What is Freedom?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
No, you are free to want or wish to walk on whichever surface you like.
I probably won’t walk on the sun, but even more surly I won’t walk on surfaces I cannot conceive.

The mind, reason, will, a vision, being able to express a powerful dream; these are things paramount in allowing your very own flower of freedom to bloom radiantly.

I couldn’t care less for the sun if I’m in love with the moon.

[/quote]

No, it’s entirely poignant.

So I could tie you to a table, preventing you from moving entirely, and you’d still be free, because you can still want anything? Freedom includes the physical ability to do as we’ll as the mental freedom to want, whether or not you do something.[/quote]

I don’t say it’s the only quality, but it’s the prerequisite.
The physical component comes later.

Also, being bound is relative. (The rightwingers here couldn’t even decide if waterboarding is torture :wink: And I might have a chance at freeing myself eventually or at the very least, inspiring others (think of jesus or Bin Laden).

Restricting the mind and spirit leads to people not even knowing they are bound by others.

But sure, there is some physical component to it.[/quote]

I made up my mind decisively on torture. I’m not sure the relevance in a discussion with me.

lol at jesus and bin laden. The physicality is a absolute pre-requisite to freedom. Period.

102

Dude, you’re entangling yourself:

You claim freedom isn’t virtous because we cannot guarantee it’s always virtous what comes out -right, because that would be the role of… virtous behaviour. So only virtous behaviour is virtous, while free acts are…

…You sure you don’t want to do the UN speech?

103

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth, interest for one’s family, community, etc., is self-interest.

It is impossible for a rational being to not act out of self-interest unless he willfully becomes a slave to the incompetent. This is after all the mentality of the impoverished class which HH is describing.[/quote]

Really, Lift? Really? What families? What communities? The ceaseless chasing of pleasure and maximum profit seems to have gutted the hell out of them. Leaving nothing, nothing, to take the place of a tutelary state. [/quote]

Your response smacks of uninformed and emotive hyperbole.

In every case the state is the problem.[/quote]

Why? Do you dispute the eroded condition of the family? Of local communities? Do you honestly believe that the shipping out of labor, or the importing of it on the cheap, hasn’t left many communities broken and alienated? How can you say the market doesn’t hold the capactity to destroy the local–the community–yet you champion the unobstructed displacement of the local for the distant? You champion the fact that local citizens must relent and compete with people accustomed to 3rd world conditions.

104

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Dude, you’re entangling yourself:

You claim freedom isn’t virtous because we cannot guarantee it’s always virtous what comes out -right, because that would be the role of… virtous behaviour. So only virtous behaviour is virtous, while free acts are…

…You sure you don’t want to do the UN speech?

[/quote]

You’ve already conceded that absolute freedom is also the freedom to not abstain from the destructive and vile. You didn’t even try to argue this. So, exactly what the heck is your disagreement?

105

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Dude, you’re entangling yourself:

You claim freedom isn’t virtous because we cannot guarantee it’s always virtous what comes out -right, because that would be the role of… virtous behaviour. So only virtous behaviour is virtous, while free acts are…

…You sure you don’t want to do the UN speech?

[/quote]

Who’s definition of virtue?

106

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
lol at jesus and bin laden. The physicality is a absolute pre-requisite to freedom. Period.[/quote]

How’s that?
Take south africa. Mandela spend about 30 (I think) years in jail, taking his shit when allowed, eating when they told him to.
His idea of freedom grew in him steadily. When he came out, something I can only adequately describe as a hurricane of freedom tore through the land.

How about this: you’re in prison for 10 years, and they give you either a high quality bike you can use when hanging out in the yard, along with a greater cell OR access to a library.
What do you choose?

Also: would humankind be freer with extra wings attached to our backs? Does your freedom decrease with age (since you get frailer)?

107

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth, interest for one’s family, community, etc., is self-interest.

It is impossible for a rational being to not act out of self-interest unless he willfully becomes a slave to the incompetent. This is after all the mentality of the impoverished class which HH is describing.[/quote]

Really, Lift? Really? What families? What communities? The ceaseless chasing of pleasure and maximum profit seems to have gutted the hell out of them. Leaving nothing, nothing, to take the place of a tutelary state. [/quote]

Your response smacks of uninformed and emotive hyperbole.

In every case the state is the problem.[/quote]

Why? Do you dispute the eroded condition of the family? Of local communities? Do you honestly believe that the shipping out of labor, or the importing of it on the cheap, hasn’t left many communities broken and alienated? How can you say the market doesn’t hold the capactity to destroy the local–the community–yet you champion the unobstructed displacement of the local for the distant? You champion the fact that local citizens must relent and compete with people accustomed to 3rd world conditions. [/quote]

I dispute everything you say because every example you cite comes down to over generalization. My family is not eroded! My community is not eroded! I do not know what that even means.

I believe economic law tells us why jobs are shipped overseas – because Americans want cheap goods and price controls on labor have raised the bar on American productivity. We are way better off buying from overseas until we can get production up here. That will take a massive decline in government in order to do that.

All you see is one side. You do not see the fact that the average American cannot afford to (or just doesn’t want to) purchase American produced goods – because, I’ll state it again, government is in the way. In every instance the government is the problem.

You blame the problem of too much government making Americans dependent on government on “lack of values”. This is the wrong approach. American values are influenced in a nontrivial way by the American government.

108

Exactly, which virtue? Defining something while talking large calibre (ie virtue) semantics might be a tad confusing.

And again: Stating that the only consistently virtuous behaviour comes from virtuous behaviour is redundant.

109

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
lol at jesus and bin laden. The physicality is a absolute pre-requisite to freedom. Period.[/quote]

How’s that?
Take south africa. Mandela spend about 30 (I think) years in jail, taking his shit when allowed, eating when they told him to.
His idea of freedom grew in him steadily. When he came out, something I can only adequately describe as a hurricane of freedom tore through the land.

How about this: you’re in prison for 10 years, and they give you either a high quality bike you can use when hanging out in the yard, along with a greater cell OR access to a library.
What do you choose?

[/quote]
Personal preference is irrelevant. and a more fair comparison would be a library limited to works deamed “rehabilitating”. However, both cases are more free because they allow more choice to the inmate.

Would the inmate be freer on a day he he chose not to go to the library?

[quote]

Also: would humankind be freer with extra wings attached to our backs? Does your freedom decrease with age (since you get frailer)?[/quote]

Yes. A bed ridden patient is definitely less free that a healthy person. Once again this is a physical limitation of the universe.

110

I would just like to point out that whatever the nature of freedom is, political freedom usually means the freedom from men with guns telling you what to do.

That is what I want to be free from, in order to be better able to deal with all other restrictions live places on me.

111

Freedom only makes reference to our ability to make choices with respect to our own life and property.

Obviously if I cannot choose to play piano because I do not possess the talent does not make me less free.

Likewise, not possessing a piano also does not make me less free.

But if someone prevents me from learning because there is some sort of piano cartel that raises the price of lessons, pianos, music, etc., then yes, I am definitely less free.

112

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Freedom only makes reference to our ability to make choices with respect to our own life and property.

Obviously if I cannot choose to play piano because I do not possess the talent does not make me less free.

Likewise, not possessing a piano also does not make me less free.

But if someone prevents me from learning because there is some sort of piano cartel that raises the price of lessons, pianos, music, etc., then yes, I am definitely less free.[/quote]

I don’t completely agree. You are trying to walk too fine a line.

What if there is only one piano and your neighbor refuses to sell it. Are you less free?

113

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Freedom only makes reference to our ability to make choices with respect to our own life and property.

Obviously if I cannot choose to play piano because I do not possess the talent does not make me less free.

Likewise, not possessing a piano also does not make me less free.

But if someone prevents me from learning because there is some sort of piano cartel that raises the price of lessons, pianos, music, etc., then yes, I am definitely less free.[/quote]

I don’t completely agree. You are trying to walk too fine a line.

What if there is only one piano and your neighbor refuses to sell it. Are you less free?[/quote]

How could I be less free? It is not my piano. It is his. My freedom only makes reference to my property and the abilities built thereupon.

It does not make sense to even question freedom with regard to someone else’s property. The only solution would be by aggressive means if there were no voluntary solution. Aggressive means would mean someone else’s freedom must be violated and they would thus be less free.

Freedom cannot be zero sum. Either everyone is free or none are.

114

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Freedom cannot be zero sum. Either everyone is free or none are.[/quote]

except mak - but he doesn’t count . . .

115

and Ryan . . .

116

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Freedom only makes reference to our ability to make choices with respect to our own life and property.

Obviously if I cannot choose to play piano because I do not possess the talent does not make me less free.

Likewise, not possessing a piano also does not make me less free.

But if someone prevents me from learning because there is some sort of piano cartel that raises the price of lessons, pianos, music, etc., then yes, I am definitely less free.[/quote]

I don’t completely agree. You are trying to walk too fine a line.

What if there is only one piano and your neighbor refuses to sell it. Are you less free?[/quote]

How could I be less free? It is not my piano. It is his. My freedom only makes reference to my property and the abilities built thereupon.

It does not make sense to even question freedom with regard to someone else’s property. The only solution would be by aggressive means if there were no voluntary solution. Aggressive means would mean someone else’s freedom must be violated and they would thus be less free.

Freedom cannot be zero sum. Either everyone is free or none are.[/quote]

so how is it different if a union decide to bar you from buying one?

117

I don’t see how except by coercive means competition would not correct irregularities in the market that restricted supply.

Unions only have the ability to restrict such freedom by use of coercion which is exactly why I see freedom as freedom from coercion. That is the only way our choices are not hindered or diminished.

118

or to be more complete: freedom from aggression.

119

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t see how except by coercive means competition would not correct irregularities in the market that restricted supply.

Unions only have the ability to restrict such freedom by use of coercion which is exactly why I see freedom as freedom from coercion. That is the only way our choices are not hindered or diminished.[/quote]

Unions do not inherently rely on coercion. Unions and monopolies can exist without it.

120

How about this:

Is it the right of a company to not spend money with a supplier who begins to deal with a competitor. Is that making the guy who owns the supplier less free? Is that coercion or is that a business doing what it wants with it’s own money, they shouldn’t HAVE to spend money with them? Is the competitor now less free?