Liberty

Liberty (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

NorthernGent -> Liberty (4/14/2007 3:06:11 AM)
What is freedom? How is it best achieved? Feel free to discuss.

darkinshadows -> RE: Liberty (4/14/2007 3:32:17 AM)
There is no freedom until death. (oh god and it is a saturday morning) Peace and Rapture

NorthernGent -> RE: Liberty (4/14/2007 3:44:09 AM)
I don't see why a message board should be a society for the living, if the dead want in - fair enough....... Go on then, in what way are the dead free (and why can't the living achieve this freedom)?

ScooterTrash -> RE: Liberty (4/14/2007 4:15:30 AM)
Providing the choices are within legal limits, freedom is the luxury to make decisions that affect you, without negative repercussions from others. You may choose your occupation, your relationships, whether to own a car or not and what brand to buy, what to eat, what to wear, what to do today...etc. If you make poor decisions...oh well...you are where you are because you chose to go there, no one else is to blame. So the short answer may be; freedom may actually be that you have the choice to make decisions that pertain to ones self. I can't imagine not having this, although many in this world don't. Other than that, Liberty is where I live...lol.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Liberty (4/14/2007 4:20:37 AM)
One thing is for sure, the freedom of the masses to indulge in consumerism up to and beyond the eyeballs if they so wish should not be curtailed by hard line lefties like er er er er just cant name any at the moment.

NorthernGent -> RE: Liberty (4/14/2007 5:24:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash Providing the choices are within legal limits, freedom is the luxury to make decisions that affect you, without negative repercussions from others. Is freedom necessarily an ability to choose? I'm not convinced, Scooter. This appears to be a narrow version of freedom that can be influenced by external factors such as advertising, availability of items, price of the items etc. Ultimately, these factors are controlled by external forces and we grant power to the authors of these factors. In other words, this type of freedom is defined and constrained by consumerism. Where however, freedom is considered to be self-realisation, self-possession and a state of being, then the individual has full control, and, in my book, these factors underpin freedom. In a nutshell, this is where I'm coming from (feel free to point out where you disagree): I would say choice/actions/decisions are a result of thought. If there are constraints on your thought, does it necessarily follow that there are constraints on your choice, and by extension your freedom? I would argue that free thought is a better measure of freedom than freedom to choose. Edited to add: is there a case to be put forward that choice is akin to freedom?

Dtesmoac -> RE: Liberty (4/14/2007 6:32:15 AM)
I would argue that free thought is a better measure of freedom than freedom to choose. Freedom is having acces to information (fredom of experssion) without restraint that allows you to make make your own mind (freedom of thought) up based on access to all informaton and then choose to act (freedom of choice) in a way that you wish.......... ....which does not restrict others abilities to have the same freedoms. ....... (freedom from harm) .... and to expect and welcome that others will criticise, mock, laugh, belittle your views, choices and behaviours........ (freedom for all) ....but they are not free to physically damage you, affect you or hurt you..... ....mentally, physically, spiritually.........and you always have the freedom not to listen to them. Freedom does not include gaining at the expense of others, because that violates their freedom............. ooooops there goes the world...LOL

Sanity -> RE: Liberty (4/14/2007 6:49:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Is freedom necessarily an ability to choose? I'm not convinced, Scooter. This appears to be a narrow version of freedom that can be influenced by external factors such as advertising, availability of items, price of the items etc. Ultimately, these factors are controlled by external forces and we grant power to the authors of these factors. In other words, this type of freedom is defined and constrained by consumerism. Where however, freedom is considered to be self-realisation, self-possession and a state of being, then the individual has full control, and, in my book, these factors underpin freedom. In a nutshell, this is where I'm coming from (feel free to point out where you disagree): I would say choice/actions/decisions are a result of thought. If there are constraints on your thought, does it necessarily follow that there are constraints on your choice, and by extension your freedom? I would argue that free thought is a better measure of freedom than freedom to choose. Edited to add: is there a case to be put forward that choice is akin to freedom? 'Free thought' isn't 'better' Exterior forces molded and guided your mind, and so your thinking belongs to them

NorthernGent -> RE: Liberty (4/14/2007 7:04:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Is freedom necessarily an ability to choose? I'm not convinced, Scooter. This appears to be a narrow version of freedom that can be influenced by external factors such as advertising, availability of items, price of the items etc. Ultimately, these factors are controlled by external forces and we grant power to the authors of these factors. In other words, this type of freedom is defined and constrained by consumerism. Where however, freedom is considered to be self-realisation, self-possession and a state of being, then the individual has full control, and, in my book, these factors underpin freedom. In a nutshell, this is where I'm coming from (feel free to point out where you disagree): I would say choice/actions/decisions are a result of thought. If there are constraints on your thought, does it necessarily follow that there are constraints on your choice, and by extension your freedom? I would argue that free thought is a better measure of freedom than freedom to choose. Edited to add: is there a case to be put forward that choice is akin to freedom? 'Free thought' isn't 'better' Exterior forces molded and guided your mind, and so your thinking belongs to them What are these forces, when did they mold my mind, and how did they do it? Are you immune to these forces? has your mind been molded too?

NorthernGent -> RE: Liberty (4/14/2007 7:47:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac Freedom is having acces to information (fredom of experssion) without restraint that allows you to make make your own mind (freedom of thought) up based on access to all informaton and then choose to act (freedom of choice) in a way that you wish.......... I would argue that information supports freedom only where the person has the self-realisation to decipher and use the information in the interests of that person's freedom. For example, we are all free to obtain the information relating to detention without a trial laws, but we're not all free to understand its obstruction of civil liberties, and in particular the obstruction of that person's freedom. The nature of deciphering information and the nature of choice are dependent on freedom of thought. quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac .... and to expect and welcome that others will criticise, mock, laugh, belittle your views, choices and behaviours........ (freedom for all) ....but they are not free to physically damage you, affect you or hurt you..... ....mentally, physically, spiritually.........and you always have the freedom not to listen to them. Agreed, freedom is not akin to the surpression of ideas, however ridiculous they may be. quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac Freedom does not include gaining at the expense of others, because that violates their freedom............. ooooops there goes the world...LOL True enough.....corporations gaining through backhanded deals at the expense of society (e.g. Murdoch not being referred to the Competitions Commission despite being in breach of regulations, in return for spewing government propaganda) is violating the civil liberty of representation. You and I, Dtesmoac - kindred spirits ;-)

luckydog1 -> RE: Liberty (4/14/2007 9:59:50 AM)
. Is it possible in any way to have a mind free of outside influences, No. Simply the act of learning a language shapes our mind. Fixed external realities, ie gravity, hunger shape our mind. The culture of our parents( whether we reject it later or accept it). As well as the choices we make every moment of our lives. All minds are molded by externals. To have an unmolded mind would be a less than feral human( feral humans at least lived in communities and had a rudimentary sense of social molding). So every mind is molded, that is simply a fact. Since every mind is molded there is no such thing as freedom by NGs definition, yet in his political appeals he constantly cites the need for freedom. What he refers to as "freedom" means more akin to correct thinking. There is a huge level of arrogance in it also. Others are brianwashed robots , but and those in agreement see the truth. But based on what? The correct left wing ideology? You want a politics to controll and change my mind? You don't know my world , nor what inputs my thinking has had. I certianly would never pretend that anything pre1950 does not matter, to me anyone who would say that is utterly clueless about the forces in the world. In the grand sense no one is free, yet there are concrete freedoms we have, that are important. To confuse the 2 is sort of meaningless, unlesx it is in furtherance of hte general cry of totalitarians through history, " Give me Power and I will <vuage good thing that means something different to everyone>".

NorthernGent -> RE: Liberty (4/14/2007 10:44:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 So every mind is molded, that is simply a fact. Influenced would be a more appropriate word, and there are levels of influence. For example, is your mind as influenced as one of Pol Pot's foot soldiers who murdered the middle classes? There are varying degrees of influence. Some people are more influenced by the superficial than others. Some are more willing to take a look inside themselves and understand themselves as a human being than others. quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Since every mind is molded there is no such thing as freedom by NGs definition, yet in his political appeals he constantly cites the need for freedom. What he refers to as "freedom" means more akin to correct thinking. There is a huge level of arrogance in it also. Seeing as you're so adamant in these accusations, you'll be able to point to one of my posts where I've suggested freedom = correct thinking. Now's your chance, or are you just accusations and nothing of much substance? quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 You don't know my world , nor what inputs my thinking has had. I'm not interested in your world, and I have no idea why you would think such. Can you quote a part of any of my posts where I said I'm remotely interested in anything you do? This discussion is simply about ideas. Put your ideas up instead of retreating into defensive mode. quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 I certianly would never pretend that anything pre1950 does not matter, to me anyone who would say that is utterly clueless about the forces in the world. Are you suggesting I did? Can you post where I suggested anything before 1950 doesn't matter? quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 In the grand sense no one is free, yet there are concrete freedoms we have, that are important. If a person is concerned about the outside forces that influence him/her - for example, the media, government, the financial markets, and corporations - then, it is possible to investigate, understand what they are about and gauge their impact on your civil liberties. More knowledge = more freedom, the more a person understands, the more that person can make the right decision for him/her. There are levels of knowledge and levels of freedom. Here's a question: what are these "concrete freedoms" you talk of (in the context of the OP: what is freedom)? You're all for being obnoxious, but you never nail your own colours to the mast. Here's your chance, or will you go missing in action like you did on Firmhand's thread, you bowled in with a post, took a few hits and were never seen again. Get some meat on the bones of your point of view if you want to be taken seriously. quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 To confuse the 2 is sort of meaningless, unlesx it is in furtherance of hte general cry of totalitarians through history, " Give me Power and I will <vuage good thing that means something different to everyone>". I agree, totalitarianism is not freedom, I've never said it was. What I also say is your government and military invading Iraq is denying people their liberty - their chance to determine their own lives - do you think your government denies people their freedom? This is the question you really need to answer: 1) Totalitarian regimes use violence to supress ideas, both home and abroad. The aim is to maintain power. 2) The US government uses armed violence (or installs regimes who use armed violence) in Iraq, Nicaragua, Venezuala, Brazil, Iran and more. They also pass laws in the US to reduce the potential of mass protest e.g. Patriot Act etc. The aim is to maintain power through economic gain and suppressing disobedience. Thus: a) Can you point out the difference? b) If there is no difference, does this mean you have the same disdain for the US government as you do totalitarian regimes? Edited for spelling

Vendaval -> RE: Liberty (4/14/2007 11:34:43 AM)
Great question for a Saturday, Northern Gent. I was thinking about "liberty" as an abstract concept and as a political goal. Most likely someone here with more knowledge of the Greek and Roman philosophers can share about freedom and liberty in those cultures and times. The era when the French and American revolutions happened were times when the ideal of liberty was put forth as a national goal. IMHO, it seems that freedom implies a release from the control of outside powers. And that liberty is more of an individual or group goal. The way these concepts are interpreted by an individual will be shaped both by their culture and their individual experiences. Liberty and freedom to a tribal culture would most likely mean being able maintaining their traditional way of life and adapting any modern innovations if they suit the larger ethos of the tribe. As an example, modern tools and transportation. Liberty and freedom in a More Developed Country is frequently thought of as access to information and making personal choices. I have a birthday lunch to attend so must make this short, will be back later with more ponderings. Good day to you all. [:)] Vendaval

darkinshadows -> RE: Liberty (4/14/2007 11:38:01 AM)
Because the moment we are born, we lose freedom. Even those in the womb, have no freedom - choices are made for them. When we die, then that is that. Unless you have a faith, then of course, you are then 'free' with your chosen creator - whoever or whatever that may be. Although, technically, even when we are dead, we lose our rights. It just doesn't really matter to the dead, only the living. There is a lyric by Smashing Pumpkins* that goes -* quote: "I sensed my loss Before I even learned to talk..." That about sums it up. Peace and Rapture

Real0ne -> RE: Liberty (4/14/2007 11:38:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent What is freedom? How is it best achieved? Feel free to discuss. quote: Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition)It is the supreme power by which any citizen is governed and is the person or body of persons in the state to whom there is politically no superior. The necessary existence of the state and that right and power which necessarily follow is "sovereignty." By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern. The word which by itself comes nearest to being the definition of "sovereignty" is will or volition as applied to political affairs. in a word? Personal Sovereignty. Such that it does not violate anothers Personal Sovereignty. Now before everyone starts beating their chest and shouting what about a caligula in the crowd, pay attention to the second part of that statement: Such that it does not violate anothers Personal Sovereignty. What did i just describe? Obviously the exact same way the usa is set up. Such that there are sovereign states under a central arbitor, which was the original intention, not under a federalist nationalism and all the other ism's that we are not supposed to be. (and a central arbitor is not a law maker but a system of checks and balances set up to maintain, insure and gaurantee our personal sovereignity throughout the legal process of developing those boundaries between your sovereign and mine etc) Whats the advantage? Here is a very simple one. The freedom to self perscibe, i have been doing it ever since the internet, obviously not through the us because you need a license to take a drug here, permission from a doctor, a middle man to pay. You NG would be able to legally purchase a gun by just walking into a store and buying it without "asking" for permission. If you use that gun to criminally violate another sovereignity then you lose that right. There is no place for preemptive government in a land of sovereigns. So the same for people, as it is in the union of the united states, such that you do not see wisconsin blowing the hell out of illinios or any other state. The union of states viz the union of sovereigns. Thus a sovereign is innocent until proven guilty rather than take it all away so no one is capable of being guilty mentality. oh yeh personal sovereignty is that you are a king with 1 subject under you, that is yourself. You have to sovereign supreme authority to govern yourself such that you do not infringe upon anothers sovereignty right to govern their selves. That would include the being subject to "Lawfull" supreme Laws as determined by Sovereigns, such as a constitution as we have where the power of governance never leaves the authority of the people. (not the federalism/nationalism etc as it has evolved into here in the us) In short that is liberty!

NorthernGent -> RE: Liberty (4/14/2007 12:24:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne in a word? Personal Sovereignty. Such that it does not violate anothers Personal Sovereignty. Real0ne, You're about to get a left-winger playing the "you're a utopian" card (potentially) - strange world eh. Anyway: 1) Can there ever be a world where everyone respects each others' sovereignty without the need for law? If not, does this require government to make law? If so, by extension, does this defer control to law makers? 2) Is a world without ideals simply meaningless? What I mean here is this: is a world where we simply aspire to the right to privacy worth living?. What about human development? What do you think about the idea of people aspiring to a better world? - a cause that has hope and meaning, rather than a world with no cause where the only aim is to keep people out of your face?

Real0ne -> RE: Liberty (4/14/2007 12:30:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Great question for a Saturday, Northern Gent. I was thinking about "liberty" IMHO, it seems that freedom implies a release from the control of outside powers. And that liberty is more of an individual or group goal. More to ponder on the subject: Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition) LIBERTY. Freedom from restraint. The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. FREEDOM, Liberty; the right to do what is not forbidden by law. Freedom does not preclude the idea of subjection to law; indeed, it presupposes the existence of some legislative provision, the observance of which insures freedom to us, by securing the like observance from others. 2 Har. Cond. L. R. 208. (in my mind this clearly describes a "Sovereign" as i portrayed them a previous post.) When i was a kid we used to say this in school with our hand across our heart every freaking morning. The us pledge of allegience: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. geeeeezuz i am getting old LOL

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Liberty (4/14/2007 12:35:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent What is freedom? How is it best achieved? Feel free to discuss. To speak of freedom from a philosophical viewpoint. Freedom is having the power to make choices regarding those things that you are aware of be that physical or mental. One can't make choices about things that are outside of their known world. So freedom doesn't apply to the unknown. So, it is neither freedom or oppression. Examples: Knowing I could build a garage on my property. I have a choice to build a garage or not build a garage=Freedom. Being restricted from building a garage, even though it is in my power to do, by outside forces is lack of freedom. Joe Blow has 10000 dollars in mattress money, Joe Blow isn't aware of the induced inflationary policies of the Fed. So Joe Blow thinks he's free to do with his money whatever he wants without repurcussion. So, Joe thinks he's free to save value in money. The reality may be different, but Joe thinks it's the truth. So, Joe thinks and therefore he is Free to hold value in Money and values it. He will probably just blame evil businesses for ever rising prices. But Joe thinks he has this power of choice. Absolute freedom is impossible, because the more freedom a single individual experiences the less freedom others experience. Their is a balance in that only freedoms that we all can enjoy should be present. This leads to less "Ideal" freedom but a more equitable freedom. Freedom to make choices, take risks, save, build,acquire, lose, those are the fundamentals. It seems freedom now is painted around the notion of "safety", and risk aversion. So, since I'm aware, that their are choices I could make that are banned by the government, I come to the conclusion that we are not even a pale image of any form of real freedom. I'm not talking of superficial issues, like drug freedom. I'm talking of fundamentals, like owning wealth, property, selecting what I do with that property and wealth. Freedom has been traded a long time ago under the guise of safety and risk control. It's just people aren't "aware" they don't have these options, or benefit from the lack of options.

NorthernGent -> RE: Liberty (4/14/2007 12:46:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne You NG would be able to legally purchase a gun by just walking into a store and buying it without "asking" for permission. If you use that gun to criminally violate another sovereignity then you lose that right. Real0ne, What people need in this world is education, and badly. Not imposed from above. Just the personal responsibility that seems to be handed 'round on this board like white bread. There is obviously something not right with nations that are prepared to kill people thousands of miles away and fabricate evidence to garner support. It's staring people in the face - the only thing that will help the West is personal responsibility - the responsibility to say "that's not right, what is going on, tell you what I'll do a spot of investigating". That's all it takes, because 1 hour of research and it'll be as plain as day. Guns, possessions etc - aren't going to help anyone. The government aren't going to give a flying one if someone is sat in their house with a bazooka as long as you don't go anywhere near them. Anyway, the government aren't even running the show these days - it's the financial markets, multinationals and the media, so you'll have to take them out first and foremost. The problem is that people are drunk on shit items and shit television, and you can't kill everyone, so somehow these people are going to have to educate themselves to help themselves, and we're going full circle here because revolutions are borne out of the premise that he people need to be forced to be free. So, what do you do: 1) Let the people drown in pop idol and hope they get their act together? 2) Fuck 'em, we're taking over and they'll thank us for it later? I'm not giving an opinion on either, just interested in your views.

missturbation -> RE: Liberty (4/14/2007 12:53:49 PM)
Noone has true liberty or freedom!! Name me someone who can do whatever they want, whenever they want. No obligations, no responsibilities? Someone who can live true only to themselves. No compromise?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875