A discussion on freedom

In discussion here people from all sides of the debate often invoke ‘freedom’ - that they know what it is that they are its champion, that it is their goal.

It often seems to be thrown out whenever someone feels challenged, as if any argument can be trumped by shouting that they believe in ‘freedom’ and by implication that anyone opposing their views is an opponent of freedom.

And let’s face it who doesn’t want freedom, who would object to it and, who would want to be seen opposing it.

BUT what do people mean when the invoke ‘freedom’? Because it seems to me that it can mean different things to different people.

What does freedom mean to you?

 

Maybe one of the most basic conditions of Freedom is to be able to live a full & reasonable life without fear for loved ones,onesself or others. That would include my ,& others, having a say in how we are governed & how our essentual needs are met. I do not want a 'Right' to bear arms because I do not wish to live in fear & I expect a responsible Government to protect its people from the fear of violence & intimidation.

Likewise,I'm willing to particpate in democracy & pay my taxes to ensure that there is full health care in my country so that anyone who is sick or is infirm is cared for by the State to a very high standard regardless of their contribution or their wealth. I want these services to be nationalised or at the least, closely overseen by the State because I believe it to be inherently more consistent & reliable than private firms (capitalism)can be certain to be.

Just as the State expects me to be law abiding, I expect the Government to be transparent & for the law to apply equally to our representitives. Though Lobbying & Special interest Groups are a reality (& include some worthy causes) I want their influence & financial 'donations' to be monitored & limited & their influence to not be contrary to that of the peoples welfare & safety.

 

First of all, Thanks you took up this topic.
I was myself thinking on this for quite some time now, and wanted to discuss.

What I feel is -Freedom is nothing but just a state of mind.

Whatever you try, you are bound into Karma- since you an organism. (or a soul bound in this body) This body- your identity - needs to keep running some systems at least- like you need to eat, you need to drink, you need to pee etc etc...You can never say, I want freedom from peeing, I don't like it.

Now extending this to your life- you need to work, exercise, earn, support family and society, contribute. All this things are your responsibility- as a part of family and society.

When this mind is completely free, all this things keep on happening automatically.
(For example- you brush your teeth everyday, bt never seek freedom from doing it) This is detached mind.

And in my view, freedom is nothing more than a detached mind.

This is what I feel, and feel like sharing, which I am learning from book "Gita"

There is a Sanskrit word "Sthita prdajya" Which exactly describes this state of mind.

Would love to discuss and learn further on this subject

 

Maybe, You are referring to political freedom and I overlooked it ?
My mistake

 

In a very loose, vague sense freedom is being free to live as you want and think as you want. When you are told what to do or what to think ... even the smallest things that end up adding up- it can take away part of your freedom. But yea, you can always be free at any time mentally no matter where you are. But different things can be kept captive..

 

Yes, agreed.

This is the aim, this has been the aim and this will be the aim- always.

Everything else follows and
arises out of

-ignorance,
-confusion or
-illusions.

(I tried to add to this, but whatever I thought, was a part of either of these 3)

 

Freedom to me is to be able t do what ever the F I want when I want to do it. If I want to carry my gun and have the proper paper work for the anal retentive nuts, Its my right to do so with freedom.
If I want to up and drive across country for a hamburger, That's my choice and nobody to tell me no.
But the rights and freedoms on the common man are being stepped on because of the tree hug nut jobs that want to be able to tell you how to raise your kid or deem 'whats 'fit, That crowd can suck a fart out of my asshole.
But for the most part, To me and IMO, If I want to leave what im doing now to live off the grid, That's the freedom I love. Nothing they can do and plenty of country side to live in and off of. IMO that's 'freedom'.

 

‘Freedom- it’s being allowed to do anything I want’

But do we want to allow people to have total freedom of action?

So we often qualify such statements by adding – if it doesn’t adversely affect or infringe on other people’s rights – the first curtailment of that ‘freedom’.

I think most people would accept that since most don’t want people going around killing or torturing people in the name of their ‘freedom to do so. So as communities we usually create laws to punish or try and stop such actions.

But how far should the curtailments go?

You have property it is owned by you, it is yours, should you be free to do with it as you wish?

What if you dumb toxic waste on it and it causes people in the wider community to become ill. What if it is a business, a factory that is doing the same does your individual freedom of property and profits outweigh the wider community’s health?

Well I think most people would agree that polluting adversely affect people and infringes on others right to health?

What about food standards, drug licensing, workplace health and safety laws etc these all in some way curtail ‘total’ freedom but if not in place would adversely affect or infringe on other people’s rights.

So there seems to be a conflict between individual freedom of action and the wishes of other individuals as part of a community.

 

Wouldn't the "as long as it doesn't infringe on others rights" part cover all of that?

 

It does, but lets see where Balbus is going in this 'discussion'?

 

Letlovin

Did you read the post?

‘Freedom it’s being allowed to do anything I want’

But do we want to allow people to have total freedom?

So we often qualify such statements by adding – if it doesn’t adversely affect or infringe on other people’s rights – the first curtailment of that ‘freedom’.

I think most people would accept that since most don’t want people going around killing or torturing people in the name of their ‘freedom to do so. So as communities we usually create laws to punish or try and stop such actions.

So we accept that the ‘freedom’ of the individual to act should be curtailed, in many, many ways.

So most people that say ‘I support the freedom of the individual’ also accept the curtailment of the freedom of the individual.

Are you disagreeing with that?

 

No I don't disagree. I shouldn't have the 'freedom' to sell food to the public that makes them sick. I shouldn't have the 'freedom' to go around killing anyone I see fit. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would disagree with that.

I don't really see where the discussion is heading.

 

Exactly regulations are needed to limit harm to other individuals and the community and institutions are needed to enact, enforce, investigate and judge such regulations.
Without regulations and such institutions the ‘freedom’ of some might be enhanced while others diminished.

So the freedom of an individual over their property for example needs to be balanced against the ‘freedom’ of the others in the community the property is held.

Do you agree?

 

Of course. If I play my music too loud at night my neighbors have the right to call the police and they will come tell me to keep it down. If I own a factory and start dumping hazerdous waste on my land, and it gets into the groundwater then I am held responsible.

These sound like rhetorical questions. Would you mind getting to the point?

 

Considering that humans exist in a consensual reality, are inately social creatures, and posses extremely high communicative capability's, it follows logically that any definition of "freedom" would entail social aspects/conditions the same as all other human activity, thoughts and endeavors.
All social contracts are by majority consensus, whether it be codified into a set of laws and philosophies or a simple agreement on the division of labor in a small egalitarian stone age tribe.
By their very nature these contracts elicit rules of behavior/conduct and sanctions for transgressing those rules.

Conflict only arises when an individual's conduct steps outside of the consensually agreed upon contracts.

For a person living completely in solitude outside of any society and outside of any social consensus dictating conduct, the concept of freedom is meaningless.
Freedom is only relative to living within a society with others.
Therefore your questions and observations are not really saying much Balbus. It just feels like your "baiting the hook" for something.

I will say I'm curious where you are going with this as well, because your wording, questions and thought progression seems rather "loaded".
This isn't going to devolve into another "gun" thread, is it?





or the simple answer is "freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose"

 

It's freedom to be free so I can express my inner me and be what I want to be. That's what freedom means to me.

And it's a hard one to pin down too. That's why, I suspect, politicians like to talk about it before elections. People eat that stuff up.

You can feel it before a ball game when you got your hand over your heart and they're singing the star spangled banner.

Whatever it means we know this here is the land of the free. Let freedom reigh!

USA! USA! USA!

can you feel it

 

I get the feeling Balbus is getting to.... to.. needing government and regulations and such to prevent bad behavior (killings and, well, all the above mentioned things and more).... but I'm just not sure why because I don't think anyone would disagree. We just disagree with how it is done and things being taken too far.
I mean... is this thread supposed to be showing how anarchy doesn't work or something? Because I for one would be all for anarchy- most of the time... however, I am not blind enough to know that people are messed up and it wouldn't work ...that there needs to be some sort of order to prevent- well, all the mentioned things....
I mean... IS this getting back to the gun thing? What you're not understanding, if so, is that- my brother in law for example with his guns for hunting and to protect his family never killed anyone with his guns so nothing needs to be done with him....
Anyways, I just don't know... I think everyone agrees we need to prevent people from doing some actions.

 

I keep picturing this
http://bobcesca.thedailybanter.com/blog-archives/2013/03/happy-anniversary.html

 

I think Balbus covered the reason for the thread in his first post rather clearly:

 

-freedom.jpg





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdiCJUysIT0"]Neil Young - Rockin' In The Free World - YouTube