Jump to content

What does Freedom mean?


philthygeezer

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

To get back to the point of the thread, freedom means several things.

The opportunity to thrive. To pursue life, liberty, happiness.

The opportunity to succeed.

The opportunity to fail.

the opportunity to do so without having your daily life dictated to you by an oppressive government.

It does not mean the "right' to not be offended.

It does not mean that only those that agree with me get the same rights.

It does not mean that I will have the same outcome as others.

It's the freedom to choose my own path in life. To define success on a personal level. To choose who I want to spend that life with, free of the interference of others.

Personal freedom also comes with personal responsibility.

Freedom has its life in the hearts, the actions, the spirit of men and so it must be daily earned and refreshed - else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower




Liberty is the possibility of doubting, of making a mistake,... of searching and experimenting,... of saying No to any authority - literary, artistic, philosophical, religious, social, and even political. ~Ignazio Silone,



Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. ~Abraham Lincoln



My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular. ~Adlai Stevenson, speech, Detroit, 1952



Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. ~Thomas Paine



Men fight for freedom, then they begin to accumulate laws to take it away from themselves. ~Author Unknown



Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. ~Mahatma Gandhi

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
To get back to the point of the thread, freedom means several things.


The opportunity to thrive. To pursue life, liberty, happiness.


The opportunity to succeed.


The opportunity to fail.


the opportunity to do so without having your daily life dictated to you by an oppressive government.


It does not mean the "right' to not be offended.


It does not mean that only those that agree with me get the same rights.


It does not mean that I will have the same outcome as others.


It's the freedom to choose my own path in life. To define success on a personal level. To choose who I want to spend that life with, free of the interference of others.


Personal freedom also comes with personal responsibility.


Thread over. :thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Crescent Seven blasted me as soon as I came into this thread, and I didn't you at him.


Also, what you're doing is much worse form than denigrating anyone - it's the style over substance fallacy. I might be criticising or even insulting people, but not without cause, and generally not until they make a patronising or insulting statement to begin with - but again if you're only going by style and not substance, you wouldn't be able to see this.

 

 

Being succinct without insulting people reinforces substance. The reverse condition obscures it and often does the presenter harm.

 

You make the claim, you have the burden of proof. Quite often, that burden of proof also includes the burden of decorum and clarity. You've shown neither except for a brief glimmer. 'but he did it first's don't help at all.

 

Assuming that people are obligated to grab thorny bushes of insults while scaling walls of incredulous text seems more like a fallacy.

 

Edit: Still reading your link by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Jugghaid should run for Governor of IL. He has an eloquent way of saying things, many of which are true.



No thanks. :D

not a job I would ever want. Especially in your fine state. Too many of your governors end up in jail. :D

I grew up with Boston politics. About the only other place as dirty as Chicago. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

you haven't given any data to debunk.

 

 

Since when is "Data" the only thing valid in an argument? There's such a thing as a logical construct, an argument reasoning what we already know and making a new conclusion. The article on neurosciences did offer some data on the matter, but you ignored.

 

 

And liberals act like they know what is best for everyone. Hint: they don't. I know what is best for me and my family. I don't need a sociologist to tell me.

 

 

By the way, here's where you said you know better than a sociologist. You know BEST, therefore you know better than them, and snidely put them down. But at the end of the day, raising kids and keeping a relationship has psychological effects, and someone who's had the same experience you do AND studies it for a living, is most likely going to know better.

 

Just anti-intellectual drivel.

 

I don't see any reason to continue this argument if you're going to dismiss everything I say as being devoid of substance. At least I dealth with your initial post in more detail - which really shows which of us is more respectful, despite your claims of intolerance.

 

 

you must be kidding. First of all the fields of neuroscience and political science are not the same. That's like me saying X% of gas station attendants agree that nuclear power is a bad idea. They are not experts in that field. They are experts at pumping gas. I don't think you would know real science if it bit you on the ass based on this post.

 

 

Raising your kids, and the concept of personal responsibility fall under neuroscience more neatly than "Politics". Whether it's a good idea to simply expect people to be responsible or not, is something empirical that can be tested to some degree. And again, the results are not in your favour. This is not an opinion, at least read that essay.

 

 

To get back to the point of the thread, freedom means several things.


The opportunity to thrive. To pursue life, liberty, happiness.


The opportunity to succeed.


The opportunity to fail.


the opportunity to do so without having your daily life dictated to you by an oppressive government.


It does not mean the "right' to not be offended.


It does not mean that only those that agree with me get the same rights.


It does not mean that I will have the same outcome as others.


It's the freedom to choose my own path in life. To define success on a personal level. To choose who I want to spend that life with, free of the interference of others.


Personal freedom also comes with personal responsibility.

 

 

THIS is an opinion, not fact. Or rather, you're saying some true things but using them to bolster something that isn't very true at all.

 

Again have you read this - http://www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/pinker00.pdf ? This is a longer version I think, the shorter one was posted a few pages back.

 

It might be an idea if you're looking for your "Data".

 

Either way it's pointless continuing this argument, it's one big conservative circle jerk. I'll know not to wander down here again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Gurren:


1. Every time I see you denigrate a forumite in one of your posts I stop reading what you have to say.

2. Every time I see you denigrate anyone else in one of your posts I stop reading what you have to say.

3. I'm sure things could be put a little more succinctly to get your point across.


Please think about it - I'd like to debate, but I can only wade so deep.

 

 

There's a lot in this statement that you should take note of. There's a lot you've said that I could respond to, but I don't think I want to get involved because:

 

A lot of your statements come across as condescending. Worse yet, you're actively insulting members here.

 

You tend to do a lot of point-the-finger at conservative philosophy. I know you probably don't really think you are, but it's true. I can't count the number of times you've used "if not more so," or "probably more with conservatism" or something like that, in a way to point the finger at conservatism in some weaselly way.

 

You make some good points that are well worth debate, but for the reasons above, you come off as juvenile and unstable in this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
And I think I'm glad that the Constitution doesn't agree with you...
:D



Then why has the Supreme Court allowed gov't to seize and/or transfer private property to benefit the public welfare or public interest (eminent domain)? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Since when is "Data" the only thing valid in an argument? There's such a thing as a logical construct, an argument reasoning what we already know and making a new conclusion. The article on neurosciences did offer some data on the matter, but you ignored.

 

 

Facts are what is relavant. Not opinion based on pseudoscience.

 

 

 

By the way, here's where you said you know better than a sociologist.

 

 

I didn't say I know better than a sociologist. I said I know WHAT IS BEST for my family. Reading comprehension.

 

Considering any given sociologist doesn't know any member of my family or their particular individual personality or their environmental dynamic, I'd say I do know what is best for my family. Doesn't mean I always get my way there either, nor am I infallible. However, my experience with that individual person counts for way more than their theories based on any given general societal principle. But you go aheead and let a sociologist raise your kids okay?

 

 

 

 

You know BEST, therefore you know better than them, and snidely put them down. But at the end of the day, raising kids and keeping a relationship has psychological effects, and someone who's had the same experience you do AND studies it for a living, is most likely going to know better.

 

 

However they do NOT have the same experiences. Even if they are a parent they have no idea of the personalities or variable involved. That is the problem with a lot of people. They think there are catch-all solutions for every problem that will work with every kid. They are all different. They all have their own individuality and idiosyncracies. Their own set of problems and fears and strengths and talents. I think I know A HELL OF A LOT BETTER than some guy who wrote a book how to deal with that. Do you even have kids?

 

 

Just anti-intellectual drivel.

 

 

Sure it is. Anything that doesn't agree with you is Just anti-intellectual drivel. We have already established that you are the all-knowing solution to the worlds problems.

 

 

 

I don't see any reason to continue this argument if you're going to dismiss everything I say as being devoid of substance. At least I dealth with your initial post in more detail - which really shows which of us is more respectful, despite your claims of intolerance.

 

 

You have said that many times, but have yet to back it up. You keep coming back for more. And for you to state that you are somehow respectful at all to others is not only intellectually dishonest and disingenuous, it's a flat out lie.

 

 

Raising your kids, and the concept of personal responsibility fall under neuroscience more neatly than "Politics".

 

 

Now you are shifting the argument. I stated that based on your assertion that more governmental involvement is better for society. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

 

Whether it's a good idea to simply expect people to be responsible or not, is something empirical that can be tested to some degree. And again, the results are not in your favour. This is not an opinion, at least read that essay.

 

 

I have never said I expect people to be responsible nor that it would be a good idea to expect them to do so. I challenege you to show me where I have. You can't.

 

I do not expect people to be responsible. I plan against them being responsible. One of the many reasons I am a gun owner. It's also why my head is on a swivel when I am driving or on my motorcycle. My caution may very well save my life one day. I hope they act responsibly. And in fact they ARE responsible for their own actions. that's the difference you are not getting.

 

I don't expect them to be responsible in that manner, they already are. That's different than acting resposibly. All of us are responsible for our own actions whether we like it or not. While some, obstensibly you and your ilk (yeah, I used the word ilk) would like to not hold people responsible for their actions, they already are.

 

 

 

THIS is an opinion, not fact. Or rather, you're saying some true things but using them to bolster something that isn't very true at all.

 

 

This is what our country was built on. Maybe your wasn't. Didn't you say you were from western europe? Very different philosophies regarding personal responsibility and government. I much prefer ours, thanks.

 

 

Again have you read this -
? This is a longer version I think, the shorter one was posted a few pages back.


It might be an idea if you're looking for your "Data".


Either way it's pointless continuing this argument, it's one big conservative circle jerk. I'll know not to wander down here again.

 

 

Of course it's pointless. There are some very intelligent kindhearted educated people who completely disagree with you and your philosophy and you can't handle that.

 

If it's pointless to continue, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. If you decide to come back, bring some cheetos and beer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Again have you read this -
? This is a longer version I think, the shorter one was posted a few pages back.


It might be an idea if you're looking for your "Data".

 

 

Oh, and incidentally, I did read this. About 3 pages into I also knew I had read it before.

 

It's an interesting piece. Lots of supposition and hypothesis, with a very little bit backed by hard facts and data, but interesting to ponder nonetheless.

 

 

now explain to me one of the points he brings up briefly, as I have always been cuirios about this.

 

Which faction in your opinion, conservative or liberal, puts more value on human life?

 

And before you answer consider some of the history of the world we are talking about. Think about the faction that has brought the world things like genocide, eugenics, etc. Even in this country eugenics was quite heralded until the 30's when they saw the final step of it in Gernamy.

 

Think about that situation and who was in power as well. Social/economic liberals, that came at it from an authoritarian perspective. Same deal in the USSR, China, Cuba, over and over and over.

 

 

Which faction supports the use of abortion as birth control and which wants to ban it (I am not for making it illegal BTW).

 

which faction wants more control over your daily life.

 

Which faction is though neccesity, more authoritarian in the first place?

 

Now.....your answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Then why has the Supreme Court allowed gov't to seize and/or transfer private property to benefit the public welfare or public interest (eminent domain)?
:confused:

 

Because the government is required to properly compensate those whose property is taken. Property rights are not just about ownership and control, but about value and just compensation. The prohibition of "takings" (appropriation without compensation) was a major element of the property rights theory put forth by the founding fathers.

 

Further, no right is absolute, but there is a difference between limitation and infringement. Even the most absolute right in the United States, that of the Freedom of Speech, is limited (though in the case of Speech, that limitation is exceedingly minor and exceeding specific). Those limitations stem from the recognition that sometimes the exercise of the rights of individuals clash with each other, and there must be a resolution.

 

 

Another way to say it: There are obviously pragmatic concerns to be considered, and I wouldn't say otherwise (if that's how it seemed, I wasn't clear enough). But the idea to which I was objecting was not that "sometimes rights get limited/aren't absolute", but that the Constitution operates under some kind of utilitarian equation measuring individual rights against community rights. Communities don't have rights as communities. Individuals have rights, and the rights of "a community" is merely the collective rights of the individuals who make up that community. The measure is always the rights of an individual vs. the rights of an individual (no matter how many individuals are in the equation)...

 

 

I hope that's clear. For some reason, the words I'm looking for seem elusive this evening...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There are three types of liberals IMO. The first type are the needy folks who don't realize that their leaders are far more interested in keeping them in their place than actually providing them with the tools to succeed. They are victims, yes, but they are in part responsible because instead of following a path which will help them escape (reading more, playing less, voting the bums out) they keep making the same mistakes over and over. As long as there are others to constantly blame they will continue to fail because real change only comes from within (or the desire to change one's self).

 

 

Hai 19th century Europe, is that you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To me, Freedom is the intrisic ability that everyone has to do whatever they want at any time. (Unfortunately, I can't find my copy of Leviathan so I'll have to forgo the rad Hobbes quotes on this.)

I'm free to go kill someone, but the laws, and most importantly, the people who will enforce those laws make me think twice about exercising my freedom to murder people.

The notion that a govenment can create, or is somehow involved in maintain freedom is a foreign one to me. In my opinion, all a government can do is encroach on and restrict that natural state of freedom. That's what governments and law exist to do. And that's why they're awesome, or should I say, that's why government totally rules! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

 

 

Absolutely. The founding fathers were well aware of the dangers of pure, unfiltered democracy and what amounted to mob rule. If there's just one guy in a town of 100 that has a big screen TV in his living room, the other 99 residents don't have the right to vote to take it away from him, even if such a thing would reflect the "feelings and demands of the community." It's a crude example, but valid. Liberty is a central concept to the US Constitution, and the individual's liberty should (ideally) include everything that doesn't infringe on another individual's liberty.

 

Good law should reflect natural law, otherwise men will buck underneath the strain of it. Obviously there should be laws about murder and theft and the like, but not laws restricting what you can do with your own life or on your own property. We've come a long way from that though, take my own state of Minnesota for example...

We have a statewide smoking ban. I despise smoking, but I have a very big problem with the government coming out and preventing people from allowing it on their own private property. If I own a bar, it should be MY choice whether or not smoking is allowed. The government should have no say in it. Doing so is an infringement on property rights, and once they start going down this road, there's no telling where it will end.

 

That seems to be the way of the world though. Thomas Jefferson said "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance and that the natural tendency is for government to grow and liberty to yield." I only wish more people took that to heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
We have a statewide smoking ban. I despise smoking, but I have a very big problem with the government coming out and preventing people from allowing it on their
own private property
. If I own a bar, it should be MY choice whether or not smoking is allowed. The government should have no say in it. Doing so is an infringement on property rights, and once they start going down this road, there's no telling where it will end.



Do we really need to rehash the fact that, according to hundreds of years of precedent, your statements aren't correct? Hasn't the last dozen times been enough? :facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...