What is "freedom" ? (1 Viewer)

[Freedom_]

Almost everyone on this forum say they favors freedom. Finding any individual who says he does not would be pointless. Indeed, so many in our society declare themselves for freedom and against totalitarianism/authoritarianism that hundreds of organizations now exist to satisfy the common devotion to this attractive term. But, in spite of this lip service to freedom, do we even know what freedom is?

even though millions of us vocally support the notion for freedom we hardly ever constitute a solid front against the ever growing omnipotent state. Is it because some who proclaim their devotion to freedom do not understand the requirements of freedom? Do some of us misunderstand what freedom is? This reminds of a quote "Many favour peace, but not many favour the things that make peace."

ITT we discuss what this term truly means and how we can come together under the one banner of freedom.

 

[Iron]

I cant stand those who use the term with the conviction that 'freedom' in and of itself is a good thing, when it is clearly amoral.

 

[loller]

i do not like freedom

 

[Graney]

This forum doesn't reflect the wider community. Most people think the state should be all up in their face, fixing all their problems.

The dominant paradigm is that there should be more government intervention, more taxation, more funding for public education/health/services. There is strong opposition to the privatisation of any government owned resources.

There is particularly strong demand for government intervention to protect people from themselves, wowsers wanting to interfere in individuals ability to choose to live as they please.

Hysterical and irrational fears of illusory threats such as terrorism enable the government to extend its power in awful ways. The more authoritarian they become, the more people love it.

People are too small minded and afraid to see reality.

 

[loller]

hate wowsers

 

[Graney]

I cant stand those who use the term with the conviction that 'freedom' in and of itself is a good thing, when it is clearly amoral.

I'd say the distinction between choosing to live in a moral fashion, and being forced to do so at the barrel of a gun, is everything. A moral decision has no value if it is only made because of the threat of violence.

It is good for individuals to be able to discover this distinction themselves.

 

[Iron]

I'd say the distinction between choosing to live in a moral fashion, and being forced to do so at the barrel of a gun, is everything. A moral decision has no value if it is only made because of the threat of violence.

It is good for individuals to be able to discover this distinction themselves.

I also reject outright the notion that morality can be ensured by specific systems. It is cleary something that the individual must accept himself. So we come together in the conclusion that moral freedom, at least, is inherent. Therefore to emphasise this freedom is really just code to say that the individual should have the choice to make the wrong, harmful and selfish decision; the freedom to have no regard for anyone but yourself...

 

[dieburndie]

More often than not the term freedom is adopted as a mantra by those who don't know what they mean by it, and wouldn't know why they consider it so valuable even if they did. The classical liberal roots of the term as it applies to politics have in this process been almost entirely ironed out. The almost universal approval of what is now called "freedom" has occurred alongside the unrelenting restriction of actual freedom of action by bloated government forces.

To answer your question more directly, I believe freedom is the force that allows individuals to utilise all available resources (in the broader sense, own intelligence and skills included) to maximise the fulfillment of their human desires, without being arbitrarily prevented from doing so.
I don't consider most people to be capable or resourceful enough to make any use of freedom in its pure form at all. I'm not deluded into thinking this is a cure for basic human stupidity and ignorance. However, because the majority are going to end up wallowing in their own worthlessness and failure anyway, it is necessary that true freedom is made available so those who understand its value can live without restrictions that severely limit their potential.

 

[yoddle]

This forum doesn't reflect the wider community. Most people think the state should be all up in their face, fixing all their problems.

The dominant paradigm is that there should be more government intervention, more taxation, more funding for public education/health/services. There is strong opposition to the privatisation of any government owned resources.

There is particularly strong demand for government intervention to protect people from themselves, wowsers wanting to interfere in individuals ability to choose to live as they please.

Hysterical and irrational fears of illusory threats such as terrorism enable the government to extend its power in awful ways. The more authoritarian they become, the more people love it.

People are too small minded and afraid to see reality.

I mostly agree with you there.
But I know your alternative, which (I think) is worse. (But can we please not get into that.)

Would anarchy be freedom? Or would the hierarchies of power reassert themselves?

 

[yoddle]

To answer your question more directly, I believe freedom is the force that allows individuals to utilise all available resources (in the broader sense, own intelligence and skills included) to maximise the fulfillment of their human desires, without being arbitrarily prevented from doing so.
I don't consider most people to be capable or resourceful enough to make any use of freedom in its pure form at all. I'm not deluded into thinking this is a cure for basic human stupidity and ignorance. However, because the majority are going to end up wallowing in their own worthlessness and failure anyway, it is necessary that true freedom is made available so those who understand its value can live without restrictions that severely limit their potential.

I think I get you. The majority of people see "freedom" as one of those vague hippy-esque ideals, akin to "world peace". In actual fact, it is more a personal journey (and destination?) and one which will involve a lot of pain and sacrifice and uncomfortableness.

 

[Graney]

The almost universal approval of what is now called "freedom" has occurred alongside the unrelenting restriction of actual freedom of action by bloated government forces.

You seem to be referring to a rand esque approach to freedom as the maximizer of human potential.

imo, Australians experience relatively good economic freedom, the ability to achieve 'potential' is not severely limited. Restrictions on social and lifestyle freedoms are the real concern.

 

[dieburndie]

I think I get you. The majority of people see "freedom" as one of those vague hippy-esque ideals, akin to "world peace". In actual fact, it is more a personal journey (and destination?) and one which will involve a lot of pain and sacrifice and uncomfortableness.

The first part is correct, but it's not so much that making use of individual freedom involves undesirable experiences, more that your average human being doesn't have the mental faculties or sense of self necessary to make anything more of it than they make of democracy or education or the limited freedoms available now.

 

[Graney]

pls be explaining practically how potential may be restricted for some individuals under contemporary democracy?

 

[yoddle]

pls be explaining practically how potential may be restricted for some individuals under contemporary democracy?

"Democracy is simply the engineering of consent"

 

[dieburndie]

You seem to be referring to a rand esque approach to freedom as the maximizer of human potential.

imo, Australians experience relatively good economic freedom, the ability to achieve 'potential' is not severely limited. Restrictions on social and lifestyle freedoms are the real concern.

I don't know what you're referring to. I didn't intend for it to be merely a description of what individuals can achieve with a free market. In fact I meant it just as much, perhaps more, as a straightforward as possible outline of the general concept of individual freedom. I mean, I can see where you got the idea that it was a Rand-like description of the interaction of man with economic forces, sure. I think what I described also encompasses social and lifestyle limitations though, at least that was my intention.

To be more specific,

to maximise the fulfillment of their human desires

was what I said to be the ultimate outcome of the interaction between man and absolute freedom.
This could be as applicable to drugs, access to education and media, or fucking dead people as it is to monetary gain. I wasn't implying that the end that makes freedom desirable was an economic product, though if it fits that criteria it has the potential to be.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

Freedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4. All else shall follow.

 

[dieburndie]

pls be explaining practically how potential may be restricted for some individuals under contemporary democracy?

The laws restricting the action of an intelligent human being are at the mercy of the ignorant masses. Access to drugs which may aid individual success, selling a kidney for financial gain etc. The individuals in question are limited in their action by a persistent moral code with no practical basis that exists in the subconscious of every mindless voter that doesn't know better.

 

[Graney]

I got the impression when you started talking about the dichotomy of 'worthless failures' vs. those with skills, intelligence and potential, limitations on 'potential', seemed like a very profit and development centered view of the purpose for freedom.

That's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[dieburndie]

I got the impression when you started talking about the dichotomy of 'worthless failures' vs. those with skills, intelligence and potential, limitations on 'potential', seemed like a very profit and development centered view of the purpose for freedom.

That's not necessarily a bad thing.

Those terms were more just me going into rant mode, tbh.
They are worthless in the sense that they can't comprehend an expanded sense of independence, they would be essentially lost without the rules and regulations they support without knowing exactly why.

 

[yoddle]

Those terms were more just me going into rant mode, tbh.
They are worthless in the sense that they can't comprehend an expanded sense of independence, they would be essentially lost without the rules and regulations they support without knowing exactly why.

That's a very emotive way of looking at it. Does someone's socialisation make them worthless as a human being? Do you mean to say that their lives are disposable in the view of attaining freedom?