.
I'd say that democracy is the society where there is the most freedom for the most people.
At the society level, that is what I would suggest, but at the individual level it is a different matter.

I'd suggest democracy, so that everyone can maximize his freedoms while taking into account other's freedoms.
If freedom is the thing they care about, that is.

As would I. What style of democracy would you prefer, and for whom?

As would I. What style of democracy would you prefer, and for whom?
For every human of course. What do you mean?

For every human of course. What do you mean?

The term "democracy" covers a multitude of different types and styles of government, all the way from limited monarchies to "direct" democracy. Would one type of democracy be best for all people, or would that depend upon other factors? If other factors, which ones?

If you think that some type of democratic government would be appropriate for "all people," what should be done to extend democracy to those people who don't currently possess it?

The term "democracy" covers a multitude of different types and styles of government, all the way from limited monarchies to "direct" democracy. Would one type of democracy be best for all people, or would that depend upon other factors? If other factors, which ones?

If you think that some type of democratic government would be appropriate for "all people," what should be done to extend democracy to those people who don't currently possess it?
Democracy is the rule of the people. Limited monarchie has nothing to do with democracy.
How you implement it : difficult question. Should you implement it? Is freedom the only factor to take into account?
I know that in the anglo-saxon culture, freedom is above everything else.
In some other cultures, compassion is above freedom.

In some other cultures, compassion is above freedom.
Like which ones?

Democracy is the rule of the people. Limited monarchy has nothing to do with democracy.
How you implement it : difficult question. Should you implement it? Is freedom the only factor to take into account?

I would love to hear from citizens of Great Britain about how they feel being told that a limited monarchy "has nothing to do with democracy."

Like which ones?
The buddhists.

I would love to hear from citizens of Great Britain about how they feel being told that a limited monarchy "has nothing to do with democracy."
OK they don't seem to come.
I will add something for the americans. Two-party Capitalist nationalist republic has nothing to do with democracy either. It's oligarchy.

Freedom for me means freedom from government interference, and freedom from capitalist slavery.
Hooray for liberal socialism.

Freedom for me means freedom from government interference, and freedom from capitalist slavery.
Hooray for liberal socialism.

Which means you work your ass off only to have the State take 85% of your income in taxes. But don't worry, Mother State will take care of you because you are too stupid to take care of yourself. Live free or die.

Which means you work your ass off only to have the State take 85% of your income in taxes. Haha, you're kidding right? No one works their ass off in socialism. ;)

But if no one has to pay any sort of taxes, how will you pay for the functions of government, particularly those you would personally like to see the government take action on?

Thats the point, there would be no government.
now, dont get me wrong, i dont want anarchy, but people should have the right to defend themselves, when in times of great danger people band togather- its been proven throughoust history, when you fight for youre freedom, you fight harder, longer, and have more motivation then someone that is intruding upon youre history.
public shcools you may ask ?
home schooling works better, the government isnt involved.
health care ?
home health care, if people are concerned about it, let them open a clinic with their money, which they do any way with taxes and such.
military ?
the people would actually have the right to keep and bare arms, they can defend themselves, and should.
police ?
look at military, posted above. if someone breaks into youre house, get youre eieght guage,i f he conitnues, or pulls a gun, fire first.

The buddhists.
Then why is there tremendous social inequality in most Buddhist-predominant states? Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity all have one overriding theme - compassion. All these religions, in fact most religions in the world, if practiced perfectly will undoubtedly bring peace to earth and compassion and love and blah blah blah. However no Buddhist, CHristian, or Muslim will practice his religion perfectly. All people are greedy and flawed to an extent. Lamaist Tibet has been a totalitarian slave-owning society for centuries. Indian Buddhism is just as caste-ridden as Hinduism. Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans all have hierarchical societies. In fact in Southeast Asia many Buddhists will not help crippled people because they believe handicapped people are handicapped because they behaved badly in their previous life and that they are now being divinely punished for bad karma. There are many devout Buddhists in China, but the corruption, societal callousness, and social injustice in mainland China reaches new heights every year. A lot of Chinese Buddhists pray to Buddha for money and material wealth, not to find ways to fix society's problems. Religious violence, inequality, xenophobia, and racism have all been justified by Buddhism at one point or another. Buddhism is just as easily corrupted by humans as Christianity or Islam is.

Thats the point, there would be no government.
now, dont get me wrong, i dont want anarchy, but people should have the right to defend themselves, when in times of great danger people band togather- its been proven throughoust history, when you fight for youre freedom, you fight harder, longer, and have more motivation then someone that is intruding upon youre history.
public shcools you may ask ?
home schooling works better, the government isnt involved.
health care ?
home health care, if people are concerned about it, let them open a clinic with their money, which they do any way with taxes and such.
military ?
the people would actually have the right to keep and bare arms, they can defend themselves, and should.
police ?
look at military, posted above. if someone breaks into youre house, get youre eieght guage,i f he conitnues, or pulls a gun, fire first.

Interesting. But what about those nations or groups who pool their money in order to buy more expensive weapons than you can? Will you still be able to take the "rugged individual" approach to defense?

Then why is there tremendous social inequality in most Buddhist-predominant states? Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity all have one overriding theme - compassion. All these religions, in fact most religions in the world, if practiced perfectly will undoubtedly bring peace to earth and compassion and love and blah blah blah. However no Buddhist, CHristian, or Muslim will practice his religion perfectly. All people are greedy and flawed to an extent. Lamaist Tibet has been a totalitarian slave-owning society for centuries. Indian Buddhism is just as caste-ridden as Hinduism. Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans all have hierarchical societies. In fact in Southeast Asia many Buddhists will not help crippled people because they believe handicapped people are handicapped because they behaved badly in their previous life and that they are now being divinely punished for bad karma. There are many devout Buddhists in China, but the corruption, societal callousness, and social injustice in mainland China reaches new heights every year. A lot of Chinese Buddhists pray to Buddha for money and material wealth, not to find ways to fix society's problems. Religious violence, inequality, xenophobia, and racism have all been justified by Buddhism at one point or another. Buddhism is just as easily corrupted by humans as Christianity or Islam is.

So what is to be done?

OK they don't seem to come.
I will add something for the americans. Two-party Capitalist nationalist republic has nothing to do with democracy either. It's oligarchy.

Granted ... partially. I've said that the US is in fact an economic oligarchy more than it is a democracy. But that's always been true: "The rich man makes the rules for the wise man and the fool."

So what is to be done? Is there some way to make the quote above NOT true any longer?

Then why is there tremendous social inequality in most Buddhist-predominant states? Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity all have one overriding theme - compassion. All these religions, in fact most religions in the world, if practiced perfectly will undoubtedly bring peace to earth and compassion and love and blah blah blah. However no Buddhist, CHristian, or Muslim will practice his religion perfectly. All people are greedy and flawed to an extent. Lamaist Tibet has been a totalitarian slave-owning society for centuries. Indian Buddhism is just as caste-ridden as Hinduism. Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans all have hierarchical societies. In fact in Southeast Asia many Buddhists will not help crippled people because they believe handicapped people are handicapped because they behaved badly in their previous life and that they are now being divinely punished for bad karma. There are many devout Buddhists in China, but the corruption, societal callousness, and social injustice in mainland China reaches new heights every year. A lot of Chinese Buddhists pray to Buddha for money and material wealth, not to find ways to fix society's problems. Religious violence, inequality, xenophobia, and racism have all been justified by Buddhism at one point or another. Buddhism is just as easily corrupted by humans as Christianity or Islam is.Right.. And?

Which means you work your ass off only to have the State take 85% of your income in taxes. But don't worry, Mother State will take care of you because you are too stupid to take care of yourself. Live free or die.

USSR had no income tax by the 70s.
The Government lives mainly off the revenues generated by the state-owned companies.

Granted ... partially. I've said that the US is in fact an economic oligarchy more than it is a democracy. But that's always been true: "The rich man makes the rules for the wise man and the fool."

So what is to be done? Is there some way to make the quote above NOT true any longer?
Implementing democracy.
Should that be done?

Implementing democracy.
Should that be done?

I happen to be one who thinks so. But HOW???

Well after reading all of the posts so far I can officially say without any doubt in my mind that Etrusca is a flamer.

I happen to be one who thinks so. But HOW???Revolution.

Right.. And?
Buddhists are not particularly compassionate.

Buddhists are not particularly compassionate.
Yet they think compassion is more important than freedom.

Well after reading all of the posts so far I can officially say without any doubt in my mind that Etrusca is a flamer.

I've been called worse. If you object to my "flaming," turn me in to the Mods.

Revolution.

Assisted, or unassisted?

Yet they think compassion is more important than freedom.
Wrong, because Buddhist nations and buddhist societies are trying to get more political and economic freedoms while charity has not been emphasized. The prime example of this would be China's hypercapitalist society in which social security and government-sponsored health care have been abolished in favor of massive economic growth and credits for business.

Assisted, or unassisted?Any kind of democratic revolution, what do you mean?
If you have oligarchy and want to switch to democracy, you need a revolution, it is as simple as that.
You should read :
The Republic, from Plato.

Wrong, because Buddhist nations and buddhist societies are trying to get more political and economic freedoms while charity has not been emphasized. The prime example of this would be China's hypercapitalist society in which social security and government-sponsored health care have been abolished in favor of massive economic growth and credits for business.
Because they're loosing their culture to capitalism.
BTW, China, Buddhist? You must be kidding.

I believe freedom means probably the same meaning by people from every society. Maybe not the exact materialistic meaning per se but the overall meaning of doing as a society wishes. I see nothing wrong with it as long as this meaning keeps from infringing upon another society in the process and the means that allow them to act as such. In our case this is a Constitution.

I think that is why the US is such a tricky task for the Federal government. They have 50 society's (states) of small yet sometimes large differences between them all. They act as the faction or balancing factor in a way just the same as the states (people) act as one to them. Sometimes they overstep their authority but it is kept in check by our judicial system or the required votes by the people of the several states. I can not speak for any other Country so I do not want to attempt to do so. Here in the US the states are plenty different when it comes to how they allow local ordinances to pass or fail. Only a couple states don't leave the restriction to a Constitutional issue to be dealt with by the state only. They leave it to the local authority. Some states allow the local authority to infringe upon their citizens rights.

But more on topic I have to say freedom to me means every right granted in our Constitution and the rights secured by their state. This allows everyone to secure their freedoms in a civil manner. By laws and exercising those inalienable rights recongnized in our Constitution. Even when someone feels a law defies a right they wish they could have (not in our Constitution) they must gain that right through the lawful channels we all have the right to use. When you're 18+ and not a felon you get that ability to change things.

I do believe if someone is an elected official they have a greater duty to speak the truth. Although we all should seek the truth in any case that can effect someone other than ourselves. So please read you're federlist papers, it is the basis of you're Constitution. I have read it twice and still can not remember where I read one thing or another in it. Its huge but well worth it. You will not believe the amount of knowledge you will gain towards the truth. I lay my life on that promise.

Because they're loosing their culture to capitalism.
Actually, traditionalist Chinese culture and Buddhism has been even more unequal. The Buddhism during the time of the Chinese Empire sponsored totalitarianism, feudalism, racism, and caste.

BTW, China, Buddhist? You must be kidding.
The official religion of China for 1400 years has been Buddhism - through the Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing Dynasties. Buddhism is the largest religion in China today and even though the communists are officially "atheist," it is hard to underestimate Buddhism's imprint on ordinary Chinese people, Chinese culture, and Chinese society.

Any kind of democratic revolution, what do you mean?
If you have oligarchy and want to switch to democracy, you need a revolution, it is as simple as that.
You should read :
The Republic, from Plato.

Thank you. I've read The Republic, Democracy in America, and more others than I care to think about.

What I was driving at is whether any revolution to establish a more democratic form of government should consist only of the people who live in the geographic area where this new government will be established. Or should there be help from other sources outside that geographic area, and if so, how would this work out in practice ( eg. should someone within the area invite outside assistance, and if so who? Would it be acceptable for a nation or group outside the area to establish a more democratic form of government without a request from within the area, and if so, under what circumstances? That sort of thing ).

I believe freedom means probably the same meaning by people from every society. Maybe not the exact materialistic meaning per se but the overall meaning of doing as a society wishes. I see nothing wrong with it as long as this meaning keeps from infringing upon another society in the process and the means that allow them to act as such. In our case this is a Constitution.

I think that is why the US is such a tricky task for the Federal government. They have 50 society's (states) of small yet sometimes large differences between them all. They act as the faction or balancing factor in a way just the same as the states (people) act as one to them. Sometimes they overstep their authority but it is kept in check by our judicial system or the required votes by the people of the several states. I can not speak for any other Country so I do not want to attempt to do so. Here in the US the states are plenty different when it comes to how they allow local ordinances to pass or fail. Only a couple states don't leave the restriction to a Constitutional issue to be dealt with by the state only. They leave it to the local authority. Some states allow the local authority to infringe upon their citizens rights.

But more on topic I have to say freedom to me means every right granted in our Constitution and the rights secured by their state. This allows everyone to secure their freedoms in a civil manner. By laws and exercising those inalienable rights recongnized in our Constitution. Even when someone feels a law defies a right they wish they could have (not in our Constitution) they must gain that right through the lawful channels we all have the right to use. When you're 18+ and not a felon you get that ability to change things.

I do believe if someone is an elected official they have a greater duty to speak the truth. Although we all should seek the truth in any case that can effect someone other than ourselves. So please read you're federlist papers, it is the basis of you're Constitution. I have read it twice and still can not remember where I read one thing or another in it. Its huge but well worth it. You will not believe the amount of knowledge you will gain towards the truth. I lay my life on that promise.

Sounds like you're taking about what the signers of the US Constitution referred to as a "system of checks and balances," yes? :)

Because they're loosing their culture to capitalism.
BTW, China, Buddhist? You must be kidding.

Confutionism.

Sounds like you're taking about what the signers of the US Constitution referred to as a "system of checks and balances," yes?

Yeppers :)

Yeppers :)

:)

Confutionism.
Confucianism is a mainly secular philosophy. However many aspects of it has been incorporated into Taoism, Buddhism, and other Chinese religions, in the same way that Aristotle's philosophies influenced medieval Christian theology.

I happen to be one who thinks so. But HOW???
That's easy. It's just like George Bush said last night. The United States needs to "spread liberty" throughout the world.
How do we do that?
Well, first we pick a country and invade for any one or more of a number of reasons such as, the leader is a bad man, there are terrorists in the country, they have weapons of mass destruction, etc..
After the invasion, we give American corporations billions of dollars to go in and clean up the mess, rape the nation's natural resources, and build a bunch of McDonald's, Starbucks and WalMarts.
We declare the people "free," set up an "interim" president (who will answer to Washington) and finally let them have their own half-assed elections.
Then we move on to the next nation.
How, Indeed! It's easy.
Oh and before you blow me off, just realize that this IS the current administration's Foreign Policy agenda.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Make sure you read to the bottom to see who signed this charter back in 1997. What a coincidence that a few are in positions of great power to put forth this agenda.

If you have the right to freedom of speech, expression, peaceful protest, ability to vote, etc, then you are free.

Freedom is not the right to do anything, freedom makes rights a non-issue. Freedom is an ability to not worry about what your rights are, it is pure opportunity without limitation except those that are self-imposed. It is total risk and reward, total accountability and liability.

I would love to hear from citizens of Great Britain about how they feel being told that a limited monarchy "has nothing to do with democracy."

<----UK

Limited monarchy has nothing to do with democracy.

If you have the right to freedom of speech, expression, peaceful protest, ability to vote, etc, then you are free.

what if your ability to vote could have no effect on the outcome of the election? almost every one-party state has/had elections. and often nearly 100% voter turnout too. but that didn't ever stop the dictator from being re-elected. what you actually are probably getting at is that freedom requires you to have real say (to some extent at least) over the decisions that affect your life.

i would express it as something like 'each individual must have say over the decisions that affect their life in proportion to their affect on others'. essentially, you cannot be free if others make your decisions for you, or if you have little to no say in the decisions of groups that you are a member of. likewise others are not free if you make decisions for them. each person must have full control over decisions affecting only them and equal say with everyone else over decisions affecting a group of people. to have it otherwise means that some people get to order around others, and this seems to be a flat out denial of freedom. of course, this isn't a sufficient condition for freedom (otherwise we would have to call tyranny by majority in group decisions 'freedom'), but to me it does seem to be a necessary one. another condition has to include some rather strong form of protection for minority opinions.

<----UK

Limited monarchy has nothing to do with democracy.

Then I stand ( sit? ) corrected. I was thinking that because GB citizens get to vote for their members of Parliament, they have a form of democratic government.

USSR had no income tax by the 70s.
The Government lives mainly off the revenues generated by the state-owned companies.

in fact, the current russian federation has vastly higher taxes than the ussr ever did. not that they are very successful at collecting them...

and yeah, seriously, why would anyone bother with income taxes when they could just go directly to the source of wealth production and arrange the distribution of its surplus to benefit the community?

in fact, the current russian federation has vastly higher taxes than the ussr ever did. not that they are very successful at collecting them...

and yeah, seriously, why would anyone bother with income taxes when they could just go directly to the source of wealth production and arrange the distribution of its surplus to benefit the community?

Most people seem to be motivated by the accumulation of money and the things money can buy. Few people are adequately motivated by working "for the common good" unless they can make money off of it.

Most people seem to be motivated by the accumulation of money and the things money can buy. Few people are adequately motivated by working "for the common good" unless they can make money off of it.

that's the thing, there is no assumption of a non-monetary economy in this idea. hell, there isn't necessarily even an abolition of wage-labor. a socialist state could adequately fund things simply by expropriating the capitalists - all that wealth that currently is paid out to share-holders and land-owners would simply no longer be going to private individuals and could be used to pay for other things. everything else could theoretically remain nearly exactly the same. essentially, make money any way you want, but you are not allowed to make money purely through ownership of land or the means of production - no private individuals charging rent.

(btw, this is actually one of the various forms of market socialism - i don't personally support it, but it is out there)

Then I stand ( sit? ) corrected. I was thinking that because GB citizens get to vote for their members of Parliament, they have a form of democratic government.

The monarchy has nothing do with this.

Ta us pirates it means free to loot pillage an' rape!
(To the rest of us, a written constitutional guarantee of rights which CANNOT be amended used to seem like a nice thing....)

The monarchy has nothing do with this.

Um ... the monarchy has nothing to do with what? Democracy or the lack of it???

that's the thing, there is no assumption of a non-monetary economy in this idea. hell, there isn't necessarily even an abolition of wage-labor. a socialist state could adequately fund things simply by expropriating the capitalists - all that wealth that currently is paid out to share-holders and land-owners would simply no longer be going to private individuals and could be used to pay for other things. everything else could theoretically remain nearly exactly the same. essentially, make money any way you want, but you are not allowed to make money purely through ownership of land or the means of production - no private individuals charging rent.

(btw, this is actually one of the various forms of market socialism - i don't personally support it, but it is out there)

But don't you then run the risk of "killing the goose that laid the golden egg" if you do away with capitalism and entreprenuers?

I feel to be free is to be able to express yourself whether it be in the form of who you hang-out with or what you believe in, your goals and accomplishments, but most of all your opinion! The freedom to express your opinion about things is what makes Democracy... voting for our future leaders and our choices are ancome on our opinions...there are alot of factors involved when talking about Freedom!! but i dont want to bore anyone so i'll keep plain and simple.

I feel to be free is to be able to express yourself whether it be in the form of who you hang-out with or what you believe in, your goals and accomplishments, but most of all your opinion! The freedom to express your opinion about things is what makes Democracy... voting for our future leaders and our choices are ancome on our opinions...there are alot of factors involved when talking about Freedom!! but i dont want to bore anyone so i'll keep plain and simple.

Sounds to me as if you've got a pretty good handle on what you believe freedom to be. And your brevity is much appreciated! :)

Freedom is the ability to make choices rather than follow orders or limitations of thought placed in you by society. For example, if an anarchist lived in the USA, their mind would be free but they would still have to follow orders or suffer. If an American lived in anarchy, they would be free not to follow orders, but because American culture is so authoritarian, they would still be unfree.

Freedom is the essense of humanity. If you are denied freedom, you are denied humanity. Total loss of freedom is murder.

Um ... the monarchy has nothing to do with what? Democracy or the lack of it???

RPP says: The Monarchy here has nothing to do with anything. It is not more than a relic, a rich extended family, blah blah blah. The only reason they are still in the public eye is because the people of this country are obsessed with their death sentence heritage. He goes on to say that he feels their money would be better spent re-distributed and we should send them all to work in factories. That'll learn 'em (for being born rich).

To all people, being free in practice means being free to make decisions within certain limiting parameters collectively imposed by culture or convention. Thus the definition of freedom varies according to the context of the observer.

Where disagreements over such things arise, you end up with battles of Good vs. Evil.

Freedom is not an absolute.

Someone asked how much freedom is too much...
Take Switzerland...They have "pure" democracy there. Which means they hold national elections over every single decision the government takes.
I don't think it works all that well, the result is that people get lazy and don't show up to vote... And since voter turnout is so unpredictable and varies depending on the day...etc. The decisions that are made are conflicting and they have trouble making policies.
For example they have voted themselves in and out of the EU more times than I can count.

For most of us, I think we can agree on one thing, freedom is the right to do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. What would constitute infringement of rights, is what we have such trouble deciding.

I personally think that the most important freedom is the freedom to know and express the truth. Once you are given the facts, you can create your opinions, voice them, choose who governs you, being able to create social equality, etc.

Other:
All of the above and hundreds of others not mentioned, the lack of a single one of which means you are not truly free.

Thats the point, there would be no government.
now, dont get me wrong, i dont want anarchy, but people should have the right to defend themselves, when in times of great danger people band togather- its been proven throughoust history, when you fight for youre freedom, you fight harder, longer, and have more motivation then someone that is intruding upon youre history.
public shcools you may ask ?
home schooling works better, the government isnt involved.
health care ?
home health care, if people are concerned about it, let them open a clinic with their money, which they do any way with taxes and such.
military ?
the people would actually have the right to keep and bare arms, they can defend themselves, and should.
police ?
look at military, posted above. if someone breaks into youre house, get youre eieght guage,i f he conitnues, or pulls a gun, fire first.



People will indeed band together - and fight a civil war to see who gets to occupy the power vacuum that would be created if the government magically vanished.

There is not a single instance in all of recorded human history where people coexisted peacefully for a long period of time without a central, armed authority. Peaceful agrarian communities are always conquered by armed groups.

The idea of arming *everyone* would only make the war ten times as savage, destructive and bloody.

Other:
All of the above and hundreds of others not mentioned, the lack of a single one of which means you are not truly free.


I should disagree in that being 'secure' is not really a component of freedom.

In fact, one's freedom generally varies inversely with their security.

People in the soviet union, north korea, mental hospitals and solitary confinement enjoy fantastic personal security and no freedom.

On the other hand, people in places like canada, holland, norway, sweden, and denmark are practically defenseless from attack but likely the 'most free' peoples on earth.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."--1984 by George Orwell

Although I´m conservative and not communists I like that one:
"Freedom is always also the freedom of those who think differently."
Rosa Luxemburg (*1870 Zamosc (Poland) - +1919 Berlin) together with Karl Liebknecht founder of the communists party.
While this party turned to be into a puppet of Moscow soon it needs to be said that this doesn´t make this statement wrong.