NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I forget exactly where I heard this, but I think it's something I should point out.

People tend to intermingle the terms "freedom" and "liberty" a lot these days, as if they are one and the same. However, while similar, and even listed as synonyms in the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom

The commentary I had heard before had proposed a separation of degree between the two words. It recommended that "liberty" be used for complete and total separation from all restraints in action, without other considerations involved. "Freedom" would be used to allow choice in action to a certain degree, but would take into account moral considerations and consequences of those actions. Of course, where and when these two would be applied would be different.

I personally prefer in most cases that "freedom" should be considered over "liberty"; that every action, and allowing the choice to take such action through legalization thereof, should take these consequences into account. There must be moderation in all things. Now, the way I see it today is that most people are motivated solely by their own personal liberty to do what they want, without considering all of the consequences of allowing people to take that action. If something does not please them, they will at times fight to outlaw it. Such is the nature of politics.

Therefore, the way I see it, the will of the majority in most or all cases should stand, and that's why democratic governments work well, generally. There are enough voices in the government or with the power to speak to allow the government to take the consequences of actions into account. This is "freedom" as opposed to "liberty", or simply allowing something for its own sake or solely to appease those who take certain actions who may not consider their consequences on self or others. The majority should be able to figure out whether certain actions are right or wrong.

Which do you think is preferable, given the definitions in this post: "freedom" or "liberty"?

P.S. sorry for the lack of a poll; can't figure out how to add one

So, I forget exactly where I heard this, but I think it's something I should point out.

People tend to intermingle the terms "freedom" and "liberty" a lot these days, as if they are one and the same. However, while similar, and even listed as synonyms in the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom

The commentary I had heard before had proposed a separation of degree between the two words. It recommended that "liberty" be used for complete and total separation from all restraints in action, without other considerations involved. "Freedom" would be used to allow choice in action to a certain degree, but would take into account moral considerations and consequences of those actions. Of course, where and when these two would be applied would be different.

I personally prefer in most cases that "freedom" should be considered over "liberty"; that every action, and allowing the choice to take such action through legalization thereof, should take these consequences into account. There must be moderation in all things. Now, the way I see it today is that most people are motivated solely by their own personal liberty to do what they want, without considering all of the consequences of allowing people to take that action. If something does not please them, they will at times fight to outlaw it. Such is the nature of politics.

Therefore, the way I see it, the will of the majority in most or all cases should stand, and that's why democratic governments work well, generally. There are enough voices in the government or with the power to speak to allow the government to take the consequences of actions into account. This is "freedom" as opposed to "liberty", or simply allowing something for its own sake or solely to appease those who take certain actions who may not consider their consequences on self or others. The majority should be able to figure out whether certain actions are right or wrong.

Which do you think is preferable, given the definitions in this post: "freedom" or "liberty"?

P.S. sorry for the lack of a poll; can't figure out how to add one

Interesting post :)

Personally, I disagree that the majority are rarely the best judges of what is or isn't "right" or "wrong". However as a direct comparison between the ideals of freedom and liberty, I feel that freedom, as you define it, is preferable. By giving people unlimited and uninhibited freedom (as in your definition of liberty), there is no concept of the needs of society over the needs of an individual. This can quickly lead to an "every man is an island" point of view where in the end, society breaks down into a "survivalist" mindset where it's every man for himself, regardless of consequences.

In the political sense, however, freedom and liberty are roughly given the same meaning. Admittedly I am a libertarian so I tend to think the more freedom the better, I am not an anarchist so by using your definition at least I will conceed that certain concessions need to be made so that society can function as it should. Certain basic rights, however, need to be upheld and more advanced ones legislated to prevent misuse, ergo the right to speak openly against the government if it has, as usual, screwed things up; right to self-expression, and other such liberties.

This can quickly lead to an "every man is an island" point of view where in the end, society breaks down into a "survivalist" mindset where it's every man for himself, regardless of consequences.
The nice thing is there aren't any examples of that working for any amount of time. Power lines people up very quickly and reorganizes them. Always.

Orwellian Newspeak. Enslave everyone to the will of others, and rename it "freedom".

In need, freedom is latent.

Freedom can never be achieved in capitalism, because in capitalism the needs of millions are beholden to the few who control the means of the production of those commodities which society needs, food, shelter etc.

To each the full product of their labor!

Capitalist 'freedom' is the freedom to exploit, bourgeois freedom in short.

On a politics degree they will probably have a section on the difference between positive freedom and negative freedom. I forget which is which, but it essentially boils down to one being what the state legislates that you cannot do. eg alcohol laws imply that the consumption is a right by forbidding it before a certain age rather than allowing it after that age. The other is opposite and is about what the state allows you to do. That is laws that allow a person to live to a minimum standard.

Personally I believe both are important. The latter is important in that it allows people to be quite adventurous with their lives in the comfortable knowledge that they may suffer if they make a mistake, but that they won't end up in the gutter. Conversely liberty is important because each individual is different and needs the liberty to find out who they are during the course of their life without an overbearing state dictating to them who they are and what they think.

In need, freedom is latent.

Freedom can never be achieved in capitalism, because in capitalism the needs of millions are beholden to the few who control the means of the production of those commodities which society needs, food, shelter etc.

To each the full product of their labor!

Capitalist 'freedom' is the freedom to exploit, bourgeois freedom in short.

While it's true that a completely unregulated market in Capitalism is unworkable for the reasons you've described, the assumption that your alternative is any better in that regard is pretty silly.

Orwellian Newspeak. Enslave everyone to the will of others, and rename it "freedom".

QFT

Everyone loves Democracy until the "will of the majority" is that you, or your people/group, don't deserve "X" amount of rights, then there's a problem with 'said' system.

Freedom and Liberty, to me, is simply the right to be left alone and allowed to do as I please, without infringing on the rights of others. So in my opinion, both are one and the same.