|
Post by riotgrrl on Aug 11, 2010 17:54:02 GMT
'Freedom' is a word much bandied about.
Some Americans believe that their nation epitomises the issues of freedom for the individual, and resent any state interference whatsoever in their lives to the extent where they consider even taxation to be an invasion.
Some small nations not yet self-determining regard 'freedom' as their hoped for destiny of their country .. and yes, I am thinking of Mel Gibson as William Wallace shouting 'Freedom' in Braveheart . . or, more historically accurately, the words of the famous Declaration of Arbroath (which was very influential on the writers of the American constitution);
It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
But some Americans (call them traitors, call them Marxists, call them fools, call them what you will) believe that freedom should be restricted only to those that they consider worthy of it.
Is freedom itself a cause worth fighting for, or is it just a phrase bandied around with no real meaning?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2010 20:09:01 GMT
Good question - I've no real anwers, but some value freedom of choice. Recently, however, I've seen articles suggesting that to many choices cause stress: yup, I can relate to that.
I can remember having a conversation with a very confident young woman who said that her ambition was to work for herself, because of the freedom it brought. Having been self-employed, I considered it a bit of a millstone; I wanted the freedom of knowing my pay cheque would arrive each month.
In the same conversation she said she expected her father to fix her up with a suitable partner (she was a Muslim), and didn't consider this any restriction on her freedom because she would have to option to refuse. She thought that the "freedom" to meet unknown people of the opposite sex of dubious merit indeed.
And I can remember a conversation with the supervisor of someone on a community punishment order who had (according to him) refused him permission to take a day off for a medical appointment because he had lost the letter.
When I phoned her, she told me that the choice was entirely his. He was quite free to attend at the hospital if that was his decision. What she did eventually admit, after much questioning, was that the consequences of missing a session could mean he was brought back to court and sent to prison; not her decision, of course!
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Aug 11, 2010 20:14:24 GMT
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose . . .
I've heard said.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 11, 2010 21:06:28 GMT
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose . . . I've heard said.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Aug 11, 2010 23:47:11 GMT
It's important to differentiate "freedom from ... " with "freedom to ..". Freedom from always comes complete with consequences .. some imposed by others, some inevitable. "Nothing left to lose", means consequences have ceased to matter. This Bertrand Russell quote is probably the best - "Freedom in general may be defined as the absence of obstacles to the realization of desires." and should be quickly followed with Dirty Harry - "do you feel lucky?"
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 12, 2010 7:06:21 GMT
freedom as such doesnt exist..non of us are entirely free freedom is usually bought by denying some one elses freedoms freedom exists only as far as the law or religious or cultural laws allow so freedom is a bit of a myth....nice idea in abstract...but the reality is some one is always ready to take away the notion of freedom there is no such thing as a free socieity
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Aug 12, 2010 13:12:39 GMT
In Orwells "1984" the hero, Winston Smith, defines freedom rather aptly, I have always thought.
He says...."Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two equals four. If that is granted, all else follows"
QED
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Aug 13, 2010 13:41:42 GMT
Some interesting replies here. Put to one side the idea of national freedom that I raised on the OP, and concentrating on the idea of what freedom means for individuals. The classic work is probably Mill's 'On Liberty'. For those of you unfamiliar with the work, here is a link to a brief summary of it on Wiki which gives the general gist. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_LibertyI have always based my political thinking on Mill's. (Well, when I say 'always', I mean after my youthful flirtation with the hard left.) self-determination, liberty from authority, the right to harm yourself but not others, etc. All these kind of ideas. On another thread on this board people have suggested a wide range of interesting/mad things - that they personally should be free to break those laws they don't approve of, that peoples' individual moral behaviours should be policed/stopped, etc. But, of course, every single thing we police or introduce laws to govern is a thing that gives more power to the state and takes away power from the individual. There has to be some balancing of course, but how far should we go? Take the obesity example. Should people be free to become obsese? (I would argue that yes, they do, and the role of the state in this example is to make available the data that shows how they are harming themselves.) But then, having used that freedom to become obese they then become a drain on the public purse (in the UK) because they need more treatment from the NHS. So does that strengthen the idea that the state should have its nose in our shopping trolleys and dinner tables? And, if so, does that mean that we should also restrict peoples' freedom to smoke, drink alcohol, climb mountains, eat red meat, go ski-ing, go horse-riding, or generally take part in activities which might result in them being a strain on the public purse? I've stated what my ground principles are; Mill's harm principles. That's the rule of thumb or reckoning I use when thinking about an issue and whether or not the state should be involved in it. What's your rule of thumb for deciding when individual freedoms should be restrained by the state?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 13, 2010 15:12:31 GMT
there is no total freedom ....and where one persons freedom infringes another persons freedoms...the whole thing falls flat on its face we have partial freedoms..and will have to be satisfied with that
""What's your rule of thumb for deciding when individual freedoms should be restrained by the state?"" when individual freedoms impose on the freedoms of other..phsyicly..mentally or financially with freedoms come reposnibilities
|
|