NationStates Jolt Archive

An article from a Republican that I (mostly) happen to agree with. (http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=4737)

(well, OK - a libertarian-turned-republican).



What's the Meaning of 'Freedom'?
Don't ask a politician
by Rep. Ron Paul


"[M]an is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts."
- Ronald Reagan

We've all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.

George Orwell wrote about "meaningless words" that are endlessly repeated in the political arena. Words like "freedom," "democracy," and "justice," Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell's view, political words are "often used in a consciously dishonest way." Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word "democracy" as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.

The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, "There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect preexisting rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word "democracy" is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?

A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shi'ite theocracy. Shi'ite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They're certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-Western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.

Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders' belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.

Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn't be called taxes, they'd be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.

The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such "freedom" for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive– and thus incompatible with freedom. "Liberalism," which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.

The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state – but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today's Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. "Conservatism," which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity.

Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word "freedom" to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of "liberals" and "conservatives," in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.

Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.

*spazms*

i can't believe it, somebody is actually voicing my position!! i thought my kind had been hunted to extinction by the neo-con and modern liberal factions! you made my day :).

oh, say, do you have a link to that article?

oh, say, do you have a link to that article?


Added the link into the post... sorry, forgot to the first time around.

*spazms*

i can't believe it, somebody is actually voicing my position!! i thought my kind had been hunted to extinction by the neo-con and modern liberal factions! you made my day :).

You're not alone, Bottle. That happens to be my position as well. I TOLD you I wasn't a "neocon!" :headbang:

Actually, here is the original government link:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst020705.htm


It will probably remain more stable than the other.

Excellent article I hadn't read before. Ron Paul is a pretty good guy, for a politician.

You don't get more freedom by having less government. That'll just lead to others enslaving your body and/or mind..

We need Jennifer Government..

You don't get more freedom by having less government. That'll just lead to others enslaving your body and/or mind..

There is a biphasic distribution. Lack of any government will lead to control by a few - and no freedom for the rest. Too much government does the same. The trick is to find that happy medium in the middle, where the curve drops down the furthest.

That article kicks ass...on so many levels.

There is a biphasic distribution. Lack of any government will lead to control by a few - and no freedom for the rest. Too much government does the same. The trick is to find that happy medium in the middle, where the curve drops down the furthest.
Holy shit girl we agree on somethin'! ;)

Holy shit girl we agree on somethin'! ;)

It had to happen sometime. =)

You're not alone, Bottle. That happens to be my position as well. I TOLD you I wasn't a "neocon!" :headbang:


Yeah, but how are we supposed to marginalize your opinions if we can't label you?!

:D

It had to happen sometime. =)
Yep, well, only 3,000 more signs of the apocalypse left...

Defining "freedom" in practice is a never-ending process. As new issues arise, the voting populace gradually forms an opinion on them, begins to vote for candidates for political office who have views similar to theirs, then watches to see what happens. Actually, it's far more complicated than that, but that's the process in a nutshell. One recent example is the issue of government funding for and/or prohibitions against the use of stem cells from aborted fetuses for research. There are still a great many people who have yet to form an opinion on this issue via the sometimes glacial process of opinion formation.

Yeah, but how are we supposed to marginalize your opinions if we can't label you?!

:D

:mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper:

There are still a great many people who have yet to form an opinion on this issue via the sometimes glacial process of opinion formation.

...and the fact that most people don't have a clue about the issue, other than what one or another media source has hyped to them.

:mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper:

lol.

Hey, the labels get thrown around here fast and furious for that reason by a lot of people. How many times did I used to get called a partisan democrat? And nowadays I am, apparently, a "far left anti-american".

Whatever.

But it seems to serve those who like to attack people instead of their opinions.

lol.

Hey, the labels get thrown around here fast and furious for that reason by a lot of people. How many times did I used to get called a partisan democrat? And nowadays I am, apparently, a "far left anti-american".

Whatever.

But it seems to serve those who like to attack people instead of their opinions.

hehe.

I've been a "Right-wing, Bush-supporting poopiehead", a "Left-wing, liberal nutjob", a "militant atheist pushing your ideas on others", and a "diagnosed schizophrenic who believes in an invisible boogieman."

And that all in one week!

...and the fact that most people don't have a clue about the issue, other than what one or another media source has hyped to them.

True, but in a democracy ( or, to be more precise, a democratic republic ), you have to trust the people to sort the wheat from the chaff, the truth from the exaggerations. Various elites of assorted stripes are continually blind-sided by the decisions of the people because the elitists are so sure that the people need them to do their thinking for them. The last Presidential election is a perfect example of this.

hehe.

I've been a "Right-wing, Bush-supporting poopiehead", a "Left-wing, liberal nutjob", a "militant atheist pushing your ideas on others", and a "diagnosed schizophrenic who believes in an invisible boogieman."

And that all in one week!

LOL! I also have been on the recieving end of that sort of labelling. I've watched your posts and the way some will characterize them and have to say that your positions are at least well thought-out, even though I sometimes disagree with them. :)

How dast thou think for thyself! :D

True, but in a democracy ( or, to be more precise, a democratic republic ), you have to trust the people to sort the wheat from the chaff, the truth from the exaggerations. Various elites of assorted stripes are continually blind-sided by the decisions of the people because the elitists are so sure that the people need them to do their thinking for them. The last Presidential election is a perfect example of this.

Of course, this is the flaw in such a republic - and one the founding fathers were terrified of. It is still better than any other system we have yet found, but allowing a bunch of uninformed people, who you know are uninformed and have no idea of how the system is set up, vote on an issue is really scary.

Ron Paul says that freedom is less government intervention. What about when the federal government of America intervened in the south to defend the civil rights of black people in the 1960s? Would Paul argue that blacks were more free before federal civil rights legislation was passed?

i agree with :
Lack of any government will lead to control by a few - and no freedom for the rest. Too much government does the same. The trick is to find that happy medium in the middle, where the curve drops down the furthest.
You're not alone, Bottle. That happens to be my position as well. I TOLD you I wasn't a "neocon!" :headbang:
Surely you are a neocon if you support everything that Bush does?

Of course, this is the flaw in such a republic - and one the founding fathers were terrified of. It is still better than any other system we have yet found, but allowing a bunch of uninformed people, who you know are uninformed and have know idea of how the system is set up, vote on an issue is really scary.

Actually, this statment "who you know are uninformed" tends to scare me a lot more than "uninformed people."

As a Communist I believe that freedom is an end to all forms of government and other organisations which oppress people like corporations. A free society would be one which was run to benefit everyone without the existence of a state and where all people had a say in the decisions which affect their lives.

"While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there will be no State." (VI Lenin)

Surely you are a neocon if you support everything that Bush does?

Who said I "support everything that Bush does?"

As a Communist I believe that freedom is an end to all forms of government and other organisations which oppress people like corporations. A free society would be one which was run to benefit everyone without the existence of a state and where all people had a say in the decisions which affect their lives.

"While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there will be no State." (VI Lenin)

A Lenninist! How ... quaint! :D

hehe.

I've been a "Right-wing, Bush-supporting poopiehead", a "Left-wing, liberal nutjob", a "militant atheist pushing your ideas on others", and a "diagnosed schizophrenic who believes in an invisible boogieman."

And that all in one week!


Wheras in reality everyone knows that you are, in fact, an "alternating wing nutjob poopiehead pushing your militant schizophrenic boogieman agenda on the theists"....

:p

Wheras in reality everyone knows that you are, in fact, an "alternating wing nutjob poopiehead pushing your militant schizophrenic boogieman agenda on the theists"....

:p

Hehehe! Touche! :D

Actually, this statment "who you know are uninformed" tends to scare me a lot more than "uninformed people."

I have spoken to more than one person about stem cell research. Usually, when presented with actual facts (instead of propaganda), they either are more open to the idea, or change their minds on it completely. I know they are uninformed.

Statistical data demonstrates that most Americans are uninformed on the majority of issues. Granted, this has a lot to do with our lack of actual news - with people who want to paint everything as black or white, and ignore all the grey in between.

This is just as if I were say, a car mechanic. I could go out to most people and ask them to show me where the, say, serpentine belt is in their car. While some could, the vast majority of adults probably could not. As such, I could make the statement that most people are uninformed about my field. See?

Wheras in reality everyone knows that you are, in fact, an "alternating wing nutjob poopiehead pushing your militant schizophrenic boogieman agenda on the theists"....

:p

That's me! =)

Various elites of assorted stripes are continually blind-sided by the decisions of the people because the elitists are so sure that the people need them to do their thinking for them. The last Presidential election is a perfect example of this.
That's funny, I'm just reading an article about political framing. Then I see your post, in which you successfully paint the Democrats as aloof elitists while showing the Bush Republicans as the genuine representatives of the people. And you didn't even need to mention either one. Well done, sir.

That's funny, I'm just reading an article about political framing. Then I see your post, in which you successfully paint the Democrats as aloof elitists while showing the Bush Republicans as the genuine representatives of the people. And you didn't even need to mention either one. Well done, sir.

News Flash: The Republicans won.

Who said I "support everything that Bush does?"
That's the way it looks to me. You support the neocon foreign policy, right? (I'm talking about the Iraq war.) I don't think I've ever seen you criticise any Bush policy.

Ron Paul says that freedom is less government intervention. What about when the federal government of America intervened in the south to defend the civil rights of black people in the 1960s? Would Paul argue that blacks were more free before federal civil rights legislation was passed?



Ron doesn't advocate a total lack of intervention, but rather a minimal one. Clearly there are cases where it may become neccessary, and trying to bring up one of the more spectacular cases in the past 100 years of domestic policy and assuming that he would have stood against it is not a very valid argument.

However - and just to provide a response - there is the flipside to your argument which you ignored. After the government intervened one could equally argue that the whites had less freedom to segregate themselves from the blacks.


So were the total freedoms increased? Or decreased? Or just redistributed?

That's the way it looks to me. You support the neocon foreign policy, right? (I'm talking about the Iraq war.) I don't think I've ever seen you criticise any Bush policy.

I usually won't ... on here. I happen to disagree very strongly with running a major deficit, to give one example.

EDIT: Yes, I agree in essence with the current foreign policy. For an elucidation of what my specific ideas are on foreign policy, you are invited to review an essay on the subject which I wrote in ... I think it was 2001: http://paradigmassociates.org/ParadigmPaxAmericana.html

Is it more freedom to give power to coperation instead of to elected officials and the "voting power" turned from one vote per person to voting power after that you earn. I will give some examples why I don't think it is that,

A good example is the medical industries and that it should produce invent. There the great importance should be on finding cheap and good cures fore malaria aids and other diceases in the poor countries but because this market is run by coperation and the "powerful voters" is the rich people in the north The producerar are manufacturing and developoing potens and anti-fat pills much more then despretly needed medicines to the people in the south. Is that freedom?

Is it freedom if we go back to unregulate 19:th centyry then coperations had in many cases monopaly or coperated on both on the workmarket and on the consumermarket ecpecially in small towns so the people hade to force to take the lowpaying longworking jobs and spend all the hard earn money buying neccisary but expencable products like food for survival.

Is that freedom that today on the unregulated worldmarket it the case that only four/five companies is controlling the valuable naturalreurces. Is it freedom that only a few number of newschannel owned by capatilist representing only a small and wealthy part of the population is controlling that news the american get? Is it freedom that the companies in the USA can pollute the atmosphere with C02 that affect all the world and only have few nationl regulations and no global?

So were the total freedoms increased? Or decreased? Or just redistributed?I would guess increased, since blacks gained more freedom than whites lost.
It does bring up the point of equality, besides freedom.
“Liberte, Equalite, Fraternite”
Which is the most important one, how do they relate, and in what degree can either infringe on the other (f.i. enforcing equality)

News Flash: The Republicans won.
Yes, but remember that 49% of people voted for the Democrats, which means that the Democrats are not representing an elite minority as you imply, but represent quite a sizeable minority, in fact such a big one that is quite close to being a majority.

Yes, but remember that 49% of people voted for the Democrats, which means that the Democrats are not representing an elite minority as you imply, but represent quite a sizeable minority, in fact such a big one that is quite close to being a majority.

As you so ably pointed out, I refrained from mentioning either party, deliberately so. As with many things in a democracy, the best course of action most probably lies somewhere between the two. Both parties have elitists and those who think the people are insane to not let them do their thinking.

I usually won't ... on here.


Why on earth not? Are you afraid that they'll catch you and come and take your secret Republican decoder ring away?

:D


But seriously, if you only ever express your supportive opinions you can't be suprised when people assume you to be a true party-line person. After all, you haven't given them any reason to think otherwise.

I usually won't ... on here. I happen to disagree very strongly with running a major deficit, to give one example.

EDIT: Yes, I agree in essence with the current foreign policy. For an elucidation of what my specific ideas are on foreign policy, you are invited to review an essay on the subject which I wrote in ... I think it was 2001: http://paradigmassociates.org/ParadigmPaxAmericana.html
You won't criticise Bush's policies on here? Why not? Is it your mission to gain Republican voters on this forum? Besides, if you refuse to criticise Bush on this forum don't complain when people call you a partisan Republican.

Thanks, I'm reading that essay now.

There is a biphasic distribution. Lack of any government will lead to control by a few - and no freedom for the rest. Too much government does the same. The trick is to find that happy medium in the middle, where the curve drops down the furthest.

No, it is just one government taking over for another. A guy with an AK-47 telling you what to do is just as much a government just as a huge bureaucracy is. The difference is that we accept the bureaucracy as legitimate and we do not accept the lone guy with an AK-47.
There are, of course, some people who are the opposite. They reject the bureaucracy and accept the guy with the assualt rifle. Neither government is more or less legitimate than the other, they are just different.
There is no way to have true freedom so long as there is more than one person in a society. Even then, that one is not free. A person alone on a island is at the mercy of no man, but he is at the mercy of the ocean that prevents him from leaving his island.

Freedom is slavery. When Orwell wrote this it was an example of how politions pervert language, but it is infinitly true. There are many types of freedom. There is freedom from want, freedom from decision, freedom from violence, freedom from buearucracy, freedom from society, freedom from nature, and countless others. Each of these freedoms require that you subjigate yourself to something else. Freedom from want creates dependncy on a provider. Freedom from decision creates dependancy on a leader. Freedom from violence creates dependancy on a protector. Freedom from buearucracy creates dependancy on the good intentions of others. Freedom from society creates dependancy on nature and technology. Freedom from nature creates dependancy on society and technology.

There is no such thing as true freedom. There are only realitive degrees of freedom. You are free compared to someone else in one way. This other person is free compared to you in another way. In the end, no one is more or less free than anyone else. Even a prisioner has an odd type of freedom. It is jsut that we place emphasis on certain types of freedom. We consider these more important than the others and value them while we ignore freedoms that we consider inferior or useless. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is a personal decision. It is difficult to force your view of freedom on others and it really shouldn't be attempted.

Freedom is a state of mind. Think you are free, and you are.

Freedom is a state of mind. Think you are free, and you are.
Just like all those people in North Korea.

Just like all those people in North Korea.Most of them probably don't have the illusion they are free.

But really, the only way anyone can really take your freedom away is if you give it to them. You can always choose something, even if it's death or worse. Might not be a good choice, but at least it'll be at your own terms.

Freedom is a state of mind. Think you are free, and you are.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. oh, the ignorance is so painfully funny...

as somebody who has (unfortunately) had ample exposure to the penal system in America, i can only tell you that it would take me about 1 day to disabuse you of that notion. you could come visit Beta Youth Correctional with me...maybe your quaint notion would make it a day, but i think most of the "free citizens" in Beta would wager a pack of cigarettes that it wouldn't last beyond first Count.

Most of them probably don't have the illusion they are free.

so what? are the ones who believe they are free actually freer than those who don't? does that mean we shouldn't waste time trying to actually protect freedoms, but should (instead) focus our time and energy on convincing everybody that they are already as free as possible?


But really, the only way anyone can really take your freedom away is if you give it to them. You can always choose something, even if it's death or worse. Might not be a good choice, but at least it'll be at your own terms.
if you are dead, you are not free. if your choice is "agree to cede my freedoms or be killed" then, either way, you are no longer going to be free.

i can only tell you that it would take me about 1 day to disabuse you of that notion.No it wouldn't. You could quite possibly make me think I'm not free, which would make me unfree. But is the premise is true, so is the consequent. If I think I'm free, I am. It's just that if I don't think so, I'm not.

so what? are the ones who believe they are free actually freer than those who don't?yes
does that mean we shouldn't waste time trying to actually protect freedoms, but should (instead) focus our time and energy on convincing everybody that they are already as free as possible?Perhaps. But one doesn't exclude the other. If you (claim to) protect freedoms, people are more likely to believe they have any.

if you are dead, you are not free.I disagree, death is the ultimate freedom

Why on earth not? Are you afraid that they'll catch you and come and take your secret Republican decoder ring away?

:D

But seriously, if you only ever express your supportive opinions you can't be suprised when people assume you to be a true party-line person. After all, you haven't given them any reason to think otherwise.

Heh! Yes, I greatly value my decoder ring, although it works for either party. Helps me keep track of what they're up to! :D

I'm not surprised when people assume me to be a Republican. At this juncture in history, the Republicans seem to have a better grasp of geo-political realities. Ergo: I tend to support many of their positions.

You won't criticise Bush's policies on here? Why not? Is it your mission to gain Republican voters on this forum? Besides, if you refuse to criticise Bush on this forum don't complain when people call you a partisan Republican.

I don't usually criticise this Administration's policies on this Forum because most of the more vocal people who post on here tend to lean rather far to the left, and because I agree in essence with this Administration's foreign policy, a topic which is very frequent on here.

My "mission" is to make the world as safe a place for my children and grandchildren as possible. There are other "missions" I support, but that is the primary one.

If people choose to see me as a "partisan Republican" so be it. There have been several other discussion groups where I have been referred to as a "liberal." ( shrug ) I know many people tend to use the human propensity to label in an effort to make their world more understandable.

You're not alone, Bottle. That happens to be my position as well. I TOLD you I wasn't a "neocon!" :headbang:
i feel i must respond with :rolleyes:

I agree with that article almost whole-heartedly, by only objection being the characterization of liberals. While most communists are liberal, most liberals aren't communists.
Most of them probably don't have the illusion they are free.

But really, the only way anyone can really take your freedom away is if you give it to them. You can always choose something, even if it's death or worse. Might not be a good choice, but at least it'll be at your own terms.
Yeah geeze guys, if you didn't test the walls of your box you'd never know they were there! Then you would really be free.[/sarcasm]
Come on, are you really trying to tell us that the best solution to a percieved infringement of freedom is not to percieve it? That we should all just pretend that the problem doesn't exist, that delusions are the highest form of enlightenment? Sounds like you're doing a pretty good job of that yourself.
I usually won't ... on here. I happen to disagree very strongly with running a major deficit, to give one example.

Hardly anyone does. The problem isn't that they support the deficit, the problem is that they support the policies that lead to deficit.
When you misrepresent yourself people are going to have misconceptions. You have only yourself to blame for that, not some "compartmentalizing" social entity.

You're not alone, Bottle. That happens to be my position as well. I TOLD you I wasn't a "neocon!"
I agree in essence with this Administration's foreign policy
So how are you not a neocon? As far as I am aware, the neocon philosophy dictates that the world would be a better place under American dominance. This idealism is the core of the Bush policy (at least that's what my less cynical side says). You agree with it, which makes you a neocon.

I read your essay. I notice that the Democrats of the past were closer to the neocon ideas while the Republicans were in favour of less ambitious foreign objectives. It appears that the parties switched at some point.

Come on, are you really trying to tell us that the best solution to a percieved infringement of freedom is not to percieve it?I'm not saying how to achieve freedom, just what it. Arguably most people can't think they're free, and thus can't be.

That we should all just pretend that the problem doesn't exist, that delusions are the highest form of enlightenment? Sounds like you're doing a pretty good job of that yourself.Why thank you. (Honestly, I'm doing a terrible job at it though.)

Only perceived problems exist. No people, no problems.