What is freedom?

[durangodawood]

In terms of basic meaning, yes. But if you trace the history of the usage, there are some interesting differences. From the French direction of the Enlightenment, liberty was grouped with equality and fraternity to take on an essence of a need for responsible liberty (the bloodbath of the French Revolution proved what happens when responsibility is absent).

From the German direction, freedom (freiheit) is the exact opposite - freedom from responsibility. That became a real problem for the Quakers when German peasants started pouring into the Pennsylvanian colony because they had promised them a "free" society without understanding each other. What I find so amusing about the German path was that Bismarck realized that most people associate freedom with comfort. So his approach was to give the German people that freedom from responsibility that they sought. Build up industry and make Germany an economic powerhouse so that the people are fat, dumb, and happy - leaving him "free" to use that economic might for whatever personal (imperial) ends he desired. And yes, his personal correspondence was that blunt about his intentions. Look what it produced in Germany.

So which model is America?

Thats interesting. But I'm not convinced that the particular snapshots youve chosen actually describe the full breadth of freedom/liberty in each of those cultures. Perhaps they are salient moments we here-and-now choose as sort of object-lessons.

But the basic ideas of freedom and liberty are identical, I think.

 

[True Scotsman]

OK. Give me an example, then.

Self determination. The right to think and act on one's own judgement.

OK. Still, they are similar. Some might say a libertarian is an irresponsible objectivist, while others may say an objectivist is a tyrannical libertarian. Of course I wouldn't say that because then people (cough - Eudamonist) stop talking to me.

Not really. Maybe superficially in the area of politics. Not at all on fundamentals. They reject the Objectivist Metaphysics, epistemology and ethics.

Hmm. How does that work then? ... the government is the people, and the government is supposed to protect you, but to involve you in that protection is a violation of your rights.

It is if it's not voluntary. I would say that "involve you in that protection" would qualify as a euphemism.

Think about it. A collection of people has exactly the same rights as each individual. Just because the government does something does not mean they have a right to do it. As Walter E. Williams said, the draft is "confiscation of labor services". Do you think the draft was right?

 

[Resha Caner]

Thats interesting. But I'm not convinced that the particular snapshots youve chosen actually describe the full breadth of freedom/liberty in each of those cultures. Perhaps they are salient moments we here-and-now choose as sort of object-lessons.

But the basic ideas of freedom and liberty are identical, I think.

Fair enough.

But IMO it's more than a salient moment. There is a particular reason I know those "snapshots". For my master's in history I'm studying the Lutheran Church in America, and a fascinating study was done on how German ideas of freedom impacted church/state relationships in the U.S.

This idea of "freedom from responsibility" meant that German colonists in the U.S. had a very personal view of property ... it's mine and no one should mess with me. Maybe a somewhat crass rendering, but I'm trying to be brief. What then do you do about corporate organizations such as churches? How does a community establish a church?

In Germany the Church was a state function, but German colonists didn't want that. So, churches were donated by rich Germans. But that meant the building and the property were still privately owned. So the owner got to hire/fire the pastor, which meant the owner controlled what theology was preached, and the congregation had no say. Well, that's not any better than having the state tell you which theology is right.

The central Lutheran figure of the colonial era (Muhlenberg) set out to find a solution. The Espicolpalians didn't have an answer because that was the English state church transplanted to the Americas. The Quakers didn't have an answer because they were viewed as a "do what you want" church, which doesn't fit the Lutheran "two kingdoms" theology. Muhlenberg's solution was to incorporate the Lutheran church as a private corporation. So he got the sanction of the state to support corporate property rights, but at the same time kept them out of theology, which was a matter settled by the "corporation".

It's a great idea, but in the end the state still holds power over the church as we've seen by increasing Federal encroachment into what non-profits can and can't do.

 

[Resha Caner]

Self determination. The right to think and act on one's own judgement.

You're being too vague. The right to think and act what? To murder? To use drugs?

It is if it's not voluntary. I would say that "involve you in that protection" would qualify as a euphemism.

No. It appears to me as a contradiction in your position. If serving in the military should only be voluntary, then why can't the government (the group of people doing the protecting) choose not to protect those who refuse to serve?

Think about it. A collection of people has exactly the same rights as each individual. Just because the government does something does not mean they have a right to do it. As Walter E. Williams said, the draft is "confiscation of labor services". Do you think the draft was right?

Sometimes the execution of government is faulty, but the principle is sound. If one wants the protections - the security - of being in a society, one gives up certain individual freedoms. That's basic Locke.

 

[durangodawood]

You're being too vague. The right to think and act what? To murder? To use drugs?....

Yes. Freedom means being able to do what you want, be it nice OR naughty.

That's why maximum freedom is not all that great.

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes. Freedom means being able to do what you want, be it nice OR naughty.

That's why maximum freedom is not all that great.

As long as you add the second statement, I guess it doesn't matter how you define the first. We can still agree.

 

[durangodawood]

As long as you add the second statement, I guess it doesn't matter how you define the first. We can still agree.

Why do people struggle to define "freedom" in such a way that it could mean only good outcomes?

 

[Resha Caner]

Why do people struggle to define "freedom" in such a way that it could mean only good outcomes?

I understand. In my last post I was trying to say you've made a good point. It is interesting that people want freedom to mean only good things - probably including myself until your last post. Maybe it's an artifact of Western indoctrination.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So, isn't this just a civilized way of saying, "Might makes right"? The guy with the biggest stick wins, and government is a way to get a bigger stick.

A lot of people reply this way when they hear that a right unprotected means nothing. They make it sound as if it's simply too awful to be true. I get why people say that, they don't to think (for example) that they only have freedom of speech because their government is willing to enforce that right. Typically though, these people have never lived anywhere so oppressive that they literally had no freedom of speech.

So it's "might makes right"? Pretty much...but might doesn't reside in the government necessarily. It resides where people believe it resides. In most democracies, the rights that the government protects are a reflection of the rights the people believe they have. Imagine, for a moment, if tomorrow you woke up and learned that overnight our government did away with the first amendment? No freedom of religion, no free speech, no freedom of the press (not exactly a big loss), no freedom of assembly. How long do you think the government would hold power in this nation? I'd say within a week the revolution would be so large that those responsible would be fleeing for safety.

 

[True Scotsman]

You're being too vague. The right to think and act what? To murder? To use drugs?

Try to escape from your concrete bound, anti-conceptual mentality and think in principles. I have laid out some regarding freedom. I said that freedom was the freedom from coercion. I went on to define that as the right to pursue one's own good in one's own way so long as you do not interfere with someone else doing the same. I said that rights were conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival as a thinking being. I gave the example of the right of self determination and I defined it as the right to think and act on one's judgement. Now apply those principles to whether or not we have the right to murder and you will have your answer. Would murdering someone interfere with their right to pursue their own good in their own way so long as they don't interfere with someone esle's right to do the same? Would murdering someone interfere with their right to think and act on their own judgement? Now apply these same principles to your other two questions.

 

[durangodawood]

Of course freedom includes the freedom to murder, or to stomp on anothers rights generally.

Thats why a functioning society will curtail freedom in so many ways.

 

[Resha Caner]

So it's "might makes right"? Pretty much...but might doesn't reside in the government necessarily. It resides where people believe it resides. In most democracies, the rights that the government protects are a reflection of the rights the people believe they have. Imagine, for a moment, if tomorrow you woke up and learned that overnight our government did away with the first amendment? No freedom of religion, no free speech, no freedom of the press (not exactly a big loss), no freedom of assembly. How long do you think the government would hold power in this nation? I'd say within a week the revolution would be so large that those responsible would be fleeing for safety.

OK. For the most part I would agree with you, but I don't think tyrants are typically stupid enough to try such things over night. Rather, they take more an approach of slowly raising the heat to boil the frog.

I think that works for two reasons: 1) It's hard to define the boundary between what freedom is and is not, 2) talk of freedom is more political rhetoric than actual daily practice.

 

[Resha Caner]

Now apply those principles to whether or not we have the right to murder and you will have your answer. Would murdering someone interfere with their right to pursue their own good in their own way so long as they don't interfere with someone esle's right to do the same? Would murdering someone interfere with their right to think and act on their own judgement? Now apply these same principles to your other two questions.

Yes, I read and understood your principles. But the devil is in the details, hence the points I stated in post #32. Either there is much more behind these principles you haven't stated, or you haven't thought them all the way through. You're sounding frustrated. Do you not want to discuss your principles?

I picked the two examples I did for a reason - though I made a mistake in word choice. I should have said "kill" rather than "murder".

The first example is meant to demonstrate that your principles (without further supporting detail) create paradoxes. I earn my living from a corporation. Therefore, the people at that corporation are important to me "pursuing good in my own way". Therefore, I protect those people. If someone threatens the life of one of those people, I am now in conflict. Either by my action or inaction harm will come to someone. I can choose to whom that harm will come - the attacker or the attacked. By applying your principle, it seems at first I should harm the attacker to protect the attacked. But then haven't I violated your principle?

The second example is meant to demonstrate that we are a society - connected. IMO individualism is extreme in the U.S., to the point where people seem almost incapable of understanding how they affect others. People seem to think that they have a right to drug use because it only affects them. But as with almost all actions, it affects more than them. What if the drug user has children? Or parents who love him and hate to see his life thrown away? By applying your principle it seems at first I should leave the drug user to his own devices. But then when he ODs and is rushed to the ER, with my tax dollars paying for his medical care, suddenly he is affecting me and it seems your principles say I should have stopped him. But then haven't I violated your principle?