Is Freedom a lie?

[Masiah]

Discuss.

(This is not targeted at America, it concerns every government that may or may not stick their noses into private lives, so please leave your propaganda, anti-propaganda and similar bullshit outside.)

 

[viiva]

You need to find a balance between protecting your citicens and the amount of observation/tracking that it requires.
But you have a lot more freedom in western countries than you might realise.

 

[FrIkY]

Freedom is a lie! Lie is a pie! Pie is a cake! cake is... freedom?

 

[Zombie]

Freedom is just a word used to manipulate ignorant people. Noone actually bothers to look for a true meaning. Only the dead are free, I say.

 

[PurplePoot]

No.

Freedom is slavery.

 

[The_wand_mirror]

There's never really freedom. But it totally depends from which perspective you see this.

 

[oh_snap]

Freedom cannot be achieved in the sense of total freedom. In the United States we have a percentage of freedom, but not total. You cannot infringe on others right, is a prime example. Freedom, in the terms of law is what I am speaking of, of course.

~Snap

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Government, in essence, limits certain freedoms that people deem unnecessary or immoral to give access to other liberties people consider essential or righteous. My ability to break into your house and beat the shit out of you is hindered to protect your right to feel secure in your own home. The problem resides in finding the fine line between essential and unnecessary freedoms. Government screening phone calls, for example, is seen by many as a gross invasion of privacy, whereas others consider it a necessary sacrifice for the sake of national security. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

In closing, freedom is not necessarily a lie, but you're going to be receiving relatively the same amount no matter what you do. It really depends on what kind of freedom you'd want.

 

[Gilles]

Freedom is just a word used to manipulate ignorant people. Noone actually bothers to look for a true meaning. Only the dead are free, I say.

So true. People have no idea what freedom means today.

 

[Hakeem]

You need to find a balance between protecting your citicens and the amount of observation/tracking that it requires.

How about this? Do everything you want outside of taking away their rights.

There isn't a terrible danger to begin with...

---

True freedom is only achieved if you are alone.

 

[TheDivineBoss]

Guys, sometimes it's best to know as little as possible about it. It's like hearing mean gossips about yourself. If you want to play the hero, then sure, but you'll probally disappear in the black bag anyway.

 

[Ricardo Irving]

Freedom... does exist... you need true power. However, if you're in a country or its invading your country (uh... buy an island for 100,000 and fend off the pirates lol) there is way less freedom. Sometimes, order is better then chaos. But, chaos, is freedom.

 

[Squiggy]

All your freedom belongs to us

..think

 

[Captain Griffen]

Freedom and privacy are two very different concepts.

 

[Steel_Stallion]

Freedom isn't a lie, because it doesn't exist in the first place. Man has always been limited in some way or form, and those limitations just increase with each passing decade.

None of you can define freedom, because none of you have experienced it.

 

[Gauntlet2021]

True freedom doesnt seem to exsist. With freedom comes chaos, without it there's order and security. Due to human nature, most people can't live allowing others to live how they please, and others can't live without abusing it, so they rather have strict rules and guidelines to dictate what is and isn't acceptable.
I would consider anarchism to be a good means of freedom, but as I said it's abusable. If you really want freedom (or at least close), move out into the woods, build your own house, grow your own food and live alone.
That said, there's always a degree of freedom. IMO not enough, but society hasn't collapsed so I guess it's worked up until now.

 

[Nudl9]

This thread fails with silly theories!

None of you can define freedom, because none of you have experienced it

Then i suppose going to the mall and buying an ice cream cant be called freedom?

Freedom
1. The state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.

 

[Captain Griffen]

What freedom is is a huge debate. I could (and did yesterday) write an essay on it.

 

[Steel_Stallion]

This thread fails with silly theories!

Then i suppose going to the mall and buying an ice cream cant be called freedom?

Limited freedom

Can you take that Ice cream for free? Can you get naked while you're at the mall, and shove the ice cream into your crotch because you feel sweaty?

Well, I suppose you technically "could", But you would be opposed. Your struggle for that freedom would be oppressed, so it's rather limiting.

 

[raid1000]

if a nation sacrifices a little liberty to gain a little more security will get neither, and loose both

 

[PurplePoot]

if a nation sacrifices a little liberty to gain a little more security will get neither, and loose both

What? That's the very concept of society, so your theory fails on the most basic levels.

 

[Captain Griffen]

Or it sacrificed some liberties to gain more important ones?

 

[Celaquil]

Freedom is the cake.
Judge as you will.

 

[Cyper95]

my opinion is that there really isnt any form of true freedom unless you live on your own out somewhere alone... but i would say that we today have some sort of freedom i guess but you cant achieve the great glory of true freedom. well if everybody had that true freedom the world would be one big chaos..

 

[GLB]

Freedom is relative! One thing may be favourable to one person, but on the other hand the same thing may be an obstacle for others. Also it depends on the situation.
example given: Rain. For every farmer, rain is good because it makes his fields grow faster. But in the same time, rain can be an obstacle for construction workers who want to build a building, because the rain is softening the ground.

However, when asking the question "Is freedom a lie", you have to refer to certain subject. If not, nobody can give a clear answer. Generally speaking, freedom is a lie. I want to jump 82 feet (25 meters) in the air, but gravity doesn't let me do this.
But this a unrealistic. You better speak of political freedom.

But where does political freedom ends and starts? Example given: Protectionsim. For defenders of the free trade ideology, protectionism stands for a danger to freedom! But, for many small (and big) firms, protectionism is the only way to survive. (example: the multinational company Airbus, that would have been crushed by Boeing in the 80's and 90's and even today)

you see, it is realy relative and depends on your point of view...

 

[Bontrager]

Freedom is all perspective.

Generally it means living by your personal set of morals. And if someone's personal morals motivates them to go the mall in the nude and shove cold treats in their genitals, then no we cannot have total freedom because of these types of morals. Limited freedom is necessary. Total would mean humans would represent themselves for what they really are. Animals.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

What? That's the very concept of society, so your theory fails on the most basic levels.

He paraphrased a quote.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

 

[Steel_Stallion]

Freedom is all perspective.

Generally it means living by your personal set of morals. And if someone's personal morals motivates them to go the mall in the nude and shove cold treats in their genitals, then no we cannot have total freedom because of these types of morals. Limited freedom is necessary. Total would mean humans would represent themselves for what they really are. Animals.

Yes, because being an animal is such a terrible thing. Let us never stoop down to the terrible standards of an animal.

Oh wait...

 

[Hakeem]

Freedom is relative! One thing may be favourable to one person, but on the other hand the same thing may be an obstacle for others. Also it depends on the situation.
example given: Rain. For every farmer, rain is good because it makes his fields grow faster. But in the same time, rain can be an obstacle for construction workers who want to build a building, because the rain is softening the ground.

Okay, but what does that have to do with the concept of freedom?

I want to jump 82 feet (25 meters) in the air, but gravity doesn't let me do this.

Yes it does. You're limited by your own physical abilities.

Generally it means living by your personal set of morals. And if someone's personal morals motivates them to go the mall in the nude and shove cold treats in their genitals, then no we cannot have total freedom because of these types of morals.

Okay, but how does that make the concept of freedom a subjective one?

Limited freedom is necessary.

Not really. As you said, other people will stop you from doing certain things. True freedom comes only when, as many people have said, being alone. If you're all alone, then why does limited freedom matter? There is nobody else to complain. If you are not alone, then the mere presence of other people automatically limits your freedom, so the question of whether or not it is necessary is moot.

Total would mean humans would represent themselves for what they really are.

Yes. It would.

Animals.

Please say why or nobody who does not already believe you will have any reason to.

---

Freedom is not subjective in the least. It is a concrete idea that is simple to communicate.
Definitions adapted from en.wiktionary.org:

• Freedom: The state of being free.
• Free: This is quite funny actually. Free is defined as the lack of things:
  1. Not imprisoned or enslaved.
  2. Obtainable without payment.
  3. Unconstrained.
  4. Unobstructed, without blockages.
  5. Not in use.
  6. Without obligations.
  7. Without; not containing (what is specified).

Looks like freedom is only obtained when not restricted. In the context of human action, I'd say freedom generally refers to freedom of action within your abilities. You are obviously always restricted by your physical limitations. When not explicitly mentioned, I'd say there is good justification that it is implied.

---

Previously, I have been defining anarchy as acknowledgment of true freedom. Now I will be defining it as acknowledgment of freedom to attempt anything.

 

[Captain Griffen]

Freedom is not subjective in the least. It is a concrete idea that is simple to communicate.

You're making very bold claims that contradict (almost) all philosophers, and and then backing it up with wiktionary?

(For the record, I was discussing the matter with an Oxford fellow in great depth today. I think he may, possible, know better than wiktionary.)

 

[GLB]

Okay, but what does that have to do with the concept of freedom?

Okay, you did not understand my example, but does not matter. Freedom or Liberty is, generally speaking, the possibility to do what you want to do and to do this at 100%!

A farmer can't farm his fields, when there is no rain! Logically, the fact that it rains enables him to farm his fields (his objective) and so it widens his freedom, which means his possibility to do agriculture. On the other hand, our poor construction worker doesn't like rain (saying this in a simple way), because rain softens the ground and makes contructing buildings more difficult or, when the ground is realy sandy, nearly impossible. So rain is an obstacle to his freedom!

This was just a theoric example. In reality, I could use other examples, more complicated, that show how freedom is a relative notion, like good and evil ("what is good and what is evil?")

You see, this is realy linked to the concept of freedom. How everybody understood me.

 

[Hakeem]

You're making very bold claims that contradict (almost) all philosophers, and and then backing it up with wiktionary?

(For the record, I was discussing the matter with an Oxford fellow in great depth today. I think he may, possible, know better than wiktionary.)

Do the definitions provided not apply aptly to the terms?

If the idea you think of when considering the term "freedom," does not fit within the definition provided, then I'm very tempted to tell you that you are applying the term to an idea that it is not meant to represent.

The subjective aspect here is what should and should not be allowed. This does not affect the core idea of that is freedom.

Logically, the fact that it rains enables him to farm his fields (his objective) and so it widens his freedom, which means his possibility to do agriculture. On the other hand, our poor construction worker doesn't like rain (saying this in a simple way), because rain softens the ground and makes contructing buildings more difficult or, when the ground is realy sandy, nearly impossible. So rain is an obstacle to his freedom!

Ah. Thanks for the excellent clarification.

Consider that the farmer may also build, and a builder may also farm. Both have the same freedom throughout the season. The subjective part is that each requires different aspects of freedom to do what they want to do. The idea of something being free is constant. The variance of what is free at a specific time and place does not affect the idea itself.

 

[Captain Griffen]

Do the definitions provided not apply aptly to the terms?

If the idea you think of when considering the term "freedom," does not fit within the definition provided, then I'm very tempted to tell you that you are applying the term to an idea that it is not meant to represent.

The subjective aspect here is what should and should not be allowed. This does not affect the core idea of that is freedom.

Read some Rousseau, or the works of other 'positive' liberty proponents (I do, however, disagree with Berlins negative / positive distinction, it's bollocks). A purely 'negative' idea of liberty fails horrifically. We don't value freedom because of what we are not stopped from doing, but because of what it allows us to do - and deciding which liberties are important from the angle purely of absence of restraints is impossible. Ranking liberties in any coherent way really needs ideas about why freedom is important - such as for autonomy, or to provide for moral agency - which entail a wider concept of liberty than just the absence of constraints.

The subjective part is that each requires different aspects of freedom to do what they want to do.

Under your concept of freedom, you'd be less free if I restricted everything you didn't want to do than everything you wanted to do, as you'd have more options in the first case than the second.

 

[Hakeem]

liberty

I figured this was the case, but didn't want to jump to any conclusions. Liberty, and what are liberties, is indeed very subjective. I do not think it correct to consider freedom and liberty synonyms, though they are often used that way.

Under your concept of freedom, you'd be less free if I restricted everything you didn't want to do than everything you wanted to do, as you'd have more options in the first case than the second.

That depends on the person. Some people might want to do half of everything. Otherwise, yes.

 

[supertoinkz]

freedom is truth for us Filipinos. Thanks to the Americans they drive the japanese away from us. Tnx anyway.

 

[GLB]

Consider that the farmer may also build, and a builder may also farm. Both have the same freedom throughout the season. The subjective part is that each requires different aspects of freedom to do what they want to do. The idea of something being free is constant. The variance of what is free at a specific time and place does not affect the idea itself.

I just wanted to give you an example for the relative aspect of freedom, not on the subjective. Sure, a farmer could build and a builder could farm when it rains, but their first interessts (in this example!!!!!) were building for the builder and farming for the farmer! And in this case, in this example (!), rain restricts or widens their freedom! You countered my example with something inappropriate in this case!

Captain Griffen was right. There are a lot of definitions and aspects of freedom and all great philosophers of history tought about that issue. Sometimes we are not as free as we might be thinking! Example: I was born in Austria. I migrated to the USA 20 years ago. I am politcally engaged. I became governor of California and everbody likes me. I want to become President of the United States, but the Constitution don't let people become President of the United States, when they were not born in th US. So, my past (my being born in Austria) consitues an obstacle to my freedom!

 

[Captain Griffen]

I figured this was the case, but didn't want to jump to any conclusions. Liberty, and what are liberties, is indeed very subjective. I do not think it correct to consider freedom and liberty synonyms, though they are often used that way.

That depends on the person. Some people might want to do half of everything. Otherwise, yes.

Then your concept of freedom is not something I, or most people, value really. At all. In which case, why bother using the word?

 

[raid1000]

What? That's the very concept of society, so your theory fails on the most basic levels.

that wasn't my theory it was a quote from some1 i can't remember of

 

[Hakeem]

I just wanted to give you an example for the relative aspect of freedom, not on the subjective.

I was using "subjective," interchangeably with "relative."

Then your concept of freedom is not something I, or most people, value really. At all. In which case, why bother using the word?

My goal is not to use the word, but to make us all understand each other properly. "Freedom" is one of those words which is used to mean many different things. The title of the thread is not very clear about what concept is the topic of discussion, as a result of using the word.

In the same manner, saying "Freedom is relative," is vague as well. Without clarifying the message you want to convey, I am free to interpret it in a variety of ways. There is nothing relative about the concept of freedom, so what is being called relative? (This is a rhetorical question, it has been answered in previous discussion.)

 

[Masiah]

I still consider that nowadays, most of the times, freedom is equal to the proportion between how can you mess things up and how far can you get away with it.

 

[RaijinSpark]

Freedom is what i want not a lie and not the truth

 

[supertoinkz]

Its our Independence day on friday

 

[Lichemperor]

Only the dead are free, I say.

I Second that!

 

[LlamaNamedOsama]

Freedom is indeed a subjective concept - simply because there's a dictionary entry for it does not signify that there's a universal interpretation of it.

There's a huge problem with many proposed ideas, though. Largely, the false assumption that freedom is a binary concept, being either "free" or "not free," that "100% freedom is the only true freedom." However, the world is not black and white. There's no real thing as "true freedom," only differing degrees of freedom and this is supported by the very definitions provided (if you're going to accept negative-liberty definitions): "not imprisoned or enslaved" for example proves both my points. 1) It's subjective - some might view this as meaning "if you're not in a jail and/or a slave, you're free" while others might view humanity as "imprisoned or enslaved" by capitalism, pseudo-religions, etc. The notion of what "imprisons" or "enslaves" humanity differs based on interpretation.

Furthermore, there are differing degrees of enslavement or imprisonment. For example, Rousseau believed that taxation was a form of enslavement, since he considered the income made from an individual's work his/her "labor," and that taxation essentially stole this "labor," equating to slavery. Others, however would deem taxes not so extreme in terms of their limitations on individuals. To what extent do taxes, rules, etc. limit us? That's the subjective nature of it, and the different amounts of limitation on freedoms, from imprisonment to taxes to negative-rights concepts, and so on.

 

[Eagle771]

When i saw this off-topic i had to post this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5AuNrhpTBg

What would you do
If you were asked to give up your dreams for freedom?
What would you do
If asked to make the ultimate sacrifice?

Would you think about all them people
Who gave up everything they had?
Would you think about all them War Vets
And would you start to feel bad?

Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill
Freedom isn't free
No, there's a hefty in' fee.
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?

What would you do
If someone told you to fight for freedom?
Would you answer the call
Or run away like a little ?
'Cause the only reason that you're here
Is 'cause folks died for you in the past
So maybe now it's your turn
To die kicking some ass

Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill
Freedom isn't free
Now there's a hefty in' fee
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?

You don't throw in your buck 'o five. Who will?
Oooh buck 'o five
Freedom costs a buck 'o five

 

[SpankyDmonkey]

Freedom is absolutely possible... if you live in a society where everyone has the same interests as you and wouldn't want you to change your ways or limit you in any way possible. This is near impossible. A society to allow this would probably contain the smallest amount of people in the world. Freedom is always limited, and will always be unless you are by yourself in your own little world or society. It would be impossible to have complete freedom in a large group of people such as the United States of America due to the fact that humans create chaos. Its what we are best at. Every leader in the world knows this, which is why they do their best to police the country's inhabitants, or create "limits" to their freedom. As long as you can live in a land where you are surrounded by people that have the exact same interests/limitation levels as you, you will have your complete freedom.

I also believe that the Dead are the ones who are really completely free.

btw......

Can you take that Ice cream for free? Can you get naked while you're at the mall, and shove the ice cream into your crotch because you feel sweaty?

Well... i wasn't naked when i did this, but i did shove a cheeseburger down my pants at school before when i was smaller.. This post is making me have the sudden urge to shove cheerios down my jeans. AFK

WOOT first on the fourth page!

 

[Hakeem]

It would be impossible to have complete freedom in a large group of people such as the United States of America due to the fact that humans create chaos. Its what we are best at.

If that isn't true, then the rest of your justification and reason for law to exist falls apart.


To find out whether or not people are innately chaotic, one need only ask themself, "What would Jesus do?"

 

[SpankyDmonkey]

Exactly. There are people in this world that use god's name and every holy name possible to wage war. God will protect us, Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition...(woot song of serj tankian) which is completely insane. This is why When I think of this, I always feel bad not only for us, but for god as well. If we were his creation, then either we were his test subjects to see how humanity reacts to certain events, or so he can let us in on how life feels. Either way, I think it all failed . Atleast... most of it. Im not gunna try to talk about relgion too much cause then this will become a religious thread, which is the worst kind of thread to me. We are all the plague that will bring this world to an end... so might as well grab an Ice Cream and dance our nights away . Law is thought by some people to protect us, but then other people say it limits us, and the other other people just says FUCK law, we dont need that, we dont need police, and let us handle everything ourselves. To me, every option is insane. Cause it seems every option always brings a negative point of view. For all of us has our own form of opinion (another way of expressing freedom) so if there is a negative view for every single option there... there will be constant arguements. As humans, we can not be pleased. We are the plague that shall bring this world to its bitter end. When the end does come, I hope that everything in history somehow is video taped by a higher being like god, and he gathers a select few of the world, like prolly 1-3% of the people in this world that are not as ignorant as the other people here, and places them in a giant movie theatre, and he plays the tape of our history. Then all of us will realise even further of the mistakes if we made any. (and we did) Then I hope we are placed in a new world where we can rebuild civilization again, start a fresh with our new found knowledge. Holy living god of hell something smells like utter crap... it is either me or the...
Great Mighty Poo!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iML9xl2tCzg

 

[Hakeem]

We are all the plague that will bring this world to an end.

As humans, we can not be pleased. We are the plague that shall bring this world to its bitter end.

Speak for yourself, thanks.

Cause it seems every option always brings a negative point of view.

But by virtue of existing, every option has positive aspects.

there will be constant arguements.

This is true. No matter what you do, people will disagree on the perfect way to run things. This is what makes anarchy the ideal. In an anarchy, people are free to make government, but, being in a state of anarchy, the only people you will be able to control with your government are the people who voluntarily join it.

There is one method by which we can all agree:

Agree to disagree.

I hope we are placed in a new world where we can rebuild civilization again, start a fresh with our new found knowledge.

Gotham is not beyond saving.

 

[SpankyDmonkey]

Gotham is not beyond saving.

LOL nice one. Eh everyone has their own views of this, which is cool. I like hearing other people's opinions. Anarchy sounds like fun . All I know about freedom is that there will always be a limitation of some sort in any society no matter what.