NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I know I've seen many people talk about this, but never an intelligent toppic about it. People prefer to waste their time talking about God.

What is your vision of freedom?
And most importantly, do you think freedom actually is a good thing?

Personnally, my vision on freedom is that you have rights, as a human being. You have the freedom of speech, which implies that you can say all you want, as long as it doesn't hurt somebody else by it (racist speeches, for example). That would be my vision on freedom of speech.

As a human being, you have the right to choose. In my opinion, that's what freedom is. Choices. However, in my opinion, some choices should already be outlawed. For example, the choice of violence, racism, discrimination, prejudice, etc.

In my opinion, freedom, the way people see it now, is a bad thing. People think they are free to do anything, that they do not have a duty over other people. I personnally think that "your freedom ends where the others' begin". We have a duty over the other people. For example, if you see a child that's drowning in a lake, are you free to pass by and do nothing? I think not. I think that ethically, it would be a duty to try to save him.

Freedom, the way we put it in our society, is very dangerous. It turns you into a selfish being. People are free not to help other people. For example, how many people who make 50,000$/year give at least 1000$ to humanitarian aid? On the other hand, people are starving, because they receive no donations. Should we have the freedom not to help them? If you agree with the child's argument earlier, you shouldn't have the freedom not to give money to help.

My point is that we have two things in life: freedom and duty. What a man can do and what a man MUST do. There should be more things that we MUST do than there are now, in my opinion, in the interests of mankind. If we MUST do more things, we should have less freedom.

I'll also add one small paragraph dedicated to Americans. Stop listening to the politicians that want to act "in the name of freedom" ... I've heard many senators, governors and president Bush end their speeches by "in the name of freedom". Sorry guys, but this kind of sentence doesn't fit well (mostly in an election period). When you end, for example, an electorial speech by this sentence, that would mean: "If you want to remain free, vote for me". I think that's pretty absurd, because it opposes to the freedom to choose who you will vote for... "When you vote for me, you are more free than if you vote against me"... I doubt it.

freedom for me... well i am odd:

Guns are an effective means of making people do things they don't want to. Money, too, is an effective way of exerting power over people, especially those who cannot meet their needs without it
- Altruists.org

The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying this is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody
- Jean Jaques Rousseau



so my vision of freedom would be free from money, free from the controlling measures of society, free from property and ownership, free from the externalities of other individuals and (importantly) companies... essentially a form of anarchy.

of course its impossible with people the way they are now (it assumes people are all moral creatures of the same stance and ethics for a start), but tis my idealistic vision nonetheless

Firstly, you're confusing freedom with free will. Not exactly the same thing. And freedom in the concept of the individual, what you reference, is different from freedom in the concept of society.

of course its impossible with people the way they are now (it assumes people are all moral creatures of the same stance and ethics for a start), but tis my idealistic vision nonetheless

Hey PM, wanna form a hippie-commie army and invade Pitcairn Island with me?

of course its impossible with people the way they are now (it assumes people are all moral creatures of the same stance and ethics for a start), but tis my idealistic vision nonetheless
See quote number 2 in sig.

Hey PM, wanna form a hippie-commie army and invade Pitcairn Island with me?
sod that lets just sod off to jamaica and smoke it up... bong! :D

but the short answer is: yes. :P

so my vision of freedom would be free from money, free from the controlling measures of society, free from property and ownership, free from the externalities of other individuals and (importantly) companies... essentially a form of anarchy.

of course its impossible with people the way they are now (it assumes people are all moral creatures of the same stance and ethics for a start), but tis my idealistic vision nonetheless
Why don't you aid wings to the people too, so that way they are free from gravity. Really, building a Utopia and then saying "but we can't do it because <insert fundamental human trait here>" is just lazy and a waste of everyone's time.

Anyway, the problem with the OP's concept of duty/morality, is that if you force someone to do something, it isn't a "Good" deed. It can only be "Good" or "Evil" if you do it voluntarily. Enforced morality is no morality.

Why don't you aid wings to the people too, so that way they are free from gravity. Really, building a Utopia and then saying "but we can't do it because <insert fundamental human trait here>" is just lazy and a waste of everyone's time.

huh :confused:
so i'm not allowed to be idealistic now?

damn realists :rolleyes:


besides, as a socialist, as all good socialists know, there is no such thing as a fundamental or predefined human nature. that nature can, and does, change according to a great number of factors over time. as a result it is not "impossible" in the literal sense of the word (i was using it figuratively), just impossible right now. a couple of centuries down the line and we'll see...

sod that lets just sod off to jamaica and smoke it up... bong! :D

but the short answer is: yes. :P

Wherever. Any sort of tropical island is good. ;)

freedom for me... well i am odd:

Guns are an effective means of making people do things they don't want to. Money, too, is an effective way of exerting power over people, especially those who cannot meet their needs without it

- Altruists.org

The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying this is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody

- Jean Jaques Rousseau



so my vision of freedom would be free from money, free from the controlling measures of society, free from property and ownership, free from the externalities of other individuals and (importantly) companies... essentially a form of anarchy.

of course its impossible with people the way they are now (it assumes people are all moral creatures of the same stance and ethics for a start), but tis my idealistic vision nonetheless


Woo..
I'm ahead, I'm a man
I'm the first mammal to wear pants, yeah
I'm at peace with my lust
I can kill 'cause in God I trust, yeah
It's evolution, baby

I'm at piece, I’m the man
Buying stocks on the day of the crash
On the loose, I'm a truck
All the rolling hills, I’ll flatten’ em out, yeah
It's herd behavior, uh huh
It's evolution, baby

Admire me, admire my home
Admire my song, here's my coat
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
This land is mine, this land is free
I'll do what I want but irresponsibly
It's evolution, baby

I'm a thief, I'm a liar
There's my church, I sing in the choir:
(hallelujah… hallelujah…)

Admire me, admire my home
Admire my song, admire my clothes
'Cause we know, appetite for a nightly feast
Those ignorant Indians got nothin' on me
Nothin', why?
Because, it's evolution, baby!

I am ahead, I am advanced
I am the first mammal to make plans, yeah
I crawled the earth, but now I'm higher
Twenty-ten, watch it go to fire
It's evolution, baby (2X)
Do the evolution
Come on, come on, come on

Somewhere in Africa a Merekat proudly stands upright outside of his hole acting as a sentry. He stands there proclaiming that "this land is mine." Eventually the water on "his" land will dry up and the family will be forced to move, usually into another Merekat family’s territory because they have water. The displaced family will invade, the sentry will squeal an alarm, and the two families will beat the living fuck out of each other. The winner will take the hole; the loser will look for a new home.

You think we are going to change? It only gets worse mate. Why? Because its evolution, baby!

http://members.westnet.com.au/mcilvena/poster.jpg

I thought i would post this.

Technicaly definition: Free from coercive forces.

to me Freedom is also a Responsibility. I can enjoy my Freedoms, I can excercise my Freedoms. but I also have to take Responsibility for my Freedoms.

If there are those who would use our freedom to harm others, then I am more than willing to suspend my freedom temporarily to remove those who would hide behind those Freedom to prey on others.

I would defend your right to enjoy your freedoms but I expect you to respect the right and freedom of others to react to what you say or do.

Freedom without Restraint is Anarchy.

It should be that we restrain ourselves and not have others restrain us.

Freedom without Restraint is Anarchy.

It should be that we restrain ourselves and not have others restrain us.
Then there wouldn't really be a need for police and you may end up with anarchy.

What is your vision of freedom?
And most importantly, do you think freedom actually is a good thing?


Freedom means alot to me, but it can be summed up quite nicely by the words self determination. I believe that people should have the right to do what they wish as long as their actions do not directly and substantively infringe on the freedom of others without due process of law.

I understand that my view is neither egalitarian nor kind. Under my view of freedom bad people will occasionally do bad things, but the alternative(tyranny) is far worse. Yes, someone might make a racist speech, Neo-Nazis might march through a neighborhood with holocost survivors chanting hateful slogans. Those survivors have the right to march, to answer, to respond. Society has nothing to fear from unpopular speech. Racist speech is only strong as long as it goes unchallenged. If it is banned, it will continue to exist underground, unchallenged, justified by the fact that it is censored. If it is dragged out into the light of day and discussed it loses it's power, all but the most hardcore of racists will see it's folly.

A public dialogue must be allowed, even if one side is clearly wrong or disgusting. The reason for this is simple: once you allow the government to decide what speech is out of bounds, speech ceases to be a right and becomes a privilage, something you are allowed to do under the right circumstances. While most people might feel free under a system like that, it turns you from a citizen to a subject, waiting for a corrupt ruler to tear your privilages away.

Most other rights operate in the same manner. If they are unequivocal, they are strong, but once they become conditional, once you allow the government to limit them, they cease to be rights. Taking away the right of someone to choose not to help might sound like a good idea, but violates the basic tenets of self-determination. When you forceably confiscate the property of Peter to pay Paul, you destroy the rights of both men. When a man cannot hold his own property, when it is his only as long as the government doesn't feel that a portion of it should belong to someone else, then that property no longer belongs to the owner, but to the government. In this case, Peter is simply allowed to have physical possession of some wealth, but it is ultimately the property of the government. That is not freedom, it is gilded slavery.

I will agree that there is both freedom and duty, but there is no duty without consent. If a man cannot choose to take the moral action, it is no longer moral. Freedom is about being able to choose, it is about right and wrong. Without freedom there is no morality, without choice there is no good or evil. Sure, under a benevolent government things might go fine in the absence of freedom. Eventually there will be a government that is not benevolent, eventually there will be a tyrant who uses the power vested in his government to destructive ends. Bear in mind (and this is not an invocation of Godwin, the parallel is obvious) the same power that allowed Hitler and the Nazis to build the autobahn and repair the economy allowed them to murder all dissenters, the power that has allowed China to feed all of it's people for the first time in history is the power that allowed Tiananmen Square.

That is a dangerous road, and it is why in America the right that was enumerated immediately after Freedom of Conscience was the freedom to defend oneself.

Then there wouldn't really be a need for police and you may end up with anarchy.
???

how'd you get that?
If we do restrain ourselves then perhaps, there won't be a need for police.
If we do Restrain ourselves to that point where there is no need for Police, then there won't be anarchy because we have the restraint.

However, we cannot restrain ourselves, thus we have the police (and others) who strive to stave off Anarchy.

In my opinion, that's what freedom is. Choices. However, in my opinion, some choices should already be outlawed.
to me Freedom is also a Responsibility. I can enjoy my Freedoms, I can excercise my Freedoms. but I also have to take Responsibility for my Freedoms.

If there are those who would use our freedom to harm others, then I am more than willing to suspend my freedom temporarily to remove those who would hide behind those Freedom to prey on others.

I would defend your right to enjoy your freedoms but I expect you to respect the right and freedom of others to react to what you say or do.

Freedom without Restraint is Anarchy.

It should be that we restrain ourselves and not have others restrain us.The above quotes pretty much sum up my position on the issue. Yes, we should have choices and rights, but we can't ignore the responsibilities that come with them - to ourselves, other human beings and everything else around us.

???

how'd you get that?
If we do restrain ourselves then perhaps, there won't be a need for police.
If we do Restrain ourselves to that point where there is no need for Police, then there won't be anarchy because we have the restraint.

However, we cannot restrain ourselves, thus we have the police (and others) who strive to stave off Anarchy.
I think we have different definitions of anarchy, or rather using different versions. I'm taking about governmental anarchy, you're talking about moral anarchy.

And most importantly, do you think freedom actually is a good thing?

Sometimes yes and sometimes no. I don't feel like writing a lot. For example, while NAMBLA putting out how-to-rape-children books may technically fall under freedom of speech, it is not a good thing and I don't think it should be allowed.

Sometimes yes and sometimes no. I don't feel like writing a lot. For example, while NAMBLA putting out how-to-rape-children books may technically fall under freedom of speech, it is not a good thing and I don't think it should be allowed.

I'm pretty sure the ACLU would disagree with you. Same thing with digital child porn, no real children involved so legal right? It is art right? People see outlawing this crap would somehow hurt everyone with the 1st Amendment. Is this what freedom has come down to the right to tolerate this horrid kind of things as being protected?

However, we cannot restrain ourselves, thus we have the police (and others) who strive to stave off Anarchy.

Who restrains the police, then?

That is the ultimate question. How do you have a free society that is ordered?

It's a question that's been around since the instituion of democracy in Athens. The best way, is to make the guardians subject to oversight, be it from an assembly of all citizens, an elected board, or an internal inspector.

Who restrains the police, then?

Immediately? Civilian overseers who are elected by a majority of the people (the executive branch and their appointees). Ultimately? The armed populace from which their authority is derived.