How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 What is "Freedom", Really?
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

What is "Freedom", Really?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


0 posted 03-07-2000 11:24 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Hey everyone:

Lately I've been prompted to re-evaluate my thoughts on the subject of freedom (I guess this site is working then, huh?).  I can't put my finger on any one reason why I was prompted to begin thinking about this because, quite honestly, there have been so many reasons that could be considered contributory, ranging from this thread to other websites and then there is "real" life.  Last week I happened upon a website that quoted Martin Luther's treatise on Liberty. After a closer examination I discovered that Luther's quote was lifted from the treatise without paying attention to original context (bad enough that they took a quote out of context ... but Martin Luthers quote!!!).  This inspired me to write my first philosophical sonnet:

Freedom, so many waive your banner high
Proclaiming rightly that no kind of law
Can be imposed on any man – for all
Who disregard another’s will and vie
To bind a man to unjust laws, decry
His liberty and make of him a thrall –
But what if people answer Freedom’s call
With selfless thoughts for no one else but “I”?
“I” cheapens precious freedom’s blood-bought price,
Reduces liberty to unchecked license,
Enslaves the weak to chains of lust and vice,
And is the brand that sears the callous conscience.
I, a freeman and a servant, won't deny
True freedom never finds its rest in “I”.

So, is true freedom simply the ability to make arbitrary choices?  Is it liberty from any supervision or restraint?  What distinguishes true freedom from mere license?  Is there a difference?  Is freedom about "I" or "we" and "our"?

This should be plenty to get us started.  Happy philosophizing!  

Later.

Jim






[This message has been edited by jbouder (edited 04-24-2000).]
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


1 posted 03-08-2000 10:19 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

While I like your sonnet, except for that 'shan't' and agree with much of what you are saying. I'm not sure what you mean by 'true' freedom? Certainly, there is the freedom to do something as well as the freedom from something. There is also the 'free' product.

Freedom for the individual and freedom for the group are very important ideas; are they truly in conflict all the time?

Just one more point: if freedom means you can do what you want but what you want is determined by the unconscious (subliminal advertising only being the most talked about influence there), is that what you would call freedom? The perceptionists would argue yes, I think. The objective reality lovers would argue no, I think. But those objective reality lovers would be hard pressed to define freedom at all, perhaps.


More later,
Brad
Trevor
Senior Member
since 08-12-99
Posts 744
Canada


2 posted 03-09-2000 11:01 AM       View Profile for Trevor   Email Trevor   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Trevor

Hey fellas,

"So, is true freedom simply the ability to make arbitrary choices?  Is it liberty from any supervision or restraint?  What distinguishes true freedom from mere license?  Is there a difference?  Is freedom about "I" or "we" and "our"?"

Now this and Brad's comments:

"Just one more point: if freedom means you can do what you want but what you want is determined by the unconscious (subliminal advertising only being the most talked about influence there), is that what you would call freedom?"

Has gotten me thinking about birth and the environment one is in through important developmental years. If one can not chose their parents nor the environment they grow up in and if environment and genetics play the large roles in making us who we are than how can we say we are free. For example, if one person, raised in poverty and in a crime ridden area has good parents and good genetic dispositions and betters themselves and escapes poverty,etc. Can you actually say they had complete freedom in making their choice or that their influences and genetics largely directed them? And vice-versa, if the person turns out bad? Did Micheal Jordan have a free choice in becoming who he was or did his genetics and environment slide him into basketball? Just like, did I have a real free choice in writing this or was my upbringing, genetics and the influence of Brad's and your words the key factor of me writing this rather than what I percieve to be a conscious thought. Am I simply reacting to an action and percieving it as free will or was I truly free in my decision to write this? Now I guess one could say it has to lie beyond simple reflects because I first form an opinion than act upon that but in my opinions, where does the influence of the subconscious and cumulative experiences and genetics stop and my freedom to form my own original opinions begin? If someone punches me my normal reaction is to immediately strike back, without even thinking about it, so would I be free to hit or not hit back? Regarding the thought process...Is it possible that my reflex is to form an opinion, then express it due to factors beyond my control and it simply "feels" more like freedom because it is a mental reaction rather than a physical one? Or maybe it varies from moment to moment, perhaps on some occasions we are truly "free" and other times we are a prisoner to who we are...much like a mentally disturbed phsychotic killer may not be free to decide if he will or will not kill again but is free to decide the method of execution.

I've always loved the discussion of freedom, it seems to always have so many sub-topics and the corelation between it and other things is emmense. Thanks for the inspiration, I'm sure one day someone might be able to define freedom. Take care,
Trevor


One more thing to add, perhaps freedom is about knowing when we have the ability to choose and when we don't? A mish mash of knowing the truth about not having a choice and having the knowledge of when we can choose. And if freedom is a limited thing due to genetics and evironment than how can one measure how much freedom any single person may have? Freedom is a quantative thing perhaps?
To me freedom is to have the option of laying in bed with a naked Shania Twain and her wanting to do nothing more than, well you get the picture...that's all I need from freedom    



[This message has been edited by Trevor (edited 03-09-2000).]
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


3 posted 03-09-2000 11:33 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Brad:

Glad you liked the sonnet.  I'm wondering how to express a future tense negative promise in some other way than "shan't", though.  Maybe "shall not" and live with the extra syllable, oh well.

Sorry I wasn't clear on what I meant by "true freedom".  Luther discussed two kinds of freedom: (1) true freedom and (2) false freedom.  

True freedom, as he saw it, embraced the seemingly contradictory statements, "A [person] is a perfectly free lord, subject to none" and "A [person] is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all."  Luther based these statements partly on Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all."

False freedom, on the other hand, is self-serving and has no qualms with suppressing the liberty of another in order to express its personal freedom.  "I" is center of false freedom's universe, as Luther explains it.

I'll have to come back to this one later (I'm not forgetting the rest of your questions, Brad, nor am I ignoring you, Trevor).

Jim
Tony Di Bart
Member
since 01-26-2000
Posts 163
Toronto, Canada


4 posted 03-12-2000 05:18 PM       View Profile for Tony Di Bart   Email Tony Di Bart   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tony Di Bart

Hello Gentlemen.  

I just popped in here, as I do from time to time(Freely of my own choice)and zap....I am trapped by the " What is Freedom Really" statement/question.  

Freedom is a state of mind.  Nothing more and nothingless.  A person who is in prison because of their beliefs is far more free than the person on the outside who obeys everyone and cries themselves to sleep e4ach night. As humans living in the physical realm of the universe we will never be free of our bodies and the restrictions they place on our time.  But this does not mean we are not free. It just means we need to do a little maintence that's all.  

If you believe you are free then you are if you do not then you are not.  

That's it that's all.

See you latter

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


5 posted 03-12-2000 05:45 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Toni,
Uhhh, not quite 'that's it, that's all'.  If a person can't eat, are they free? If a person is mentally deranged, are they free? Does a Manson follower who is in jail (in jail for his or her beliefs) actually be free and still retain any semblance of the feeling and/or literal meaning of freedom?

I don't think I'm going that far off of mainstream thought to think these are real issues.

Brad
Tony Di Bart
Member
since 01-26-2000
Posts 163
Toronto, Canada


6 posted 03-12-2000 11:35 PM       View Profile for Tony Di Bart   Email Tony Di Bart   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tony Di Bart

Hey Brad

Now I think you are picking on me. Ok, my statments are a little, simple, plain, etc..

Freedom, is a state of mind.  How and why? Let's look at your example a staving person with no food.  What are they not free from?  What is holding them in bondage? Hunger?  What about Ghandi's hunger strike? How long did he go without food.  He was about to die because of it but he was free from him hunger.

Manson killer.  Yes they are in Jail for murder.  But you are judging waht the beleive. If you did not judge them then maybe you could see how they could actually be free. A deranged lunatic, what is his bondage, and rember, not being free means that you actually have to preceive it-you r bondage.

Talk to you soon.  
Trevor
Senior Member
since 08-12-99
Posts 744
Canada


7 posted 03-13-2000 01:40 AM       View Profile for Trevor   Email Trevor   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Trevor

Hello,

Tony,
Gotta side with Brad on this one. Can't say I'll let you off the hook as well.

"Freedom is a state of mind.  Nothing more and nothingless."

So the slaves were actually free but didn't realize it, all they had to do was think themselves free??? Gosh if only they knew that back then, could'a saved the USA the aggravation of a civil war.   Often that which is a state of mind transpires into a physical world, kinda like a realization of thoughts and just because a person is able to con themselves into thinking they see pink elephants doesn't mean they are actually seeing pink elephants and just because someone may not see pink elephants does not mean they don't exist.

"A person who is in prison because of their beliefs is far more free than the person on the outside who obeys everyone and cries themselves to sleep e4ach night."

Can not a person be trapped by their own beliefs?....what about a religious fanatic who gases a subway station? Is he not a slave to a belief system even if he thinks himself free? What about a person who has no inclination to be a leader and wants to follow? Are they not free to be a conformist?

"As humans living in the physical realm of the universe we will never be free of our bodies and the restrictions they place on our time."

Never say never   I read an article or saw a show or something like that where some scientist claimed to have some DNA code which might be the anatomy clock for the human body. If we can clone sheep, surely one day it is possible that we can build a human whose cellular activity level remains constant...it would just be a matter of making the cells clone themselves exactly without.....ie. currently our bodies clone cells after year X much like dubbing an original tape then dubbing the second tape into a third then the third into a fourth and so on, the quality constantly deteriorates, but it is feasible to say that the human body, with tinkering, could be a machine that produces exact copies with the quality of the original...well in theory it sounds possible  

"But this does not mean we are not free."

But to say that we are not free means that you must know exactly what freedom is and I don't think you or anyone has ever sufficiently defined it. Yes, maybe it is a state of mind but then again, so is happiness and so is sadness but are they just states of mind? And if it is just a state of mind, who can honestly say they control all their thoughts? And if we can not control all our thoughts can we say we are free even in a state of mind type of way? Perhaps freedom is a theory that has yet to be proven?

"But this does not mean we are not free."

It also does not mean we are free as well.

"If you believe you are free then you are if you do not then you are not."

SO the slaves were actually free, they just didn't realize it. I guess when they were hung for being black they were free? Oh I get it, they were free to be black and hung from a rope. Just a state of mind. Now were the slaves free if they refused to do what was asked and be killed for this refusal? Is that really freedom?

"What is holding them in bondage? Hunger?  What about Ghandi's hunger strike? How long did he go without food."

You forget why he was doing a hunger strike.....freedom....not only his but his people. Obviously the people he was fighting for were not free, did not have control over their lives and without some control over your life you can not feel free, at least not if you are a conscious being. YOu are also forgetting what causes "states of mind" or thoughts, it is the physical world that must exist before a thought, for without stimuli the brain is nothing more than an interesting paper weight or an odd shaped soccer ball. When someone feels enslaved it is usually not because their brain is just telling them that for the sake of it but because stimuli has had an influence on the brain by saying, your wants, desires, needs, etc. can not be fullfilled because of an outside factor thereby giving one a sense of enslavement/imprisonment/helplessness, etc. THerefore freedom can not be just a state of mind and have nothing to do with the physical world because it is the very existence of the physical world which creates a thought. Existence of the world has created most brains to notice the differences of situations and patterns and came to the conclusion that some are free and some aren't.

"Manson killer.  Yes they are in Jail for murder.  But you are judging waht the beleive. If you did not judge them then maybe you could see how they could actually be free."

Isn't saying they are free a judgement as well? If you did not judge them then maybe you could actually see how they are not free. If you are looking at the theory of eliminating opinions thereby causing complete freedom then you've already formed a new opinion. Looks like you're using the Buddhism defense here, I'll try and counter with the Cochrane babble on rebute technique  . If Manson didn't have a belief then perhaps he could see how he is actually imprisoned. Is anyone free to believe what they want if they are constantly being influenced and no matter how hard we try we can not escape influences for we can not totally escape perceptions?

"A deranged lunatic, what is his bondage, and rember, not being free means that you actually have to preceive it-you r bondage."

If someone kidnaps you then restrains you to a post and you can not escape, and they beat you daily until the day you die, are you free if you can convince yourself you are? The body can not function without the mind and the mind can not function without the body therefore nothing that is human can just be a state of mind for all thoughts are based upon the physical world. There is a truth to the physical world, therefore there is a truth to our thoughts for our thoughts can only be based upon our perceptions. And if we percieve a freedom than physically there must be freedom and the same applies for enslavement.
Perhaps you are seperating freedoms into factions,ie. there is freedom of thought and freedom of action. whereas I'm saying it is impossible to really seperate the two and call it a whole. It is a lie to feel free when you are not and a lie to feel trapped when you are free. Would you be free if you thought you could jump ten feet when in fact you can only jump two? Would you be free if you could jump ten feet and but only jumped two because that's all you thought you could do? What is my point, just trying to illustrate how sometimes our thoughts and actions can be inconsequential to the truth.

Anyways Tony...I'm reaaaallly starting to babble on here, it's getting late so I must be off for now but thanks for provoking me to think so much, I don't think I covered much ground, nor do I think I'm right but rather feel like with every page I read two more are written   Take care,
Trevor

[This message has been edited by Trevor (edited 03-13-2000).]
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


8 posted 03-13-2000 02:18 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Trevor,
Damn, you got here first and you pointed out the Buddhist thing as well. Actually, the defense falls apart because the goal of certain sects of Buddhism is not 'freedom' but the elimination of the self alogether.  How is freedom as a term useful when we can no longer discuss the individual or group of individuals as such?

Toni,
Are we ganging up on you? Yeah, probably. Don't take it too seriously though. We're just having fun.  

Brad
Tony Di Bart
Member
since 01-26-2000
Posts 163
Toronto, Canada


9 posted 03-13-2000 07:58 PM       View Profile for Tony Di Bart   Email Tony Di Bart   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tony Di Bart

Hey Gentleman

If I can still call you that after what I have just been subjected to.  No I do not take it personally it's just a dedate and I have no attachment to my argument.  I can just as easily argue the other side.  But Yes it has abeen fun.  I have no time now to reply to both of you, but I'll be back.

See ya
Angel Rand
Member
since 09-04-99
Posts 140
London UK, and Zurich Switzerl


10 posted 04-11-2000 02:08 AM       View Profile for Angel Rand   Email Angel Rand   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Angel Rand

Hi guys! Ltns!
Well could not pass this up LOL.
Trevor you are right. Reality is independent of thought. Our thoughts can only perceive reality but not transform it as such. Only ACTIONS, provoked FROM thoughts can do that
No matter how you try to "think" yourself free, if you are a slave you are lying to yourself. Freedom means to be the master of your own fate. And that includes perceiving the influences of traditions and beliefs you were brought up with. You can only really change anything in life if and when you perceive things as they are. That includes the knowledge where your influences come from and if they are beneficiary to you or not. To perceive them and to judge them bad and still not discard them is making yourself a willing slave to things you do not even believe in. And that is worse than being bodily owned by a master. And yes of course I realise that some ppl might perceive why they are stuck in the same rut and can still not escape due to social circumstances. But I guess there are different degrees of slavery. The one where you have no choice and the one you inflict on yourself. Which is worse? And don't too many ppl just say "I cannot help it, it's beyond my control" as an excuse for not even trying?

"To be free of ones own ego"...
How can that be a worthwhile goal? Who after all would you be freeing if you as a person or ego no longer exist? The only freedom we have (and in fact that is what freedom means to me) is to really perceive nature and reality as is and live accordingly to it. This does not make us slaves. Cause what would be gained by shrugging of reality? Nothingness. Reminds me of a quote: "Nature to be commanded must be obeyed." Happiness, anybody's goal I would venture to assume, is achieved in fulfilling your ego, your nature, not in denying it.


 "I swear -- by my life and by my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
"Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." Ayn Rand


Tara Simms
Senior Member
since 08-12-99
Posts 1285
Honea Path, SC USA


11 posted 04-23-2000 03:15 AM       View Profile for Tara Simms   Email Tara Simms   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Tara Simms's Home Page   View IP for Tara Simms

Freedom is the power to make your own choices.  We all have freedom because we all have choices. The only person that you can control is yourself.  With the ever popular example of the slaves, yes, even they had choices.  They could obey their owners/masters or not.  If they didn't, they would have to pay the consequence, but the choice was theirs.  Just because our options aren't always desirable it doesn't mean that we don't have them.  There isn't a single thing that we HAVE to do.  I don't have to eat, I could choose to starve.  I don't have to bathe, I could choose to smell.  I don't have to go to work, I could live in poverty on the streets.  Granted, the alternate is not a desirable option for me but it is an option nonetheless.  

warmhrt
Senior Member
since 12-18-1999
Posts 1566


12 posted 04-23-2000 12:21 PM       View Profile for warmhrt   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for warmhrt

Besides Jim and Tony, the other guys here give me a bit of an uncomfortable feeling...as though I'm not really welcomed here in 101...has it been some kind of a "boy's club" in the past?

Anyway...I think freedom is very well defined in our Bill of Rights, with the most important being the right to pursue happiness. Then "happiness" must be defined, correct?

Of course this happiness would be meant to be gained within the laws of the land, and wouldn't happiness mean something different to almost every person? So, that would make freedom totally subjective. It also would require a strong ego to be able to achieve happiness/freedom. JMHO, guys, sorry I entered where a female mind is seemingly not acknowledged by some.

Kris  

 the poet's pen...gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name ~ Shakespeare




[This message has been edited by warmhrt (edited 04-23-2000).]
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


13 posted 04-23-2000 09:05 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Kris,
Why do I feel that 'boys' club' point was directed at me (and since it was plural and he's the only other guy who posted on this thread besides Jim and Tony -- Trevor)? Oh yeah, because my name is posted next to this forum. This is definitely not an exclusive club and women are more than welcome to comment on threads and add their own.  Wouldn't mind if a few more dropped in actually. I do think, perhaps, that there is a tinge of masculinity here as I would argue that the Feelings forum probably moves slightly in the other direction.  I don't think this is my fault, just think that is how philosophy as opposed to feelings are generally perceived by people.

It's the old emotions very thoughts arguments and I've debated that dichotomy a number of times before -- don't think you can separate the two.

Anyway, if I've made you feel uncomfortable, I certainly am sorry; it was most definitely not my intention.

Now, on to freedom:

I'm a little confused as to where the two of you are going with this. If freedom is defined by choice then we are all free but is that how people generally mean it? Don't they usually mean that freedom is the ability to make choices without repercussions?  Tara, as you've pointed out, all choices have repercussions, so is the common usage of the term simply an error?

Kris, The Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence are certainly fine documents but I'm not sure they cover the full amount of meaning that most people mean when they say the word 'freedom'.  We now have a freedom or rather a right to privacy which to my knowledge is not in those documents; and yet, most people would agree that it certainly represents a certain 'spirit' of those documents.  I certainly would feel very uncomfortable if everybody agreed on one and only one interpretation.

One more point (and I've said it before): if someone is guided by subliminal forces whether that be 'brainwashing' or one's own culture, does that mean they are in 'control' of themselves?

What exactly is the 'self'?

Brad

warmhrt
Senior Member
since 12-18-1999
Posts 1566


14 posted 04-24-2000 12:05 AM       View Profile for warmhrt   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for warmhrt

Brad,

I said that I felt freedom was totally subjective, and would mean something different to every person, just as happiness would...don't you agree?

The "self" is the entire individual.

Kris

 the poet's pen...gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name ~ Shakespeare
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


15 posted 04-24-2000 11:29 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Hey guys:

I suppose I stayed out of my own thread for long enough.  Kris, you ladies are always welcome to spend time in 101 with the gents ... while Brad looks smashing in a Wookie suit, he really doesn't look so good in a dress ... scarier than a Scottish bagpipe parade on a windy day ... *shiver*.  In short, it is nice to see you lovely ladies in here.

To freedom ... I think it is a mistake to overemphasize personal freedom.  Personal freedom is, I think, an element of universal freedom but it is only an element and should not be confused with freedom as I think the American Founding Fathers understood it.

If you look at the preamble of the U.S. Consitution you will notice that personal, individual freedom is never given the lime-light:  

quote:
"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity ..."


Notice the recurrence of such words as "common", "general", "ourselves and our posterity", and "we".  Ego isn't eliminated from such statements but, rather, equal value is given to every ego.  If more people are able to recognize that the "I" of their neighbors is of equal importance to their own "I's" then I think arguments for rights such as the "right to privacy" become trivial and are exposed for what they really are ... an argument for personal license in spite of potentially far-reaching consequence.

I think the right understanding of freedom recognizes that no man is an island and that every man is equally free.  Brad, when a "right to privacy" is introduced into the Constitution, an alien "Me-ism" worms its way into the popular understanding of freedom and it is reduced to mere license. I think that this introduction actually alters the direction the Founding Fathers were taking in the drafting of the Constitution document.

Always fun in here.  

Jim
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


16 posted 05-04-2000 03:11 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Jim,
We can certainly disagree on the results of such a right to privacy but as a general idea, I see it as an extension of the right to property.

You're certainly not against the right for an individual to own property, now are you Jim?


Brad
Angel Rand
Member
since 09-04-99
Posts 140
London UK, and Zurich Switzerl


17 posted 05-04-2000 05:21 PM       View Profile for Angel Rand   Email Angel Rand   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Angel Rand

LOL Brad!
Your resident capitalist  

 "I swear -- by my life and by my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
"Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." Ayn Rand


jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


18 posted 05-04-2000 08:46 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Brad:

You missed the fact basket with that statement by so much I barely feel as if I should even respond!    

Property rights include the rights to take quiet possession of, to convey, and to encumber real and personal property (I know that there are more rights included in the "bundle of rights" but I can't remember them at the moment).  You can find some or all of these rights spelled out in any number of places including Colonial charters and old legal opinions and papers.  

Reading the Right to Privacy into property rights is a modern phenomenon and, while well meaning, has ended up being more of an excuse for oftentimes dangerous license than for liberty.  I think that overly intrusive laws that accompanied the Second and subsequent Great Awakenings in America should have been attacked not on the basis of a person's right to privacy but, rather, on the basis that they are quite simply bad law.  Certainly, privacy is a much more expedient route to take but applying the band-aid of bad jurisprudence to the gangrene of bad law is not a cure and will only end up resulting in a big, stinky, pussy mess!

Do you still see it as an extension of the right to property, Brad?  I have more if you are not convinced yet.  

Jim
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


19 posted 05-05-2000 11:17 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Jim,
We're arguing two different things here. I'm not suggesting the application of the principle has been correct. I agree that many of those laws should simply have been repealed rather than invalidated by a 'new' principle. You even said it was 'well meaning'.

Angel Rand,
I was wondering if you might show up if I said that. As always, glad to see you here. But, but, golly gee, you don't have to insult me and call me the 'c' word. I'm hurt, really hurt.      

Brad
Angel Rand
Member
since 09-04-99
Posts 140
London UK, and Zurich Switzerl


20 posted 05-06-2000 02:33 PM       View Profile for Angel Rand   Email Angel Rand   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Angel Rand

LOL Brad I know that was too high a praise hehehe .
Actually though I didn't call you that at all. With "YOUR resident capitalist" I meant myself LOL.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


21 posted 05-07-2000 12:05 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

oooops!!!!    

Brad
Forrest Cain
Member
since 04-21-2000
Posts 311
Chas.,W.V. USA


22 posted 05-07-2000 02:11 AM       View Profile for Forrest Cain   Email Forrest Cain   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Forrest Cain

Freedom to be and achieve etc. as
noted in all the above comments. But
their is no such thing as true freedom.
As long as the physical body demands
food, clothing, shelter, saftey,
procreation and of course air and water.
Our behavior will fall along whatever
we have to do to meet these needs. We
hopefully have choices in meeting these
needs. You would be hard pressed to write
poetry if were drowning.   forrest
eMoTiOnS oVerLoAd
Junior Member
since 05-28-2000
Posts 10


23 posted 05-28-2000 03:53 AM       View Profile for eMoTiOnS oVerLoAd   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for eMoTiOnS oVerLoAd

hello...i just finished reading all of your replys on what you feel freedom is. And i would just like to say you all made some very good points. =)
brian madden
Member Elite
since 05-06-2000
Posts 4532
ireland


24 posted 05-28-2000 11:28 AM       View Profile for brian madden   Email brian madden   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for brian madden

What is freedom?

Such a hard question, if you were to gather Freud, Einstein and all the "geniuses" of history together in one room and ask them that question you would get different replies from all of them.

I have not read all of the responses to the question so forgive me if repeat other people's points.

I will start with this statement from 1984 "Slavery is freedom." An oxymoron and an ironic statement of Big Brother's party. In 1984 the government had total control, and had the whole population in slavery yet they allowed the people the illusion of limited freedom. They created general paranoia to stop resistance, the people were aware to a certain extent of their slavery but fear stopped them rebelling. The only people in the book who were actually free were the proles who because they had nothing to loss and no power were free, Big brother was not concerned with them.
I guess my point is that there are certain levels of freedom, mental and physical. Reality is perception and to a certain extent so is freedom. Shawshank redemption is a good example of this. There was character who was freed from the prison and committed suicide because he had become used the prison life and could not cope in the outside world. Though he became physically free in his mind he was still imprisoned.

I reminded of a quote, "sometimes the mind is the smallest prison of all."

In context no one is completely free we are all trapped, chained to certain responsibilities, family, wife, job.  We have certain freedom but maybe our world will become like the false utopia of 1984, where every wrong thought or action is a crime. If you believe that you are free then you are, you build your world. It is what you accept it to be, that is our true freedom. The freedom to have your own thoughts and dreams, the ability to make them come true.


 ------------------------
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? "
Douglas Adams.

"Here chewing your tail is joy"
  
Richey Edwards

"Take nothing but pictures. Leave nothing but footprints. Kill nothing but time".

Baltimore Grotto

"Do not listen to a word I say
Just listen to what I can keep silent"

Nicky Wire



[This message has been edited by brian madden (edited 05-28-2000).]
jbouder will be notified of replies
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> What is "Freedom", Really? Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors