Just how free is freedom?

Just how free is freedom?

One of the thing brought up time and time again on the forums is that government should keep their hand off the people's buisness and allow them to do what ever they want.

Freedom… what does it really mean? Many people take freedom for granted but nobody ever stop to think about what the true meaning of freedom. The founding fathers believed that everybody is “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (US declaration of independence). However, just like any other things in life, freedom is not free. It passes on an enormous debt to the recipient.

Another reason freedom is not free is that are terms and conditions that entail with freedom. For example, although United States citizens are entitled to vote in the federal elections, serve on a jury, travel with US passports, run for federal office, and are eligible for federal grants and scholarship, they are required, among many other things, to support and defend the Constitution, serve the country when required, and respect and obey all United States laws.

...

One of the most important reason why freedom is not free is that there are measures in place to ensure that no one infringe the freedom of other people. Is freedom really free if it infringes upon the freedom of other people? For example, although we have the freedom to say anything we like, we must not say things that can affect or harm other people. One of the most widely given example is shouting “Fire” in a crowded place when there isn’t any. Because of that person’s action, other people can be hurt or even killed in the ensuring stampede. Another example is racial discrimination. Although we can say anything we want, speaking hurtful or disdainful things about another race can spur hate crimes where people can be hurt and thus their freedom for life is breached. Therefore, although we are entitled to do anything we want, we must walk a fine line where our actions does not overstep and affect other people.

The worst way to defend our freedoms is to let our leaders start taking them away!


or &

Wiki, you still have no clue. In order to have freedom, you have to take responsibility for your actions. That's why your poll is invalid even though you have a "beer" option. You've just offered up a ridiculous choice and expect it to be taken seriously.

Gave me a chance to abuse some emoticons anyway.

Still, you can't go through all the reasons freedom is paid for then suggest they died for something you'd give away.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Wiki, you still have no clue. In order to have freedom, you have to take responsibility for your actions. That's why your poll is invalid even though you have a "beer" option. You've just offered up a ridiculous choice and expect it to be taken seriously.

Well, that examples show that in some cases, people cannot do anything they want. You cannot have freedom at the expense of other people freedom.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Wiki, you still have no clue. In order to have freedom, you have to take responsibility for your actions. That's why your poll is invalid even though you have a "beer" option. You've just offered up a ridiculous choice and expect it to be taken seriously.

Well, that examples show that in some cases, people cannot do anything they want. You cannot have freedom at the expense of other people freedom.

And that gives you the right to confiscate guns, cigarettes and anything else you don't like exactly how? The example you gave only shows that with every right there comes a responsibility. The right to bear arms comes with the responsibility to learn how and when to use them, how to take care of them, how to handle guns safely and so on. The right of free speech carries with it certain responsibilities, amongst others you have to check yourself when you want to shout in a crowded theater, and of course you have to obey laws concerning libel and slander and so on.

You can certainly have the freedom to bear arms and to exercise free speech without infringing on anybody else's rights. Smoking cigarettes isn't a "right" but even there it's possible to smoke without infringing on other people's rights. What you CAN'T do is set up a police state where you confiscate people's rights "for their own good" and be able to call that society "free". It is not free. It is a police state, short and simple.

Maybe some day you'll understand-- maybe when somebody wants to steamroll one of your cherished rights.

Freedom of speech doesn't even cover that situation. Freedom of speech doesn't mean I can say anything I want, now read up on supreme court rulings. You can not create a clear and present danger to anyone especially by voicing falsehoods... there are several other limitations that concern suggesting illegal acts or slander.

Edit: Did you reword the poll and still not read up on it?

Originally posted by ensbb3:

Freedom of speech doesn't even cover that situation. Freedom of speech doesn't mean I can say anything I want, now read up on supreme court rulings. You can not create a clear and present danger to anyone especially by voicing falsehoods... there are several other limitations that concern suggesting illegal acts or slander.

Edit: Did you reword the poll and still not read up on it?

I begin to suspect copypasta. He found it somewhere, it sounded good so he posted it without giving it much thought.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Originally posted by ensbb3:

Freedom of speech doesn't even cover that situation. Freedom of speech doesn't mean I can say anything I want, now read up on supreme court rulings. You can not create a clear and present danger to anyone especially by voicing falsehoods... there are several other limitations that concern suggesting illegal acts or slander.

Edit: Did you reword the poll and still not read up on it?

I begin to suspect copypasta. He found it somewhere, it sounded good so he posted it without giving it much thought.

It was my school essay... I am editing it to remove the bulk of the essay just in case I want to re-use it for later school work (so that I would not be accused of plagiarizing myself! ).

I've said it before... There are times when suddenly it all makes sense.



You don't like my vote or something?

Originally posted by ensbb3:

I've said it before... There are times when suddenly it all makes sense.



You don't like my vote or something?

Umm... I really don't care how one person vote. Just how the general public votes is my concern. If you actually bother to ready, I have shortened my essay and remove the introduction and several paragraphs (leaving just the intro and two body paragraphs).

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Originally posted by ensbb3:

I've said it before... There are times when suddenly it all makes sense.



You don't like my vote or something?

Umm... I really don't care how one person vote. Just how the general public votes is my concern. If you actually bother to ready, I have shortened my essay and remove the introduction and several paragraphs (leaving just the intro and two bodies).

Whoops, better call in CSI. Wild guess, it was done by the butler, in the pantry, with a telephone cord. But, the CSI guys will find out for sure.

Humor alert.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Originally posted by ensbb3:

I've said it before... There are times when suddenly it all makes sense.



You don't like my vote or something?

Umm... I really don't care how one person vote. Just how the general public votes is my concern. If you actually bother to ready, I have shortened my essay and remove the introduction and several paragraphs (leaving just the intro and two bodies).

Whoops, better call in CSI. Wild guess, it was done by the butler, in the pantry, with a telephone cord. But, the CSI guys will find out for sure.

Humor alert.

Changed phrasing. Happy?

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

it was done by the butler, in the pantry, with a telephone cord.

Maid in the parlor with the candlestick... would be my guess.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Changed phrasing. Happy?

I was 'happy' before... Question is are you?

Advice: Don't overreach. From a philosophical standpoint this is a fair topic (2 out of 5) but avoid questions that are simple. Most of us are well out of high school.

Originally posted by ensbb3:

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

it was done by the butler, in the pantry, with a telephone cord.

Maid in the parlor with the candlestick... would be my guess.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Changed phrasing. Happy?

I was 'happy' before... Question is are you?

Advice: Don't overreach, from a philosophical standpoint this is a fair topic (2 out of 5) but avoid questions that are simple. Most of us are well out of high school.

Well it is a simple question that points out that freedom is not really free.

One has assumed that as the thread starter is concentrating on the warping of the word freedom as is across the pond better to leave it to you lot to argue it out. You do need to.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

One has assumed that as the thread starter is concentrating on the warping of the word freedom as is across the pond better to leave it to you lot to argue it out.

Quite right (unless that was sarcastic). People (like ensbb3 and mjmsprt40) are so passionate about their freedom and don't want government / people touching it, even if it means for the protection of their lives. Guns? Give me lots of them!! Cigarettes, don't bother trying to reduce people smoking. It's my right!!!). No common healthcare (I will pay everything myself!). Alcohol restrictions (to prevent disorderly behavior), no thank you.

Viva la freedom!!!

I will take my leave now.

Wiki, when you grow up be sure and let us know, OK? Till then-----

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Just how free is freedom

Freedom is not for bourgeois. They can't even understand the meaning of freedom. People and Aristocracy can.
Capitalist societies needs bourgeois, without them capitalism collapses.

When there's anymore white bourgeois, they try to create black bourgeois. Nothing better than a black president for that.

On a side note, according to the http://www.politicalcompass.org/, I am Economic Left/Right: 1.50, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.51

Can't resist coming out the corner again. Now how right on that is wikipedian!

Been musing whether I was being sarcastic or wondering about the freedom thing over the pond. Most Americans can't see that all the gaff about freedoms and rights is a skin to cover the truth. The country was started by money men and they have run it ever since. Laws and restrictions are brought in all the time under the guise of "security" or "threats to the country". Fear is conhured up all the time to constantly be in a state of war somewhere in the world. For scores of years many Americans have had to fight even for these so-called rights in face of that Constitution that is always lauded as if Moses had brought it down a mountain top. Met many sensible folk from over the pond but the way the country is run is very much something else.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Wiki, when you grow up be sure and let us know, OK? Till then-----

Are you trying to tell him what's good for him?

Nobody who lives in a society has absolute freedom, or could ever have. Every benefit of living in a group is balanced with the restrictions of living in a group.

The only way to be free is to live away from other people, produce all your own food and clothing, and die young of some horrible disease or other.

The only impingements on freedom that we ever care about are the ones we notice. The rest we happily ignore on a day-to-day basis.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Nobody who lives in a society has absolute freedom, or could ever have. Every benefit of living in a group is balanced with the restrictions of living in a group.

Yup! I'm married ---- happily married. I have kids & grand-kids and have responsibilities for them; I love it.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Nobody who lives in a society has absolute freedom, or could ever have.

There's no freedom as to be a slave...

Please people, there was a time when we used to say "We want it all and we want it now".
I don't see any reason for changing it. Be reasonable, ask for the impossible.

Age is turning me into an anarchist. I just love it

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

The only way to be free is to live away from other people, produce all your own food and clothing, and die young of some horrible disease or other.

From whom would one acquire this disease?

Originally posted by Frenzie:

From whom would one acquire this disease?

Bad potatoes, probably.

Freedom. Freedom of speech. Freedom of action. Freedom of religion, education, and information. In truth, nothing is "free" - it has to be protected, paid for and looked after resulting in a lack of freedom of speech of belief systems and in turn - of education, after all you want your children brought up with the "right education" right?

In truth, freedom is a relative concept - not an absolute.

I certainly do not have the same freedoms as American based Corporations do.
Proof?? Toss a small piece of litter onto a highway, and compare the consequences with that of Corporate polluters.

What most of us are referring to is actually liberty. 'Freedom' comes from being released from constraint. It's became synonymous because liberty is often achieved after being released from tyranny... So you've gained freedoms. Or more anyway.

Freedom -1) the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action - 2) unrestricted use
No one has these two meanings regarding rights... But its a different usage

Political freedoms are gained like in; the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous (or tyrannical). Liberty is a contested moral and political principle that seeks to identify the condition in which human beings are able to govern themselves (per wikipedia). For the context here I'd use this explanation. Meaning people decide what limitations are necessary and which ones aren't.

The political use of these words get confused with more common uses. Freedom isn't free? Cause you speak of two different usages of the same word. Liberty is paid for and those who can/will pay more, get more.

A liberty awarded is the freedom of speech... Maybe better put, 'freed speech' in comparison to overly controlled speech. Freedom in that it was achieved from less. True literal freedom is only found in wild animals and nothing anyone would want taken as literally for humans. The way I see it anyway.

Politicians commonly twist the word "freedom" to attack the current regime. Also, in the debate threads, most people akin freedom to freedom to do anything they want (without control from the government). In fact control is needed to prevent people from oversteping each other freedom. For example, you are free to do anything you want but you have no right to do stuff that affect me or my property (like launching fireworks that land in my yard).

Now you're getting it.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

(like launching fireworks that land in my yard).

Ehh, If you pick up the trash there's not harm done... The usual neighborhood battle is coming up in a few months. Several groups of neighbors usually team up and have it out... We lost last year but won the year before (there's no award, just consensus on showmanship) as long as you aren't endangering anyone the cops will leave you alone, even tho we shoot from the street... but put on a good show and nobody cares if a few stray remains land in their yard.

Originally posted by ensbb3:

Now you're getting it.

And one of the guys that try twisting the word is people on the forum (mainly conservatives).

Freedom is one of those, what I like to call, "make you feel good statements". It evokes an exaggerated feeling that "liberty" doesn't albeit a more descriptive and accurate way to put it.

I vote: give me a beer
Because the choices are... well... you know.

Originally posted by aefields:

I vote: give me a beer
Because the choices are... well... you know.

The choices are not that silly...

Originally posted by aefields:

I vote: give me a beer

*Slides aefields a *

I was afraid I was the only one. lol.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

One of the thing brought up time and time again on the forums is that government should keep their hand off the people's buisness and allow them to do what ever they want.

Freedom… what does it really mean? Many people take freedom for granted but nobody ever stop to think about what the true meaning of freedom. The founding fathers believed that everybody is “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (US declaration of independence). However, just like any other things in life, freedom is not free. It passes on an enormous debt to the recipient.

Another reason freedom is not free is that are terms and conditions that entail with freedom. For example, although United States citizens are entitled to vote in the federal elections, serve on a jury, travel with US passports, run for federal office, and are eligible for federal grants and scholarship, they are required, among many other things, to support and defend the Constitution, serve the country when required, and respect and obey all United States laws.

...

One of the most important reason why freedom is not free is that there are measures in place to ensure that no one infringe the freedom of other people. Is freedom really free if it infringes upon the freedom of other people? For example, although we have the freedom to say anything we like, we must not say things that can affect or harm other people. One of the most widely given example is shouting “Fire” in a crowded place when there isn’t any. Because of that person’s action, other people can be hurt or even killed in the ensuring stampede. Another example is racial discrimination. Although we can say anything we want, speaking hurtful or disdainful things about another race can spur hate crimes where people can be hurt and thus their freedom for life is breached. Therefore, although we are entitled to do anything we want, we must walk a fine line where our actions does not overstep and affect other people.

Fail!

"Shout, shout the battle cry of freedom! Our Dixie forever, she's never at a loss! Down with the eagle and up with the cross (st. andrew's)! We will rally ' round the Bonnie Flag, we'll rally once again. Shout, shout the battle cry of freedom!"

Now my brother would love this as much as me as two would-be Confederates from 3,000 miles away. Listening to Dixie again and seeing the excerpts. Even my last track was deliberately grey with an orange stripe!

Brilliant stuff.

Freedom is nothing if there's no deep relationship between Freedom and Truth.
From the Pope's most notable and courageous speech, when celebrating the Mass exactly at Cuban Plaza de la Revolución:

The truth is a desire of the human person, the search for which always supposes the exercise of authentic freedom. Many, without a doubt, would prefer to take the easy way out, trying to avoid this task. Some, like Pontius Pilate, ironically question the possibility of even knowing what truth is (cf. Jn 18:38), claiming is incapable of knowing it or denying that there exists a truth valid for all. This attitude, as in the case of scepticism and relativism, changes hearts, making them cold, wavering, distant from others and closed. There are too many who, like the Roman governor, wash their hands and let the water of history drain away without taking a stand.

With the history of the Vatican and it's Popes one has to be more careful. The Papacy has involved itself in all sorts of episodes of interfering either in democratic process or indeed Fascist and National Socialist dictatorships when it suits it. Cuba, one needs to be reminded was previously run as a dictatorship and the Roman Church didn't make anyw waves at all because it influenced and had it's foot well in the door. Maybe if it had not been so clandestine and driven, Cuba might not have went into faithless Communism? The place was as corrupt as hell but so too was much of South America a fiefdom of Rome. As for Mexico there's a joke! The biggest problem with Rome is that it want's to be a political Caesar and a Church at the same time. One cannot imagine Christ wanting his church to be a sovereign State and a Church at the same time. The corruption knew no bounds and included the Vatican Bank and years ago I discovered they had shares in an Italian condom factory. So when we hear fine words that in themselves seem innoculous we have to bear in mind the mask changes as suits. Unfortunately the early Christian Church was bludgeoned into the Roman Church and God help you if you tried to object to anything!

For me, I have nothing against the Papal claimant in himself but I sure do with the false claims of being the one true church and his office is the right hand man of Christ's. Claims that are not Biblical and having embassies under a fancy name all over the place as he claims wrongly to be the supremo over all on Earth. By all means RC's should have their faith and every right to do so but that's all. Equally others are fully entitled to challenge their Church on principles whilst not picking on the individuals practicing it. So being a monarch as well as a religious leader this is compromising and would be far better if he was just one of those, namely a religous leader.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

With the history of the Vatican and it's Popes one has to be more careful.

that's very true my friend.
Do you think I bother posting links just to make posts prettier? If you had read the speech, even just in diagonal, you would spare an entire post of yours full of nothing.

Anyway, I didn't posted it into consideration for you but for illustrate the problem of Freedom at an entire different perspective from the way it was being approached in the thread. It was obviously a criticism to that approach and a suggestion for reflexion.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Freedom is nothing if there's no deep relationship between Freedom and Truth.
From the Pope's most notable and courageous speech, when celebrating the Mass exactly at Cuban Plaza de la Revolución

Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.
Andre Gide

Originally posted by Krake:

Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.Andre Gide

"On the other hand, there are those who wrongly interpret this search for the truth, leading them to irrationality and fanaticism; they close themselves up in “their truth”, and try to impose it on others. These are like the blind scribes who, upon seeing Jesus beaten and bloody, cry out furiously, “Crucify him!” (cf. Jn 19:6). Anyone who acts irrationally cannot become a disciple of Jesus. Faith and reason are necessary and complementary in the pursuit of truth. God created man with an innate vocation to the truth and he gave him reason for this purpose. Certainly, it is not irrationality but rather the yearning for truth which the Christian faith promotes. Each man and woman has to seek the truth and to choose it when he or she finds it, even at the risk of embracing sacrifices."
Benedict XVI (same speech)

Originally posted by Belfrager:

"On the other hand, there are those who wrongly interpret this search for the truth, leading them to irrationality and fanaticism; they close themselves up in “their truth”, and try to impose it on others."

"Better to go with 'my truth', and impose it on everybody."

Well my posting was on the same context of freedom of opinion not just towards one other person's view!

We both know Belfrager the history of the Vatican which is not a pretty one but I am more concerned about what the man in the Papal Chair represents than him personally. He might be a perfectly comfortable man to have a private chat with on issues but as I point out it is the representatve side not the personal one. The claims are refuted via tens of millions around the globe who are not of that faith and in Reformed traditions. If I was in a room having a cup of tea with the bloke in the Vatican it would be a reasonable chat and I would of course challenge him as is my right to the titles and forms of his Church. At the end we would part amicably even if he doesn't know the right handshake to give me!

While Protestants keeps dreaming about having a cup of tea with the Pope and atheists runs from the discussion as hell, I'm thinking how about in fact, people are being conditioned at such an extensive level.
Politics as a low level entertainment form of control instead politics as an expression of the relationship between the human being as a whole and the "polis", is the way the so called "democratic" totalitarianism is advancing all over the world.

Freedom is not an hostage of political and social relativists. They don't "own" it no matter how much they propose people to trade freedom for material abundance.
Freedom without Truth is what animals have, and that's what's is being imposed to human beings. Interesting to note that, being Freedom and Truth abstract concepts of the same level, relativists only get mad about Truth. Freedom it's supposed to be their Freedom and to be imposed to everyone.

So, nice question the original one, how free is freedom.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

While Protestants keeps dreaming about having a cup of tea with the Pope and atheists runs from the discussion as hell, I'm thinking how about in fact, people are being conditioned at such an extensive level.

Me too.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by Belfrager:

While Protestants keeps dreaming about having a cup of tea with the Pope and atheists runs from the discussion as hell, I'm thinking how about in fact, people are being conditioned at such an extensive level.

Me too.

Ah, yes, forgot that, introspection is a nice activity.
Sometimes, it even leads to revelation (without capital "r" to not infuriate too much relativist egalitarians).