What does Freedom mean?

[philthygeezer]

Interesting article.

 

 

... Freedom, however, is not just a shoving match. Freedom has a formal structure. It has two components: 1) Law sets boundaries that proscribe what we must do or can't do -- you must not steal, you must pay taxes. 2) Those same legal boundaries protect an open field of free choice in all other matters. The forgotten idea is the second component -- that law must affirmatively define an area free from legal interference. Law must provide "frontiers, not artificially drawn," as philosopher Isaiah Berlin put it, "within which men should be inviolable." This idea has been lost to our age. When advancing the cause of freedom, law today is all proscription and no protection. There are no boundaries, just a moving mudbank comprised of accumulating bureaucracy and whatever claims people unilaterally choose to assert. People wade through law all day long. Any disagreement in the workplace, any accident, any incidental touching of a child, any sick person who gets sicker, any bad grade in school -- you name it. Law has poured into daily life. The solution is not just to start paring back all the law -- that would take 10 lifetimes, like trying to prune the jungle. We need to abandon the idea that freedom is a legal maze, where each daily choice is like picking the right answer on a multiple-choice test. We need to set a new goal for law -- to define an open area of free choice. This requires judges and legislatures to affirmatively assert social norms of what's reasonable and what's not. "The first requirement of a sound body of law," Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote, "is that it should correspond with the actual feelings and demands of the community." ...

Do you agree? Discuss?

[Jugghaid]

I agree with the section you posted.

 

We have WAY too many laws on the books and WAY too much governmental interference on a day to day basis.

 

then again, I'm a libertarian, so...........

[Super_Donut_Man]

I agree more or less.

[Ender_rpm]

We need to set a new goal for law -- to define an open area of free choice. This requires judges and legislatures to affirmatively assert social norms of what's reasonable and what's not. "The first requirement of a sound body of law," Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote, "is that it should correspond with the actual feelings and demands of the community."

 

 

This is the major flaw in this arguement IF we believe in equal protection, a thesis illustarted by Civil Rights law. While I agree in theory with portions of this arguement, its practical applications in a diverse nation are limited.

[blueyedmule]

In my view, freedom and license have become confused. True freedom is the freedom to choose what is good and pure and just and right.

 

Here's what one brilliant man said about freedom. I'd put his intellect up against any philosopher of any time.

 

"When freedom does not have a purpose, when it does not wish to know anything about the rule of law engraved in the hearts of men and women, when it does not listen to the voice of conscience, it turns against humanity and society."

 

and:

 

"Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought."

 

The uncoupling of freedom from responsibility, and freedom from any sense of morality, is tragic and can only have tragic ends.

[Emprov]

I was thing jeans with no underwear.

[collinwho]

Freedom

 

1: the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence c: the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous d: ease , facility e: the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken f: improper familiarity g: boldness of conception or execution h: unrestricted use 2 a: a political right b: franchise , privilege

 

[GURREN LAGANN]

The main thing that people, mostly conservatives forget is that people tend to infringe on each others' freedom more than their government.

[jackcheez]

[Jugghaid]

 

The main thing that people, mostly conservatives forget is that people tend to infringe on each others' freedom more than their government.

 

 

How so, exactly?

[philthygeezer]

 

The main thing that people, mostly conservatives forget is that people tend to infringe on each others' freedom more than their government.

 

 

Read a little of Steven Pinker's work, and you'll see how the radical left is just as guilty as the radical right of this.

[misterhinkydink]

I think it means French.

[Trauma_Luna]

parody ideaaa, i must resist

[bassman1956]

I agree.

I also think we need fewer laws, and more push for the responsibility of the individual.

[JeffBass]

Freedom means a guy like Tony Rezko can strong arm campaign dollars for two people, one who gets impeached and one who moves into the White House.

[philthygeezer]

 

Freedom means a guy like Tony Rezko can strong arm campaign dollars for two people, one who gets impeached and one who moves into the White House.

 

 

A little off topic, ain't it? You're reaching.

 

What do you think freedom should mean?

[King Kashue]

 

Interesting article. Do you agree? Discuss?

 

 

The problem with Holmes' dicta is the same today as it was eight decades ago.

 

The "feelings and demands of the community" are often in conflict with the foundational principles of law, and often accept or even promote the reduction of freedoms for some and infringe on the rights of minority groups in the larger community.

 

The highest duty of the law is to protect the rights of the minority, not reflect the will of the majority.

[GURREN LAGANN]

 

Read a little of Steven Pinker's work, and you'll see how the radical left is just as guilty as the radical right of this.

 

 

Such as?

 

I'd be wary in how you define "Radical" here too. I definitely wouldn't say "the left" in general is near as bad as the right for it.

[philthygeezer]

 

The problem with Holmes' dicta is the same today as it was eight decades ago. The "feelings and demands of the community" are often in conflict with the foundational principles of law, and often accept or even promote the reduction of freedoms for some and infringe on the rights of minority groups in the larger community. The highest duty of the law is to protect the rights of the minority, not reflect the will of the majority.

 

 

This makes good sense and I agree. Feelings and demands often impinge on the play space that law endeavours to create. So is the trick defining what is a defensible position for a minority? I would say that hurt sensibilities or a sense of being offended doesn't count. Restrictions on the minority's ability to thrive relative to society does count, eg. drumming someone out of town or not hiring them because they are Christian, or gay.

[Ender_rpm]

Such as? I'd be wary in how you define "Radical" here too. I definitely wouldn't say "the left" in general is near as bad as the right for it.

 

Umm, did you miss the 20th century?

 

[philthygeezer]

 

Such as? I'd be wary in how you define "Radical" here too. I definitely wouldn't say "the left" in general is near as bad as the right for it.

 

 

Arguing this would be tantamount to splitting hairs with a fork. We won't get anywhere.

 

'The Blank Slate' is a fantastic book and well worth reading to understand a bit more about human nature.

 

Pinker gives examples in which left-leaning ideologies such as 'the blank slate' and 'the myth of the noble savage' have caused immeasurable harm in allowing us to whitewash real problems with idealistic untruth. He makes a very good case that each societal problem should be dealt with pragmatically according to its own challenges.

[King Kashue]

 

This makes good sense and I agree. Feelings and demands often impinge on the play space that law endeavours to create. So is the trick defining what is a defensible position for a minority? I would say that hurt sensibilities or a sense of being offended doesn't count. Restrictions on the minority's ability to thrive relative to society does count, eg. drumming someone out of town or not hiring them because they are Christian, or gay.

 

 

Indeed, it's not about being offended or not (in fact, it's never about that, since any restrictions based on the idea of offense is a substantive violation of the freedom of speech), but about substantive harms to the rights of the individual.

[philthygeezer]

Umm, did you miss the 20th century?

 

Left-leaning ideology also brought us the idea that the individual was near meaningless in the biology of the societal organism. The idea that society was the organism with rights that were more important than the individual.

[Jugghaid]

 

Such as? I'd be wary in how you define "Radical" here too. I definitely wouldn't say "the left" in general is near as bad as the right for it.

 

 

Still didn't give me any examples.

[Jugghaid]

 

Left-leaning ideology also brought us the idea that the individual was near meaningless in the biology of the societal organism. The idea that society was the organism with rights that were more important than the individual.

 

 

Yup.