Freedom is a universal want, an uncompromisable idea that truly is still undefined....many cultures have salient differing opinions of what exactly constitutes freedom..many use the constitution as a guideline to outline the freedom they should be afforded, but what exactly is freedom ...and what are our limitations on freedom?
I doubt that freedom is "a universal want". It seems to me that people actually seek constraints to their lives. Political restraints. Religious constraints. Cultural ones. People, it seems to me, define themselves to a large extent by their constraints, not their freedoms.Quote by: Abridge3141
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd - Voltaire
Hmmm..you didn't really answer my question, but it seems true...I doubt highly that individuals consciously seek oppression...but it is quite certain that when people feel that their freedom is limited to an extent they deem unfair..examples include autocracies and socialism. I myself am not restrained in matters including religion(for I practice no religion) in matters of politics, however none can ever be free from cultural influences.
Socialism is one of those "isms" it seems to me that is in the mind of the beholder. The political/economic system in Denmark, Norway, Canada, and Sweden, for example, would be demonized by some Americans as socialist, but the majority of the people in those countries hold that their "socialism" gives them more real freedom than the unspecified "freedom" mythologized in the US.
For example, I'm a Canadian and because of our health care system I have more freedom to change jobs or start up a small business than most Americans. I never give a thought to health insurance. Yet, some Americans would castigate our health care system as socialism.
Socialism does not necessarily diminish freedom. Indeed, it can enhance it.
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd - Voltaire
Socialism itself is a system in which governmental control can be exercised to an extreme China is one example of this as well as the former USSR. I do concur with your statement as there is already proof to support your claim. I am not sure how well informed you are about the U.S. but such an idea was already proposed and passed but not enacted. Obamacare, as it is named would be quite beneficial to the American people myself included, as I do not have insurance at present. But any act that the people deem too grant the U.S
Government too much power they abhor greatly....which is quite...disturbing. However I do not think we would dub it ......socialism. Socialism is by definition is a theory of government, or economy in which government regulation of goods...however the theory is much more in depth.....and therefore one can logically conclude that Canada is not a socialist country...based on facts Canada(as you already know) is a Democratic Constitutional Monarchy as per the Canadian government site. Canada's System of Government | Canada Site
And freedom is not solely based upon ones culture...you are merely discussing perceptions of freedom and of what freedom is not, not what it is...and by t
speaking of features not belonging to something you cannot infer what it is...you would not speak of a belief by what it is not...it just seems as though the question is being avoided as to not answer the question......however freedom bestows the freedom of speech, which includes silence.
Freedom is the feeling of having a choice. It is a subjective assessment and is personal. Freedom is fragile as a conniving Bernie Madoff can turn a free choice into a manipulated farce. Freedom as the feeling derives from the perception of a level playing field. Of course this is advantages by far more than the con artist or cheat. If the illusion can be conferred on a crowd then even our honorable politicians might be tempted to employ freedom to vie for votes.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
It's not that I'm avoiding the question, at all. The issue confronting me is what is meant by "freedom". It's one of those words that, while apparently potent and filled with meaning and consequence, seems to have, under close examination, very little meaning at all in real life.
In Me and Bobby Mcgee, Kris Kristoferson wrote, "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose."
Of course, in discussing physical, economic, and political freedom the extremes can be invoked: the accused in solitary confinement at Guantanamo, an heir to the Walton fortune. The former has no freedom, the latter the most a state or society allows or tolerates. But the latter for all their freedom can't visit an out of the way restaurant without a body guard, perhaps, or lacks the freedom to live in a neighborhood of average people. Nor does the heir to the Walton fortune have the "freedom" to trust the word of strangers to much extent.
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd - Voltaire
The limitations are quite ostensible...however I wish to ,as apart of this rebuttal, to state that we as man have utter free will. That is saying that we in each and every situation have a choice...now people are often manipulated in some way or form to fulfill another's selfish wants. Freedom....is absolute, we always can choose a choice, the only reason a man can be controlled is because of fear l, or the optimal choices..freedom is a constant that can never be surmounted.
Absolute? Now you're off in la la land. But maybe I'm hasty. Is choice a good thing, absolutely? In the novel and movie, Sophie's Choice, how is Sophie's choice, to choose one or the other of her children for death or both for death by not choosing, an absolute choice that is demonstrably a free choice demonstrating your brand of freedom?
A "Sophie's Choice" is a tragic choice between two unbearable options.
...her deepest, darkest secret: on the night that she arrived at Auschwitz, a sadistic doctor made her choose which of her two children would die immediately by gassing and which would continue to live, albeit in the camp. Of her two children, Sophie chose to sacrifice her seven-year-old daughter, Eva, in a heart-rending decision that has left her in mourning and filled with a guilt that she cannot overcome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie's_Choice_(novel)
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
You are all correct because "freedom" is a concept that can only be defined by the individual. My definition of "freedom" would be the absence of any and all restrictions up to the point that my actions cause harm to another person.
Many would disagree with that and state that any action that has the "potential" to harm another should also be restricted.
To a politician who is supported by corporate America, "freedom" means the unrestricted ability to generate profit by any and all means necessary regardless of the cost to people and the environment. I don't care much for their definition.
President Lincoln said quite eloquently in regards to slavery:
“The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty…”-Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865. Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 7.
This is a notion that many have, but I wonder just how true it is. I wonder if you could clarify what you mean when you say "we in each and every situation have a choice" by using some specific examples.
For example, if someone commits a crime and is sentenced to prison, can they choose not to go? Clearly not. How about a child, for example, doing forced labor in a Chinese factory building iPhones? How would you characterize their "free will" and capacity to make choices?
I'm not disagreeing with what you're arguing, I'm just not sure what your argument is precisely. There's an ambiguity in the concepts you're using, I suggest.
Last edited by barts; 23rd October 2011 at 05:10 PM.
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd - Voltaire
In both those cases who is to decide what constitutes "harm?" You? Me? A machine? Charity might be considered a harm in the long run if fostering an unconditional reliance on charity.
Don't tell me that corporations are allowed to cater to the needs and desires of consumers? The cads! Such heinous harm indulging consumers the product of their choice. Off with their heads.To a politician who is supported by corporate America, "freedom" means the unrestricted ability to generate profit by any and all means necessary regardless of the cost to people and the environment. I don't care much for their definition.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks