Defining Freedom

Belinda,
You may see utter cynicism...I call it being realistic. Im not saying there isnt good in people. I like to celebrate the beauty in life as well..mercy and so forth...but to say that mankind can figure out how to create a utopian existence is nonsense. There will always...ALWAYS, be people who are just evil.

Strange that you react like this to the obviously wise judgement. The societies were established for the sole reason of mutual protection, and at the very beginning were suggesting some form of power, ruling them. Who needs to live in a society which cannot protect you? Then one can as well go on their own! This is exactly why the chieftains, and then Kings appeared. I strongly suggest you to familiarise yourself with Friedrich Engels' important work "The origins of Family, Private Property and State". It is written for those fluent with 3R, no more - quite elaborate and easy-to-read language, well-performed reasoning, good factual substantiation.

Many tribes did not have rulers at all and elected leaders, not rulers and would un-elect them. The Poles elected their Kings but did not put them up as rulers who could make the law on their own whim.

The fathers of Anarchism, Bakunin and count Kropotkin, were theorists, not the practical Anarchists. A relaxed gentleman dives into some social fantasies, supported by a flute of Veuve Cliquot, supplied by the labour of the slave peasants... Real-life practical Anarchism we know 3 of - Russian Navy of 1916-1918, the 2-million strong gang of Nestor Makhno in Ukraine and Che Gevara. All collapsed, being unable to organise themselves well enough to withstand the pressure of an organised force. This trippled historical failure must be sufficient for a thinking human to understand that there is no such thing as Anarchism.

Anarchism is an ideal and so cannot be made non-existent.

The premature failure of faulty implementations does not bode ill for Anarchism just as the failures of democracy from the inability to organize itself against organized resistance in many places throughout the world does not signal the non-existence of democracy.

There will always...ALWAYS, be people who are just evil.

Yes, but that does not mean we should let them have the reins of power. There is nothing wise about concentrating power so that evil lunatics can get hold of it and wreak havoc.

I like the article's definition of freedom as far as it goes; it is the sort of definition a government should use. On a personal level it's much more complicated, and comes out to something more like being what you want to be. So it's different for different people.

Let Freedom ring

Yes for the most part think that freedom is the ability to do what we want as long as it does not harm people.The problem is deciding what is harmful to people.

An example is the slavery and segragation system that once existed (exists) in the United States.To a southerner who owned slaves it was his right to own slaves because they were not considered human.Even the original constitution said that a slave only constituted 2/3 of a person for the purpose of the census which then controlled the number of congressmen in the government.

Also the segregation system was also condidered the right of all southerners.So from this we can gather that some persons were not condidered worthy of equality or freedom.

This order of government was considered right fair and democratically justified by certain people. It applied the will of the majority upon the minority.

So it seems to me that freedom should be drawn from ethical principles. As far as having the right to do with our bodies of course is the debate over abortion.
Let it be sufficent here to say that the debate exists.

What about the right to commit suicide? This does not seem to be a right in the united states. Is suicide harmful to society?
Admiral Usher

In political philosophy freedom is define as the "right"
to express ours views to others.

I think what you need to do first is to realise exactly who the free are.
The free are the erstwhile controlled latterly out of control.
I think the mistake you have made is in confusing the free with the controlling or incarcerating authority whereas in fact the free are the those released from that authority, often by rabbellion.
So you have what you might call the authoritative circumstance of normal people, authority and the controlled mad. In this (ideal) circumstance nobody is free; freedom does not exist. If this ideal condition is successfully disrupted, the controlled (anti-authoritarian) mad overthrow the authority. The mad are then the free but obviously the mad do not call themselves the mad but the free.
The difference between the free and the not free is that the free call this circumstance freedom, whereas the unliberated call it madness. The unliberated refer to the free as the mad and the mad themselves call themselves the free. So freedom is the mad name for madness as then inevitable consequence of their triumph whist madness is the unfree name for exactly the same disaster from their perspective.
If you realise "freedom" is madness released you can then go on to realise how the mad will organise their affairs when free by self protective measures and subversive principles.
I think the important distinction ing is not to confuse those who would never have been "enslaved", repressed etc with the free from control. Only those whose liberty would be comprimised by authority manufacture the subversive substance of freedom.

"Only those whose liberty would be comprimised by authority manufacture the subversive substance of freedom."

That's all of us, no exceptions. Apathy towards our precious freedoms is dangerous.

Scott, You've stated that a free society is one with an equal distribution of legal rights and in which each and every person has as much legal rights as possible. You also write that in a free society, any one person cannot have so many legal rights that all other people could not logically have the same amounts of rights.
Scott, I recently visited a site discussing BalancedPolitics. Would you please address and express your point of view in the discussion of the rights and freedom for same sex marriages?

If you have not already, check out my definition of freedom: What Freedom Means to Me

What do you think? Do you agree with my definition? Do you support 'freedom' as I have defined it?

Do you think my definition accurate represents what most people mean by 'freedom' in the political sense?

If you disagree with my definition of freedom, how would you define it?

Thanks,
Scott

Definitions of Freedom --
1. Will to negate what 'is.' All other things like rights ,duties ,responsibilities (social ,political, legal etc. )
are the outcome of the process of 'negtation'.
2.Freedom is -Realization of "I".(here also negation is primary. All that which are not 'I' but
attached to 'I ' in terms of 'my' are to be negated to realize 'I'.)' my' always conditions 'I' My implies
acceptance and 'other'. Acceptance of 'other' leads to social,poltical, legal aspects of life and to the
concepts of right ,duty ,obligation,responsibilty etc.
Freedom is --experiencing one self.

How can one identify one 's self? David Hume could not do it!

How can one identify one 's self? David Hume could not do it!

Very simple.Nature of 'self'( ' I') is freedom from..Whatever is 'mine'/'my' detach them and go on experiencing the remaining.My experience in deep sleep is an 'experience of' the 'remaining' and 'free from' whatever is 'other ' . This is simply 'realization' or experiencing 'self'.This state is not knowledge( identifying comes under knowledge.
Hume could not do this because he was trying to 'know' and not to realize.
The method of self realization is not popular in Western Philosophers.
In Indian philosophical schools-it is the ultimate end of philosophy and the method is 'Negation'
Stop knowing everything outside self(empirical)Remaining will happen automatically.
Some ressemblance can be seen in Husserl's phenomenological method.

If Freedom is the exercise of choice then Freedom can be partitioned into three

There is that freedom that results from choices that effects no other (eg what colour shirt am I going to wear or more contentiously what book I will read) these choices and thus such freedom should be unrestricted and absolute.

There are those choices which can but needn't effect others (which political party will I support, What should I be allowed to say) These choices should only be limited in on a case by case basis and only if said choices can be demonstrated to harm others.

There are those choices which will almost inevitably effect others (which side of the road should I drive, should I carry a gun) These choices should be limited unless the person exercising the choice can demonstrate that in any given situation no harm was reasonably possible.

Thus Freedom is not an all or nothing concept but rather a sliding scale which ranges from absolute autonomy to extreme limitation for the greater good and to this end there can be no 'one size fits all' response to choices. Freedom is not good in itself it is however a good which we should have the right to assuming other goods are not infringed.

Democracy?
I won't vote again until there is a single ballot question that asks:
Do you wish to be governed or do you wish to be free?
I will vote again for freedom.

=
MJA

I think freedom 'of or 'to' is beyond human nature. Freedom is always 'from' some 'thing' or 'state'.

But the day is coming K, when freedom becomes our human nature as free as nature is truly meant to be.

=
MJA