Free of restraint, yes, but not free of other people (and possibly their choices and behaviors.) If your neighbor is religious you do not have the right to be free of any exposure to him in public places, for example, but you are free to go back inside your house.

in the first post of the thread: griff talks a bit about 'free' and 'freedom'...he muses on the semantic difficulties of the words and hints at -- i think -- the philosophical foundation of the concept

my posts have been in the same vein: attempting to pin down 'freedom', illustrate it has no real foundation (is fiction), and lobbying for the very real alternative, agency

certainly: one is 'free'to go back into his or her house but, superficially, this is only a poor way of saying one 'goes in' the house...first and foremost: 'going in' is an action extending from a choice, which of course, is what agency is all about

'going in' is no more an expression of 'freedom' than is 'freedom of speech' (a privilege and fiction, not a right or reality)

by the way: agency as reality takes into account 'other people' and their choices...as i posted up-thread, 'each of us is bound up in, and by, 'the world' (both within and without)', and, 'and we each are restrained: by our own flesh (the way reality works) at the least; by the esoterica of the culture (all the fictions foisted up on us) at the most'

'the world' is full of 'other people' and 'other people' are the source of 'culture'

another way to look at it: there is political 'freedom' or liberty, which may be what most posting in this thread are commenting on

'liberty' is a nice way of saying: the community, the gov, the king, etc. will not screw with you...as such, it's fiction and privilege

anything codified and secured for you by another is privilege

in fact, all the rights most folks are accustomed to crowing about are just that: privileges

agency, however, is integral to the individual...it can't be taken away except by killing the individual...agency is not dependent on who sits in power or on how that power is exercised

fundamentally: agency is, again, about self-possession in even in the midst of imprisonment

and as i think on it: even death doesn't take away agency, it merely ends it (agency/agent)

Have to bear in mind though, that there are different kinds of agency. Political (or historical) agency is not always open to everyone. Power often rests in political agency as does the ability or opportunity to change the structures of society. Those with political agency build the walls in which we live; those without political agency rarely get to design the world, and so the world is not often slanted in their favour.

That also depends upon which type of society you live in.

Usually I hear bleating mouths of politicians and shrill propagandists, lying through their teeth, when I hear the word "freedom".

I had some good notes on a pretty interesting understanding of freedom I read recently...I'll see if I can remember where they were and dig them out. Suffice to say, it was more interesting, and internally coherent, than most people's use of the word, not that this is especially hard when one considers the above and how often they spend talking about freedom, usually in the context of defending it by locking it up in an underground bunker, with an armed guard.

For its own safety, naturally.

I think the line is, as long as you aren't hurting another being (that would include animals, because I believe animals are as important and as sacred as people), then you should be able to do whatever you want. I also think we should not being doing harm to the earth. We should only take what we need.

In other words: harm none, but do what thou will.

When I hear the word freedom coming from a government, I hear: coercion, money, greed, power. Because everyone's definition of freedom is not the same, and other cultures are not the same, how can we define freedom for another?

To me, freedom would be no money, no government, no religion. Just people taking care of one another. Everyone would have everything they need. No one would have control over anyone else. I suppose I am just an anarchist, but at the same a socialist. I believe in the "village" mentality.

"I think the line is, as long as you aren't hurting another being (that would include animals, because I believe animals are as important and as sacred as people), then you should be able to do whatever you want."

why are other people sacred?

if joe has what i want, and i successfully take it, then joe loses

if i'm unsuccessful in taking it, then i lose

if i have something joe covets, and joe is successful is taking it, then he wins

if joe is unsuccessful, then i win

as for animals: nuthin' like a thick, juicy, rare, steak to fortify a body

my point: there's no reason not to steal, lie, cheat, or kill another other than pragmatism (and individual preference)

certainly: the great fictions of morality and law -- being fictions -- are next to useless


"I also think we should not being doing harm to the earth. We should only take what we need."

we are fleas on this planet...it'll be 'round long after humans kick off...i say: get now while the getting’s good...

Oh you are going to be popular around here.

TW, without the capital letters.

No, Joe blows your head off.

But that isn't really success, now is it?

For anyone because henry quirk is dead and Joe is in jail. Which is why henry quirk's view is not acceptable.

If henry quirk is dead and joe is in jail, then henry did not successfully take anything.

He was successful in taking it, but he didn't allow for repercussions. There are always repercussions.