Much is made of the concept, but what does it really mean?

In another thread about oil and its unfortunate penchant for attracting conflicts involving Western powers, the discussion led to here:

Quote :

"Dentaldamn: the man who once owned dominos wants to start a catholic socieity that will ban birth control and condoms and many forms of media. Church im sure will be manditory and all of the residence must be catholic and follow catholic dogma. are these people free? should we invade and protect these poor people?"

I'm pretty curious about the answers to his questions, and some of the ones below. What is this thing that we're charged with fighting to preserve or extend on every corner of the globe?

Suggested topics to discuss:

(1) What is freedom?
(2) Is it the same between individuals cross-culturally?
(3) Does freedom evolve with culture?
(4) Can one culture's idea of freedom be successfully transposed onto another?
(5) What ways are the most effective for oppressed people to obtain freedom?

I'll chime in when I can come up with an answer that I don't quote bomb myself.

[Edited on August 23, 2006 at 7:04 PM. Reason : .]

8/23/2006 7:01:43 PM

choice within reason, thats my only answer for this thread. it is over-simplified and obviously will vary between cultures, but i like that answer.

8/23/2006 7:14:22 PM

Dammit, Gamecat, we're not writing your paper for you.

On that note, my short answers:

1) Very briefly, the ability to do with yourself and the fruits of labor what you will, to any extent that does not restrict the freedom or health of anybody else. At this point someone will yell, "OH YEAH WAHT ABOUT TEH MARIJUANA AND AB0RTI0NZ?" And I will deal with that when someone actually says it, because I have more points to cover and don't have time to predict, in detail, what response everything I say will elicit.

2) It's a concept. It's the same everywhere. Different cultures and individuals will see it through different-colored lenses, but it's always the same thing. Obviously enough my political position means I support some positions that aren't strictly in keeping with a straight, simple, objective view of the quickie definition I offered above, but that doesn't change freedom at all.

Further, of course, some people don't really want the broader freedom, but its more specific and easily-definable bastard children, like freedom from fear.

3) No. As with #2, freedom is a concept that does not change with any evolving or differing circumstance.

4) Yes, but rarely is the process easy or fast.

5) Grassroots political activism followed by bloody revolution, and yes, I'm serious.

8/23/2006 7:27:35 PM

Quote :

"What ways are the most effective for oppressed people to obtain freedom?"

Track down and utilize tax loopholes.

8/23/2006 11:13:52 PM

or move to America and open a gas station

8/24/2006 12:27:47 AM

I am very interested in this thread, and I sincerely hope that it does not become a battle between the well-read...

I get bored of listening to people repeat the ideas of famous philosophers n shit.

8/24/2006 12:30:49 AM

I have many faults, but being well-read is not among them.

I haven't heard of probably 70% of the people that get named on here (including Santayana, Gamecat).

Incidentally, I still don't know which one of Hannity & Colmes is the Republican. If either of them are.

[Edited on August 24, 2006 at 12:41 AM. Reason : not that either of them are philosophers, but the point stands]

8/24/2006 12:41:35 AM

Quote :

"he ability to do with yourself and the fruits of labor what you will, to any extent that does not restrict the freedom or health of anybody else."

ok, lets say youre a parent

In raising your children, you, along with the community you live in, promote in them certain attitudes and beliefs about life. You raise them with your religion, your morals, and maybe your politics. As with most people they will accept and maintain these beliefs through out their life.

Does this not infringe on their freedom as individuals to discover these things for themselves and come to their own understanding of who they are and what they want to do in life.

8/24/2006 2:05:31 AM

In the specific case of the domino's land, those people are absolutely free. Moving into that community is a choice and as long as there is free mobility of people, they are free. Now, if they were shot at or attacked for trying to leave the community, then they would cease to be free.

As it stands, they are free, living in mandatory restrictions, voluntarily entered into.

Now, I can see an argument that the children aren't free, but unfortunately we have to give them to the age of 18 (or earlier if they gain emancipation) before they really can exercise their freedom of choice.

8/24/2006 7:18:15 AM

^^
I know this is going to sound argumentative, but it isn't intended to...

You can say "don't touch the stove" all day, but the lesson is only truly learned when the child gets burned on the stove. In this case you raised your child in an environment where they were taught that touching the stove is wrong but the lesson was only truly learned through personal experience.

Most children initially learn about society and how to interact with it based on the community they live in and their parents' beliefs. Early on they learn from example. I'd say learning this way in the younger years is more the norm than the exception. Of course the degree in which these beliefs are pressed upon children will vary - there are extremes with anything.

Even with all of these external influences a child still has to discover and come to their own understanding of who they are. Everyone is unique, I'm not a carbon copy of my parents.

Children will eventually grow up and leave the home. Part of the challenge of being a parent is letting your child have the freedom to make decisions you think are wrong and even letting your child have the freedom to make decisions you know are wrong.

If you really, really wanted to tip-toe around the issue of infringing with a child's ability to discover things for themselves then you might as well toss them in the woods to be raised by wolves.

[Edited on August 24, 2006 at 7:35 AM. Reason : ^^]

8/24/2006 7:35:29 AM

Quote :

"Does this not infringe on their freedom as individuals to discover these things for themselves and come to their own understanding of who they are and what they want to do in life."

Not any more than an advertising billboard takes away my freedom to make my own purchasing choices. Parents are a strong influence, yes, but in the end they generally don't decide the kid's future for him or her.

8/24/2006 10:53:26 AM

For clarity's sake, I really am not writing a paper here. And I don't have very hard answers to any of the questions I asked in mind. I'm genuinely just curious what other people's thoughts on them are...

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Dammit, Gamecat, we're not writing your paper for you."

The only papers I write now are voluntary. This isn't one of them, so much as it's food for thought. The school of hard knocks works a little different than college.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: 1) Very briefly, the ability to do with yourself and the fruits of labor what you will, to any extent that does not restrict the freedom or health of anybody else."

What if it restricts the freedom or health of others by their own volition?

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: At this point someone will yell, "OH YEAH WAHT ABOUT TEH MARIJUANA AND AB0RTI0NZ?" And I will deal with that when someone actually says it, because I have more points to cover and don't have time to predict, in detail, what response everything I say will elicit."

No real qualms, I just want to go ahead and clear the air:

"OH YEAH WAHT ABOUT TEH MARIJUANA AND AB0RTI0NZ?"

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Further, of course, some people don't really want the broader freedom, but its more specific and easily-definable bastard children, like freedom from fear."

Do you think these bastard children, like the one you mentioned, can evolve into a culture's definition?

In other words, I'm not asking if a culture's definition constrains the concept itself. I'm asking if the concept itself is or can be constrained by a culture's definition of the word.

Also, what leads you to say that some don't really want the broader freedom?

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: 4) Yes, but rarely is the process easy or fast."

Examples?

And no, I'm not planning to nitpick. Just trying to see where you're coming from.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: 5) Grassroots political activism followed by bloody revolution, and yes, I'm serious."

I can't argue that there's a more common way, that's for sure. I wonder, though. Must the oppressed attack the oppressors directly?

How would you describe Ghandi's movement in India, for example?

EDIT:

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Not any more than an advertising billboard takes away my freedom to make my own purchasing choices. Parents are a strong influence, yes, but in the end they generally don't decide the kid's future for him or her."

Could you articulate the difference between what you mean by "strong influence," and the idea of parents having "controlling influence" over their kid's future?

---

Quote :

"LoneSnark: Track down and utilize tax loopholes."

What's your definition of freedom?

---

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: I get bored of listening to people repeat the ideas of famous philosophers n shit."

Oh?

Leave the Soap Box and never have another discussion about an abstract idea with anyone about anything ever again.

The fact that others here can name the people from whom many of the ideas that are repeated doesn't in any way devalue their contributions to the discussion. I'd imagine it'd be more interesting to you to learn where the ideas around you came from, not less. Try doing some research and informing yourself sometime, you might not feel so bored so often.

I don't know what this obsession is with the name dropping capacities of others. We're not discussing them. We're discussing ideas.

So, you don't know who Santayana is, big deal. Haven't read any Marx, or Nietzsche before? So what? Spinoza means as much to you as transubstantiation does to me? *shrug*

Doesn't matter. What matters is this:

Can you present a cogent argument representing a tenable philosophical viewpoint?

---

Quote :

"bgmims: Now, I can see an argument that the children aren't free, but unfortunately we have to give them to the age of 18 (or earlier if they gain emancipation) before they really can exercise their freedom of choice."

So freedom then, includes the freedom to involuntarily enter your offspring into a system of non-freedom?

[Edited on August 24, 2006 at 11:09 AM. Reason : .]

8/24/2006 11:07:16 AM

Sigh, I'm just waiting for the day...

Son, eat your vegetables!
Quit involuntarily entering me into a system of non-freedom dad!

8/24/2006 11:19:18 AM

Isn't that ostensibly what a child is saying when they refuse to eat their vegetables?

8/24/2006 11:21:32 AM

Yeah, but I'm not going to argue about how telling them to eat vegetables is morally wrong now am I?

I guess it all boils down to this. You can either:

1) Have problems with parents raising their child the way they want to in the name of "freedom" for the child
or
2) You can have problems with the limitation of freedom on parents to raise their own children the way they see fit

Since kids learn the responsibilities and consequences of real freedom little by little I'll chose to side with letting parents have freedom to raise their kids the way they want to.

[Edited on August 24, 2006 at 11:30 AM. Reason : -]

8/24/2006 11:23:42 AM

Quote :

"5)What ways are the most effective for oppressed people to obtain freedom? Grumpy: Grassroots political activism followed by bloody revolution, and yes, I'm serious." Gamecat: I can't argue that there's a more common way, that's for sure"

The most common way is actually America or Britain forcing people to adopt the idea in one way or another.

8/24/2006 11:25:29 AM

Of course not.

But then, it does put us into a grey area.

Does having true freedom necessitate that one have the freedom to involuntarily enter others into a system of non-freedom or less freedom?

---

Quote :

"Clear5: The most common way is actually America or Britain forcing people to adopt the idea in one way or another."

What are your examples?

[Edited on August 24, 2006 at 11:28 AM. Reason : .]

8/24/2006 11:27:28 AM

Well, I say the gray area becomes that much more black and white when you consider that parents are legally held accountable for the actions of their children until they reach a certain age.

If my kid keys the neighborhood cars every time he goes outside I'm going to restrict their freedom to go outside.

Quote :

"Does having true freedom necessitate that one have the freedom to involuntarily enter others into a system of non-freedom or less freedom?"

Only in the case of guardian - child. This definitely doesn't exist in the plane of one adult to another. Unless you are the government and decide to involuntarily enter me into the system of non-freedom tax paying. I guess I could always leave the US and stop enjoying the benefits that tax $texas provides

[Edited on August 24, 2006 at 11:39 AM. Reason : o]

8/24/2006 11:34:25 AM

Quote :

"What are your examples?"

Germany
Austria
Italy
Japan
South Korea
Hong Kong
Singapore
Canada
Austrailia
Chile
India

as a short list

8/24/2006 11:38:04 AM

And before the US or Britain came, they had not adopted an idea of freedom?

8/24/2006 11:38:47 AM

I know you're not writing a paper, Gamecat. You just presented it in such a way as looked like a paper topic, and we've seen people try to get us to do their homework before.

Quote :

"What if it restricts the freedom or health of others by their own volition?"

In my original draft of that post I addressed this but decided against it for reasons I no longer recall. Of course a free person has the freedom to limit his own freedom ( ) in various ways, including agreeing to let someone else limit it (assuming of course that they are of sound mind to make this decision and do so without having been coerced). From all this you get contracts and ultimately government.

Quote :

""OH YEAH WAHT ABOUT TEH MARIJUANA AND AB0RTI0NZ?""

The short version is that the only reason people oppose abortions is precisely because they don't think that the fetus or what have you is "yourself or the fruit of your labor," but rather a completely different person. Thus we aren't telling you what to do with your body, but what you can't do to somebody else's.

Drugs in general get into the outer theoretical fringes where one could argue that, at least in some cases, they are such an intractable part of harming people other than the user that they are not purely victimless.

Of course you already knew how I was going to answer both questions, but I can understand wanting to get it out there.

Quote :

"Do you think these bastard children, like the one you mentioned, can evolve into a culture's definition? "

Sure. But of course, whatever they're after is no longer freedom, but something that they have tried to stuff into freedom's pants.

Quote :

"Also, what leads you to say that some don't really want the broader freedom?"

Perhaps I misspoke. It isn't that they don't want it, it's that they don't want it as much as they want something else. I'm sure most sane people, given the choice, would want themselves to be as free as possible. But when that doesn't appear as likely as, say, getting murdered, sometimes they start wanting freedom from that fear more.

Quote :

"Examples?"

Well, I'm assuming that the underlying cases that you're thinking about are Iraq and Afghanistan, which colors the argument as being more specifically about country A transposing its idea of freedom on country B with cannon and shell. The first things that came to mind were in Central and South America, among indigenous people who had a very limited experience with and thus understanding of freedom, and who nonetheless adopted (along with other classes in the region) a very French idea of it during the early part of the 19th Century.

Arguably the Americans at least partially imposed their brand of freedom on the Japanese at the close of WWII through their restructured constitution.

Hell, the Union and the Confederacy obviously had very different ideas of freedom, and a few backwards holdouts notwithstanding I think the North pretty well transposed its ideas onto us. People still hoot and holler about states' rights, but not in the way they used to.

Quote :

"Must the oppressed attack the oppressors directly? "

My choice of words was abominably poor. I didn't mean to say that the formula was political activism proceded by revolution. I meant to say that nowadays political activism is the most common way, followed by bloody revolution in second place.

Quote :

"Could you articulate the difference between what you mean by "strong influence," and the idea of parents having "controlling influence" over their kid's future? "

Controlling influence is a joke. If we are creatures of free will then we can resist any mere influence that we so choose (I picked my words very carefully there to guard against certain counters that might be made in other areas). A parent that is operating within the normal boundaries for how a parent should act provides an influence, sure, but not an irresistable one.

Quote :

"Son, eat your vegetables! Quit involuntarily entering me into a system of non-freedom dad!"

The day my kids can start coherently arguing about how I'm limiting their freedom in a certain policy, I will start retracting those policies. Being able to lucidly defend your freedom is a sign of the age of reason and I will treat you accordingly.

Of course, most arguments that kids use to try to look like defenses of freedom just show how far they are from that stage.

8/24/2006 12:07:14 PM

Germany had lots of freedom in my opinion before WW2, during the Weimar Republic. The economy sucked, but Berlin was the epitome of free speech and artistic expression during the 20s.

Generally defined, I think freedom is the allowance of free movement and expression of a populace while keeping an ear to the popular desires of said populace and balancing that with practicality. People might all desire to drive school buses to work everyday, but its completely unpractical for the populace. I think sometimes my pragmatism takes a greater place over my desire for the all-out freedom to do anything.

[Edited on August 24, 2006 at 12:14 PM. Reason : .]

8/24/2006 12:11:42 PM

this might be extremely fundamental but I was just discussing this with someone today...

Person A suggested that SUV's be banned from the United States for reasons such as safety of other drivers, emisions, amount of gas used, ect. The person he was suggesting this to (person B) was amazed that someone would want such a freedom, such as driving an SUV, taken from them. Person B supports weed being illegal. Person A points out that these two topics are extremely similar and that denying ones right to an SUV is no different than denying the use of pot.

ones persons freedom is very different than anothers. And to go back to what I was talking about in the other thread...this is why the war in the middle east is beyond fucked forever.

8/24/2006 12:11:48 PM

Quote :

"Berlin was the epitome of free speech and artistic expression during the 20s."

But a lot of those people were using their freedom of speech and artistic expression to espouse ideas opposed to the classical liberal definition of freedom (the one I agree with, and the only one in this thread so far) If anything that is why the setting was so vibrant.

It wasnt until after the war that most Germans were content to live with that freedom.

[Edited on August 24, 2006 at 12:26 PM. Reason : ]

8/24/2006 12:25:31 PM

if someone wishes to expose such ideas, they can. its when it takes over that its dangerous, so yes, it led to something that was anti-freedom, but the presence of such ideas in itself w/o popular support still fostered and allowed for free expression.

8/24/2006 12:27:21 PM

^^^ That's exactly why I made the thread.

All arguments over the Iraq War are arguments about the definition of freedom.

[Edited on August 24, 2006 at 12:30 PM. Reason : .]

8/24/2006 12:29:38 PM

Should we invade Ave Maria, Fla.? No, but we should embargo it

8/24/2006 12:30:55 PM

Quote :

"And before the US or Britain came, they had not adopted an idea of freedom?"

Not really.

In most places you either had to go along with the facism du'jour, or had to either be born into or buy your way into nobility/a higher caste.

I think the current Anglo-Yankee view of "freedom" is the world's saving grace. Maybe that's a dangerous notion, but that's what i think. That view seems tp have descended from the Greco-Roman views on democracy. The English inherited it by virtue of Roman conquest of Europe, and India inherited it from the English by a similar conquest.

Note, while the Vandals from Jutland sacked Rome and burned it, the Gujaratis will conquer London by virtue of leveraged buyouts -- just kidding.

The next best thing is the Neo-confucian Meritocracy that the world calls "Chinese Communism". Maoism was an unfortunate anomally that was a bad fit for any population, which China seems to be growing away from rapidly.

8/24/2006 12:33:05 PM

Quote :

"ssjamind: The next best thing is the Neo-confucian Meritocracy that the world calls "Chinese Communism"."

What's this?

8/24/2006 12:43:09 PM

Quote :

"if someone wishes to expose such ideas, they can. its when it takes over that its dangerous, so yes, it led to something that was anti-freedom, but the presence of such ideas in itself w/o popular support still fostered and allowed for free expression."

Wwhat if people are living in a free society but those anti-freedom ideas start to become popular, should the government restrict their speech?

8/24/2006 12:43:11 PM

Communism is a western concept that China unfortunatley got swept up in. Maosim/Marxism was an unfortunate anomally that China will soon grow out of. While it may not completely decentralize, it will not be what we call a "communist state" much longer.

That's just my amateur (albiet bold) opinion, and i just made up that term "Neo-Confucian Meritocracy". If you deconstruct it, you'll see where I'm coming from.

8/24/2006 12:51:47 PM

Freedom is one of those things that is easier identified by what it is NOT rather than by what it is.

8/24/2006 1:22:14 PM

Freedom is obscene.

Quote :

"ssjamind: i just made up that term "Neo-Confucian Meritocracy". If you deconstruct it, you'll see where I'm coming from."

I'd rather you deconstruct it for us. It's your idea. I'd rather you explain it.

[Edited on August 24, 2006 at 2:21 PM. Reason : .]

8/24/2006 2:21:10 PM