NationStates Jolt Archive

The democratic governments of the world, but in particular the American one, always speak of spreading democracy and freedom in their foreign policy. I won't discuss whether that's right or wrong, what I ask is, What is freedom? I'm not talking about speech or religion or any of the basic ones. I mean on a more day to day level. Not everyone is an activist, or a worshipper of a religion considered strange. I mean on a level of the average person, the people you need to make a majority in a democracy. What does freedom mean to them? Is there a correct use of liberty?

Discuss.

The democratic governments of the world, but in particular the American one, always speak of spreading democracy and freedom in their foreign policy. I won't discuss whether that's right or wrong, what I ask is, What is freedom? I'm not talking about speech or religion or any of the basic ones. I mean on a more day to day level. Not everyone is an activist, or a worshipper of a religion considered strange. I mean on a level of the average person, the people you need to make a majority in a democracy. What does freedom mean to them? Is there a correct use of liberty?

Discuss.

I refuse to discuss until you 1) clarify "average person", "people you need to make a majority" and "religion considered strange", and 2) stop putting limits on my definition of freedom (but not speech or religion or any BASIC ONES).

In the popular Western sense, "freedom" and "liberty" mean the freedom to do whatever doesn't deeply offend a Westerner.

This is way too open a question to answer but that's never stopped me before:

There are two freedoms - the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought. ~Charles Kingsley

Something like that.

Freedom is the will to be responsible to ourselves. ~Nietzsche

A little of that but countered by this:

Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim. ~Thomas Macaulay

There are two freedoms - the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought. ~Charles Kingsley

Freedom is the will to be responsible to ourselves. ~Nietzsche
These quotes both strike me as redefining freedom into a functionally meaningless concept.

These quotes both strike me as redefining freedom into a functionally meaningless concept.

From your location, I though Juneau was in Arkansas until I watched Juno.

Irrelevance aside...

Far be it from me to state what they're saying but, according to my interpretation, they break down freedom a little, something the OP didn't do.

For example: One concept of freedom is the ability to do whatever you like, yet doing whatever you like with no understanding of what you're doing isn't freedom so much as random acts.

Another example, often used, is heroin. It's a negative freedom - sure, you could say that one should be free to use heroin but, in using heroin, you become bound by the addiction. At what point are you more free?

Another quote, from someone I forget, says that freedom is contained between a choice and a decision - I quite like that one too.

I ninja leap out of a bush and tackle a friend to the ground, yank off his pants and underwear in one swift motion and scamper down the street whooping like a maniac while he scrambles to his feet and gives chase with his dangly bits flopping like a freshly caught fish for ten blocks.

That is the proper use of liberty.

Freedom is not getting arrested or sued for it.

*nod*

...with his dangly bits flopping like a freshly caught fish for ten blocks...

Nice, testicles might have been better:

...with his testicles flopping like freshly caught fish....

Sounds like the start of an epic poem, a Paradise Lost of our times.

er...we English don't really masturbate over freedom so much :confused:

I think the standard definition would be:

Freedom: tea, BBC and a Sunday roast seems to be what keeps the peace
Liberty: one lump or two

I refuse to discuss until you 1) clarify "average person", "people you need to make a majority" and "religion considered strange", and 2) stop putting limits on my definition of freedom (but not speech or religion or any BASIC ONES).

Here in the Dominican Republic, for example, the average person is a latino catholic with a used car and an unhealthy level of liking for beer.

To attain any kind of electoral victory, you'd need lots of support from the median population, since winning the support of anyone different would be either: a) Not enough to win and b) impossible to sustain too many "other" voting groups.

If you worship a box of tic tacs and parade the street with a speaker proclaiming tic tac salvation, i'll bet people will consider your religion strange. This isn't the kind of freedom i want to discuss though.

The kingsley quote hit the nail on the head.

This is way too open a question to answer but that's never stopped me before:

There are two freedoms - the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought. ~Charles Kingsley

Something like that.Well, since you can't be required to do the impossible, one must conclude that "ought" implies "can"; so everyone is always free to do what (s)he ought.

Foreign policy is almost always about self-interest.

[W]hat I ask is, What is freedom? … Is there a correct use of liberty?Freedom exists when there is an atmosphere created to allow for each individual to become what he wishes, or more preferably as he is destined. The individual then makes his own choices based upon his own criteria to follow his own path. This is freedom.

Correct use implies there is an incorrect use. To see if a concept is correct or not one has to look at examples in retrospect.

Notorious historical figures used freedom incorrectly: Hitler. He chose his path and followed it. His path was one of enslavement and extermination of people; an easy example of incorrect use. Contrast that with Mother Theresa who chose her path and followed it and fed and clothed the poorest people in the world and attempted to bring dignity to those who were marginalized by their culture and society. I think this is a case of correct use.

Now I doubt most, if any, of us here on this forum are Hitler’s or Mother Theresa’s, but with the extremes mentioned here it’s not too difficult to look at how we use our freedoms and liberties and then look back at the actions and see if we used them appropriately or not.

Some call this process, “An Examination of Conscience.” Certain cultural and religious groups are very familiar with the process and this being the season of Great Lent, it is an excellent time to examine our consciences.

Have I used my liberty and freedom correctly? Have I used it to further good will and attempted to bring dignity to my fellow man? Or have I used it incorrectly and attempted to enslave my brother, to undermine his dignity, or usurp another’s path?Oh, Freedom,
Oh-o freedom,
Oh-o freedom,
Oh freedom over me.
And before I be a slave,
I'll be buried in my grave.
And go home to my Lord and be free.

I did a thread on this. See here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=547737)
On a definition of freedom.

The democratic governments of the world, but in particular the American one, always speak of spreading democracy and freedom in their foreign policy.
Aye, bit ironic, really.
I won't discuss whether that's right or wrong
A shame, to be honest.
what I ask is, What is freedom? I'm not talking about speech or religion or any of the basic ones. I mean on a more day to day level. Not everyone is an activist, or a worshipper of a religion considered strange. I mean on a level of the average person, the people you need to make a majority in a democracy. What does freedom mean to them?
Being able to live in peace is the best kind of freedom imo.
Is there a correct use of liberty?
Yes, to bring down governments that have gone way too far.

Here in the Dominican Republic, for example, the average person is a latino catholic with a used car and an unhealthy level of liking for beer.

To attain any kind of electoral victory, you'd need lots of support from the median population, since winning the support of anyone different would be either: a) Not enough to win and b) impossible to sustain too many "other" voting groups.

If you worship a box of tic tacs and parade the street with a speaker proclaiming tic tac salvation, i'll bet people will consider your religion strange. This isn't the kind of freedom i want to discuss though.

The kingsley quote hit the nail on the head.

I don't see what electoral victories have to do with ensuring freedom and liberty... aren't those supposed to be for, you know, EVERYONE?

I also didn't realize there was a right answer. I suppose I'll move on now.

Freedom to read and learn about what you want would be one thing, rather than to be indoctrinated into selected material and restricted from other information, this is something of value to everyone.

Well, since you can't be required to do the impossible, one must conclude that "ought" implies "can"; so everyone is always free to do what (s)he ought.

You can go jump off a cliff for that post, you ought not to - there's a world of difference.

You can go jump off a cliff for that post, you ought not to - there's a world of difference.Indeed "can" does not imply "ought", which is why I didn't say that, nor said they were equal.
But it's logically inconsistent to say "you ought to jump of a cliff; but you can't". It would make obligation meaningless if you can be obliged to do the impossible.

It would make obligation meaningless if you can be obliged to do the impossible.
Which makes me wonder about any moral code that obliges you to sacrifice your life at a given point. Even if the life itself has no moral value, you still forfit the ability to do good in the future, which you would also be obliged to do.

Indeed "can" does not imply "ought", which is why I didn't say that, nor said they were equal.
But it's logically inconsistent to say "you ought to jump of a cliff; but you can't". It would make obligation meaningless if you can be obliged to do the impossible.

Ah gotcha. I think 'ought' here implies a certain moral duty, if not a Nietzschean super-ego attitude to things if that's your bag man (hey, Swedish-made penis enlargers are not my bag baby) - whatever, one can do many things, including beat an old lady around the head with a wiffle bat but ought one to do it?

I hate to use this but....with great freedom comes great responsibility.

Another example, often used, is heroin. It's a negative freedom - sure, you could say that one should be free to use heroin but, in using heroin, you become bound by the addiction. At what point are you more free?

Another quote, from someone I forget, says that freedom is contained between a choice and a decision - I quite like that one too.

Except one can, in theory safely and responsibly use heroin without becoming an addict. Opioid addiction requires the body to become accustomed to having them present. Use it only occassionally and you are unlikely to become addicted. Of course, not everyone has the will power to do something they really like only every few weeks.