What do you hear when people say freedom?
 

There is often a difference between what people think they're saying and what they are saying.
ex: UG thinks he's saying freedom for everyone. I'd say what people generally hear is submit to my freedom. That is why he and Radar and Dana collide, they all want a version of freedom to reign, but their definitions are incompatible.

My current definition shifts with what I see. It may not look that different from Radar's except that I do think that, despite its moral hazards, a social saftey net is in order. I do believe in the freedom to fail, which has become unpopular in governmental circles, meaning I'd rather see Wagoner on welfare than running GM. I believe the Supreme Court got it right, we have a individual right to self defense. I believe in a lot of stuff, but what do you hear?

Depending upon the speaker and context, unfortunately I usually hear "license." You know doing what you want without concern for the consequences.



Sometimes I hear Richie Havens singing "Freedom" this one time I saw him in New Hampshire decades ago. He sang himself into a trance, fell off his stool, and continued singing and playing his guitar: Freeeeedommm Freeeeedommm Freedommmm.

He wasn't talking about license, he was singing about freedom. He was invoking freedom in all its manifestations.

Wait, he wasn't singing about smoking dope?

FRENCH FRIES

When MLK says it, I get a tear in me e'e.

When Team America says it, I giggle.

When Toby Keith says it, I want to punch him in the mouth.

smart
yummy
Well said.

Free will is a rather new discovery in the history of the human race. I guess it's those thoughts, choices, and actions you take independently, without depending on the god(s), society/tribes, or other people in your life.

:notworthy:

A lot of people think 'freedom' means free to do what you like unless you violate MY moral code. Then that is just 'wrong' and should be stopped immediately.

Pedophiles are always doing that, thinking they are free to rape children.

My point being, where does one draw the line?

Ah, there's the rub.

Which line? I see a lot of them. In fact, I just see one gray blob.

Well then, quit spying on me. :p

I think of it in the way that UT thinks of it...But there is also all the little subatomic particles around, and outside forces that interfere with free will.

Do I really have free will with gravity holding me down? How free is freedom? I am more and more convinced that freedom exists only in varying degrees, if at all. It might have been manufactured to make us feel better. Great in theory..the practice..Not so much.

When I hear someone say freedom I wonder what's really on their mind. Usually, if I listen long enough, they get around to what their bitch really is.

Mel Gibson.

Freedom is a much overused word. As is revolutionary.

Both of these concepts are now just useful tropes with which to sell us mobile phones and hair gel.

... to the extreme!!

Freedom is independence. Which includes independence from anybody else's freedom. So when all the dependencies are removed from everybody's differing versions, what's left is real freedom.

What you need to know about freedom. The history of it is here:

http://cellar.org/discoveryoffreedom.pdf

You get a free PDF, hosted at the Cellar. I had to buy the book back in the day.

I understand that Ms. Lane admitted to some errors due to her haste in writing. The quality of her prose and the mighty fire it burns in your spine more than make up for it.

Nothing left to lose.

I never got that line.

So when you have nothing left you are free?

Perhaps if Janis Joplin had traded places with someone who actually had nothing that could be taken away then she might have thought twice about writing it. Easy to speak for everyone when you define everyone as everyone except yourself.

In the U.S. freedom meant freedom from interference and control by Europe. At that time, in all the European countries (I'm including Britain), the have-nots were at the mercy of the haves. If you didn't own land your livelihood, indeed your life, depended on the people that did. It was a centuries old system with no way to break that cycle of poor, beget poor, beget poor. The excess poor, the ones the rich didn't need as help, were deported, or starved to death.

The fortunate people that came here, where there was land out the kazoo, had an opportunity the break that cycle and become independent. To survive and even flourish, by busting their butts. But if Europe remained in control, the system these people had escaped would be back to haunt them. Remember the European countries were still bickering over control of the "New World".

So freedom was the basis of the American Revolution, freedom from Europe and the old system... also freedom from their own fledgling government. That meant to the citizens just what was promised, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It didn't promise the government wouldn't set up rules, pass laws and control the country, it only promised it wouldn't kill you for no reason, that you were free to go live anywhere you could afford, and by your own labor make or break your fortune/future.

That's all they promised, and they spelled it out in the Bill of Rights, so the people would know what they were supporting, what they would fight and die for.
But then came the philosophers and the "freedom" that was clear and simple in 1776, got massaged like it was turkish taffy until the word didn't have a clear definition anymore.
The country has gotten populated, in some areas crowded, and life is much more complicated. So freedom, now without a clear definition, has been stretched to umbrella and justify every want.

I take my definition of freedom from whence it came. :us:

She didn't write it. Kris Kristofferson wrote it. Janis Joplin just sang the most famous version of it. Sang it with Bob Dylan in mind I believe.

Freedom is a Sweet Word

Freedom is a sweet word
I heard it and my spirit leapt
But when I came to taste it
I found a free man there who'd crept
Right in and stolen all my children's freedom, precious freedom away
And he laughed because he'd bought the judge
The morning of the same day
Oh yes freedom is a sweet word

But freedom without justice
Is a freedom for a few
Who have bought the right to tell us
That their freedom lie is true
Oh freedom without justice
Grows up into slavery
If you're not a Barclaycard carrying
Member of the free

Freedom is a sweet word
It shines and glistens like a star
But where's the joy in freedom
When you're free to obey the colour bar
You're free to starve and free to die
And free to do anything but express
That Jesus never gave to anyone the freedom to oppress
You know that freedom is a sweet word

But freedom without justice
Is a freedom for a few
Who have bought the right to tell us
That their freedom lie is true
Oh freedom without justice
Grows up into slavery
If you're not a Barclaycard carrying
Member of the free

Dated now of course - apartheid was still a way of life when we were singing this. And I was still a Christian. It still moves me though.

Everyone has an agenda.

When someone says they're free or that something else is free, I laugh to myself.

Don't we know by now that nothing in life is free. There is a price for everything. It's just a matter of when you have to pay for it.

There is no such thing as freedom. Only levels of obligation.

That's what it means, only when you've nothing left to lose, no level of obligation, are you free.

And very few people ever believe they have nothing left. Most of us are constrained by some ties whether they be emotional, physical or financial.

I interpret "nothing left to lose" as having nothing left that someone can take away from you which includes freedom. So to me, the state of having nothing left that can be taken away from me is captivity.

Being left alone to do as I wish without impacting others or being impacted by others is freedom. And that freedom comes with no obligation.

To say that there is no such thing as freedom but only levels of obligation is incomprehensible to me.

No, freedom is having no levels of obligation, and that's only possible when you have no stuff and no relationships... ie nothing left to lose. See? :)

He gets it right becuase it pisses off liberals. :lol2:


Courtesy of the Red, White, & Blue (The Angry American)
Toby Keith

American girls and American guys will always stand up and salute;
Will always recognize
When we see ol' glory flying,
There's a lot of men dead,
So we can sleep in peace at night when we lay down our head.

My daddy served in the army,
Where he lost his right eye.
But he flew a flag out in our yard 'til the day that he died.
He wanted my mother, my brother, my sister and me
To grow up and live happy in the land of the free.

Now this nation that I love has fallen under attack.
A mighty sucker punch came flying in from somewhere in the back.
Soon as we could see clearly through our big black eye,
Man we lit up your world like the Fourth of July.

Hey Uncle Sam put your name at the top of his list,
And the Statue of Liberty started shaking her fist.
And the eagle will fly,
And there's gonna be Hell,
When you hear Mother Freedom start ringing her bell!
It's gonna feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you...
Brought to you courtesy of the Red, White and Blue!

Oh, Justice will be served and the battle will rage.
This big dog will fight when you rattle his cage
You'll be sorry that you messed with the US of A
'Cuz we'll put a boot in your ass
It's the American way.

Hey Uncle Sam put your name at the top of his list,
And the Statue of Liberty started shaking her fist.
And the eagle will fly,
And there's gonna be Hell,
When you hear Mother Freedom start ringing her bell!
And it'll feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you...
Brought to you courtesy of the Red, White and Blue!

Of the Red, White and Blue..
Of my Red, White and Blue...

Actually, bruce nails it. Bravo.

Yup, all that still holds true to this day.

Clarity such as this is a gift. Perfectly, clear now. Outlook adjusted. Thank you. :)

I'm a child of the 60s, so I've got to go along with ft^3, I hear Richie Havens.

Freedom is just about having a will.

Will thats free:D

I hear Mel Gibson.

Your freedom doesn't sound very free to me.
A free person is not allowed to relate to anything?

Freedom is being allowed to do what you want. This is Individual Freedom.
The concept Freedom becomes more interesting once other people enter the picture(i am assuming that all people are considered to be (at least theoretically) equal)
When you say everybody is Free you are talking about something completely different. Namely your individual Freedom insofar as it does not infringe on the individual Freedom of all others within your sphere of influence.

I just realised this is all semantics, if we imagine a scale going from absolute freedom(everything is allowed) to absolute robotdom(everything that isn't forbidden is manditory) then half of the people here would say that the absolute freedom is The One And Only True Freedom(TM) and the other half would say that the golden mean is The One And Only True Freedom(TM).
This division would put the 'freedom does not exist' crowd under category 1.

Oh, pip pip tallyho and whatnot.

I think I agree.

Absolute freedom is impossible to accomplish.

If we are free to do whatever we want we will then take away other people's freedoms. If we make sure no one can take away anyone else's freedom, we can not do whatever we want. To me, freedom is the subjective equilibrium between the two.

That's not my definition, that's my explanation of Janis Joplin's definition.
My definition is back in post 22. ;)

'What do you hear when people say 'freedom'?'

a fiction

really: what are any of us 'free' of?

each of us is bound up in, and by, 'the world' (both within and without)

none of us are 'free', so: 'freedom' is a nice fiction, a convenient, and sometimes useful, fiction, but still a fiction

what we each have is far more powerful and real than 'freedom' or 'free will': we have agency, or, the capacity to choose

not an unlimited capacity to choose, but -- at all times, in all circumstances -- a capacity, a possibility, nonetheless

and synonymous with agency is self-possession, that is: the willful claiming of one's self and the defense of that claim

i claim my 'self' as my first, best, property and do as i like within the broad boundaries of 'the world'

your job -- if you want it -- is to defend yourself against my possible predation on you (just as i must defend myself against predation by you)


up-thread, Shawnee123 wrote, 'Pedophiles are always doing that, thinking they are free to rape children'

i counter: they are not 'free' to rape children, but they -- the pedophiles -- are doing just that...not because it's their 'right' but simply because 'they can'

if for example, my nephew (who is very important to me) were molested, i'd want the molester's liver (as an act of revenge, which is real; not an act of justice, which is fiction)...if i successfully hunt down the person and claim my revenge, then he loses...but: if the molester can safely evade me or my proxies (the police, a hit man, etc.) then he wins

all the moralizing in the world won't change this fact, nor will all the talk of 'freedom' (or limits on 'freedom'), or 'justice' (a fiction resting on the fiction of 'law' which is a fiction resting on the fiction of 'morality' which is nothing more than the median of successful behaviors exhibited by large numbers of folks across expanses of time)

seems to me: you defend against the predator simply because you value yourself (a subjective, idiosyncratic, perception), not because of a 'moral', or 'law'

certainly: climbing atop a soapbox (on a street corner, or, in the statehouse) and droning on about the sanctity of your 'freedom' nets a body nothing... --henry quirk

Nice definition. I like that.

thanks... ;)

Not free of, free to. You call it agency but it's the same thing.
Freedom, is free to... take away freedom and you are no longer free to do what you wish, as least not without dire consequences.

'Not free of, free to'

i don't see the distinction

to be 'free to' means one is 'free of <restraint>'

also: 'freedom', 'free', is not the same as agency

again: to 'be free', to have 'freedom', means -- to me, at least -- one is unrestrained

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

agency, on the other hand, is simply a placeholder for the very real exercise of choice, that is: choosing and doing

again: our choices and the actions extending from those choices are not unlimited...in fact: very often, our options are severely limited in both choice and action, and still we can -- must -- choose

'freedom' and 'free will' are, i think, the sphere of god (if it exists) while agency is for us, IS us


'take away freedom and you are no longer free to do what you wish'

indeed!

but as 'agent' (agency) even if shackled (made un-free) one can still choose and act...not always as one likes or wants, but, even the shackled man led to the gallows has the capacity to choose

such a man may only have the choice of whether to walk with a measure of dignity to death (and therefore 'own' the death), or, dissolve into a puking puddle begging for mercy (becoming a slave of the death), but he still has the capacity, the possibility, of choice

'freedom', again, is a nice idea, a useful fiction, but it's a fiction nonetheless

agency, which is the agent, which is the self-possessed individual, is real, demonstrable, and intuitively 'correct'

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.