How does one detect the state of "being free?"

[billwald]

Does the ability to own weapons, choose one's religion. occupation, spouse, and residence (have I omitted anything important?) cause one to be free?

Seems to me that freedom must be defined in terms of assets and life's energy. For example, if I am required to worship a foreign god for one hour then one hour of my life's energy has been stolen. I dispute the ability to vote for one's tax collector constitutes "freedom."

 

[bob135]

Does the ability to own weapons, choose one's religion. occupation, spouse, and residence (have I omitted anything important?) cause one to be free?

Seems to me that freedom must be defined in terms of assets and life's energy. For example, if I am required to worship a foreign god for one hour then one hour of my life's energy has been stolen. I dispute the ability to vote for one's tax collector constitutes "freedom."

Not all restrictions on freedom can be described in terms of "hours in a day lost." For example, if you are forbidden to worship one god, you might spend your time instead worshipping another, or reading, or watching TV. All of these other options are free choices and your time isn't being taken, but you are banned from making your first choice.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Does the ability to own weapons, choose one's religion. occupation, spouse, and residence (have I omitted anything important?) cause one to be free?

"Cause" is a strange word to use here. Freedom is not an effect, but is the political condition in which individual choices may take place. Freedom is the absence of political restraint on self-determination.

Seems to me that freedom must be defined in terms of assets and life's energy. For example, if I am required to worship a foreign god for one hour then one hour of my life's energy has been stolen.

That's a good libertarian answer. I think it still leaves open some issues, such as what property is.

I dispute the ability to vote for one's tax collector constitutes "freedom."

I agree. The vote is only a means to preserving freedom, and is not freedom itself. Democracy is only a means, and not an end.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[2ndRateMind]

The philosopher Isaiah Berlin considered that there are two distinct types of freedom: negative, and positive.

Negative freedom is simply an absence of restrictions. For example, you are negatively free if no-one stops you getting drunk in a bar. You are negatively unfree if, as is the case in some Moslem states, alcohol is forbidden you.

Positive freedom is the extent to which you are master of your destiny. You are positively free if, for example, you are allowed to spend your time getting drunk in a bar, but you decide that study, or career development activities, or being with your spouse or children, further your goals more effectively, and you act accordingly.

Whereas negative freedom simply involves a set of opportunities, positive freedom is more a matter of a capacity to take advantage of them. Clearly, restrictions of some negative freedoms may enhance positive freedom: if the bars are shut, that may help me decide to study, etc. However, Berlin notes that historically it has been a favourite tactic of dictators to abuse this concept of positive freedom to justify onerous curtailments of negative freedom. Constant vigilence, and the capacity to vote for one's tax collector, remain important safeguards against such abuse.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[Verv]

Does the ability to own weapons, choose one's religion. occupation, spouse, and residence (have I omitted anything important?) cause one to be free?

Seems to me that freedom must be defined in terms of assets and life's energy. For example, if I am required to worship a foreign god for one hour then one hour of my life's energy has been stolen. I dispute the ability to vote for one's tax collector constitutes "freedom."

That is a good question.

I am glad to take freedom to the extremes of its meaning because I am confident in myself and my ability to be happy without the government interfering.

Really, should be just "my freedom ends where yours begins."

 

[-Vincent-]

Does the ability to own weapons, choose one's religion. occupation, spouse, and residence (have I omitted anything important?) cause one to be free?

Jesus was free. Do you know what caused him to be free?

In his yeshua,

Vincent

 

[Shane Roach]

No one is completely free. Typically, when a majority (or a powerful minority) of the people in a culture decide they are sick of certain restrictions or (interestingly enough) liberties, they cry out against the government that is either restricting their behavior or not allowing them to restrict others.

"Give me liberty, or give me death," more or less means, "I'm going to kill you if you don't stop telling me what to do and how to do it."

If I and my cronies want crack cocaine to be illegal, and the government forbids us, and we happen to be more powerful than the government, then we replace the government and are in that sense "free" of the restraint preventing us from preventing someone else from smoking crack.

I don't know why this comes up so often. Sometimes people (maybe all of us) are almost psychotic in our tendencies to try to take every word or statement and attempt to stretch it to the absurd, but there you have it. It's not a terribly difficult concept.

Alternatively, you could say, "freedom's just another word for, 'nothing left to lose.'"

 

[billwald]

>Jesus was free. Do you know what caused him to be free?

Was he? Is God "free?"

>Alternatively, you could say, "freedom's just another word for, 'nothing left to lose.'"

AGREE! It is an internal state and has nothing to do with accumulating stuff. As long as a person can still think, "Screw you . . . ."

Politically, we are "free" to hold a national revolution every 4 years but economically, the transfer of assets from the working class to our owners never stops.

 

[Shane Roach]

Agree!??!!!!??!?!?!?????

Well, there goes this thread.

 

[billwald]

>"Give me liberty, or give me death," more or less means, "I'm going to kill you if you don't stop telling me what to do and how to do it."

In context, it meant "You can kill me."

 

[Eudaimonist]

In context, it meant "You can kill me."

Sure, and "I prefer death to a loss of liberty".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Inviolable]

Seems to me that freedom must be defined in terms of assets and life's energy.

I think freedom is defined through ignorance and knowledge.

For the majority of my life I was an atheist and fell under the assumption that God was pushing himself on me, through the use of Christians.
When I finely came to know God I understood that God wasn't pushing himself on me at all. In fact just the opposite, I had to find him.

I only say that because I know how most atheist feel. They would rather be left alone. Not knowing that what they're hearing from Christians every where isn't a sales pitch but rather a shot at sharing information in the form of an explanation.

You can't explain God the way you can know him and through knowing him you can compare what life was like with out him.

You can't help but try to pass the experience on so someone else can enjoy it.

Sometimes I think Christians should act like they're hording God, trying to keep him all to themselves. People would see Christians in coffee shops and libraries huddled closely over something so no one else can see what it is. A passer by might ask, hey, what ya got there?
The Christian could look up at them and with a nasty tone say, The bible. Now go away! grrrr.. My God!
The passer by would be like, OK! Geeze! I only wanted to see the bible
And then they'd go out of their way to check it out. To see what was so great about Christianity in the first place.

At one time, freedom to me was simply to live and let live.
But since I came to know God freedom became about knowing.
True freedom isn't just the right to know, it's in the ability to understand what choices you should or shouldn't make.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Sometimes I think Christians should act like they're hording God, trying to keep him all to themselves. People would see Christians in coffee shops and libraries huddled closely over something so no one else can see what it is. A passer by might ask, hey, what ya got there?
The Christian could look up at them and with a nasty tone say, The bible. Now go away! grrrr.. My God!
The passer by would be like, OK! Geeze! I only wanted to see the bible
And then they'd go out of their way to check it out. To see what was so great about Christianity in the first place.

I'd like to see this too. While you are probably correct that it would be a better approach to creating more Christians, it would also make for much less tense relations between Christians and atheists.

At one time, freedom to me was simply to live and let live.
But since I came to know God freedom became about knowing.
True freedom isn't just the right to know, it's in the ability to understand what choices you should or shouldn't make.

I agree... for the most part.

To start off, I don't think that knowledge is the entire issue. It's ability. Knowledge is required for ability, of course, but the freedom that you speak of is freedom from the shackles one imposes on oneself, and these shackles take many forms, of which ignorance is only one.

Also, I don't insist on the term "true freedom". I hate putting the word "true" before a term. All forms of freedom are "true" freedom.

And, of course, I don't think that "God" is a requirement for ethical knowledge, or ethical ability for that matter.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[billwald]

>Sure, and "I prefer death to a loss of liberty".

Suicide by cop? Care to specify the loss that might push you over the limit?

 

[Eudaimonist]

>Sure, and "I prefer death to a loss of liberty".

Suicide by cop? Care to specify the loss that might push you over the limit?

Huh?

No, it means that those people were prepared to fight and die to resist oppression.

"Live Free or Die" is the same spirit of resistance that led to the Boston Tea Party and the Revolutionary War.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[billwald]

That doesn't help. We just elected our new tax collectors. Are not they the ones who oppress us? They just stole another trillion. Isn't this oppression?

 

[Eudaimonist]

That doesn't help.

I wasn't offering any solutions.

We just elected our new tax collectors.

Who is "we"? I voted for Bob Barr. I doubt that a Libertarian can get rid of all taxes in one term of office, but I don't vote for people who see taxes as the way to solve social problems.

Are not they the ones who oppress us? They just stole another trillion. Isn't this oppression?

It sure is! And it's not an easy issue to deal with. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, it is natural to suffer some oppression than to deal with the death and chaos of a revolution. This might even be necessary, since one can at least hope for peaceful change from within the system.

However, the sad truth is that "we" elect tax collectors because most people see little wrong with taxes. Once those attitudes change in mass, one can finally expect to see better results, and not before.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Inviolable]

Also, I don't insist on the term "true freedom". I hate putting the word "true" before a term. All forms of freedom are "true" freedom.
eudaimonia,

Mark

I don't agree with that. There are many forms of limited freedom and if it's limited it isn't true. I know nothing is perfect but until a person is aware of what they're capable of, free or not they're still limited to what they know and still caged in. Which in and of itself is deceptive.

Wow man.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't agree with that. There are many forms of limited freedom and if it's limited it isn't true.

Please define "true" for me in this context. I don't think we use this word in the same way.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Inviolable]

Please define "true" for me in this context. I don't think we use this word in the same way.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You could be right, I was kind of wondering that as well.

I was using it in the form of reality. What exist and what doesn't.

"being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false: a true story."

If you haven't had the experience, you don't know and if you don't know it's not true because you haven't had the experience.

In quite a few cases in our lives personal bias replaces what we don't know with what we'd like it to be. Which I'm sure you understand.
Which in and of itself is restraining, it's conflicting with reality and we simply accept it because it's all we know.