On Defining Freedom

We've had interesting tangents within other threads about how we personally define Freedom, the role that governments and laws play in defining (restricting or protecting) Freedom....and how that plays out on the political stage.

I stumbled on this op-ed and thought it might be a good opening to a debate and/or discussion here. The subtitle starts out harsh and divisive, like most political opinions these days :( but that seems to be what sparks people's passions, too.






Romney’s Definition of Freedom

It’s narrow, selfish, ahistorical, and scary.

By Eliot Spitzer|Posted Monday, April 16, 2012, at 3:02 PM ET


Listening to Mitt Romney’s speech to the NRA last Friday, with its overarching theme of “freedom”—and President Obama’s assault on it—I was drawn to look back to the famous 1941 speech in which President Franklin Roosevelt set forth the “Four Freedoms.” Needless to say, the contrast was stark, and not favorable for Romney.


Perhaps it’s unfair to compare a midcampaign speech to a legendary State of the Union address. But it was Romney, now certain of being the nominee—and inside his Etch A Sketch period when he can redefine himself—who chose “freedom” as the reference point. So the comparison was inevitable and maybe even one the Romney camp wanted.


FDR’s four freedoms—of speech and expression; to worship as one believes; from want; and from fear—set forth the grand shared view of what Americans sought, desired, expected, and could achieve when government and civil society cooperated.


Romney defines freedom in a way that is antithetical to all that FDR believed. Romney’s perspective is so individualistic and devoid of any sense of responsibility for others or a sense of common purpose that I find it hard to believe we have lived through the same crisis over the past several years or the same history since World War II. It is a view of freedom narrowly centered only on the sense that any encroachment by government in our lives is a diminution of freedom—nothing more. Totally absent was the notion that as central to our cause as the ability of individuals to cast off the tethers of others telling us what to do or think is the fact that our accomplishment of grander objectives also requires common purpose and, occasionally shared sacrifice.


Our economic freedom is under assault, Romney says. Argument No. 1 for Romney: Our taxes are too high. In fact, taxes as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest in decades. Argument No. 2: Dodd-Frank. Really? The fact that a few banks that got trillions in government bailout funds and loan guarantees might have to change their grossly overleveraged and taxpayer-backstopped business model is a failure of freedom?


Romney also cited as evidence of our diminished freedom that we used to be able to build the interstate highway system, but now, he claims, we can’t. First, it is Romney and the Republican leadership who have opposed the large infrastructure projects that President Obama has proposed for fiscal and ideological reasons. It is Romney’s big supporter, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who has unilaterally cancelled a major infrastructure investment that was crucial to the Northeast corridor for craven and base political reasons. The will has been lacking for such projects, not the imagination or fiscal capacity. And that void in will has been within Romney’s own party.


Romney also argues that our personal freedom is under assault, and cites the Affordable Care Act, of course. Here is a small story not widely enough known: Mary Brown, who went to court to challenge the bill and whose name was on the litigation that made it all the way to the Supreme Court, claimed at the time she filed the suit, through her attorneys, that she “doesn’t have insurance. She doesn’t want to pay for it. And she doesn’t want the government to tell her she has to have it.” Mary Brown and her husband went bankrupt, leaving behind many debts, including $4,500 in medical bills. She will not pay those bills, but we taxpayers will.


That is exactly why the individual mandate was designed, based on the conservative notion that all people should share in covering their own costs and not leave those costs to taxpayers. The Heritage Society, Newt Gingrich, even Mitt Romney all understood this when not in the vortex of a political campaign.


I will leave alone the obvious pandering Romney felt obliged to participate in about Second Amendment issues in his speech. Apparently Romney is becoming a more significant hunter as the campaign goes on. But I will ask whether the NRA is still convinced that the Stand Your Ground Laws that it has been so instrumental in passing—the laws that are central to the behavior of George Zimmerman in Florida—really comport with anyone’s idea of freedom.


How we define and advance our pursuit of freedom is a central question for American politics. By no means do I feel that FDR’s 71-year-old speech has a monopoly on the answers. But I am equally sure Mitt Romney has yet to grapple with what “freedom” really means and where we have failed over the past decades.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._freedom_.html

********

• 
  

My personal definitions of Freedom aren't based on FDR's ideological speech, but it's impossible to ignore the impact that history has made in shaping my views. (Along with early history of the New World, attitudes toward native inhabitants, land "ownership and acquisition", battles and wars, forming territories, states, a republic, a union, creating new democratic governments and constitutions....)

My definitions of Freedom are relative and contextual. I see the US Constitution as an evolving legal document, designed to express and reflect human progressions over time, with all the disagreements and changes that come with that progress. That's the beauty of it.

That same beauty is found in religious texts that can be interpreted literally or metaphorically, as strict laws or subtle guides, as immutable or constantly evolving....while those different interpretations also mean an inclusive element.

The messy part of defining Freedom is as messy as organized religion or theology, though. It really irks me when others decide who's Christian or Jewish or Muslim "enough", what's orthodoxy or heresy, whom to banish or excommunicate, and what a True Believer should believe. History tells me that's the recipe for extremism, radicalism, and a polarization that fractures humanity instead of bringing us together. It really irks me when others decide who's got the "right" definition of Freedom, and anyone else isn't really a True Believer. Indeed, "those people" are often painted as anti-freedom heretics, SSSocialists or commie pinko liberals who will destroy the very definition of Freedom *cough*, and fundamentally change the principles of the US.

pfft, I don't see how that's anything more than political rhetoric, since the US has always been a nation where disagreement, discourse, negotiation, and eventually compromise is how we've made Freedom work.

Freedom, then?

Alright, I'll give it a stab.

Freedom is the ability of the people to transcend their petty self-centered concerns, and join an organic national collective. A nation brought together by a common cause, their destiny in a universe of nation-states. The exhilarating notion that you along with everyone around you is working towards the grandest goal; that you all share the same fate as well as the same mind.

The freedom of the person to become that which is greater than themselves, the ability to join and feel welcomed in a society of your kind and make. The freedom of the nation, in turn, to pursue his greatest desires, to act without frailty in the face of climactic changes, and the hostility of other nation-states.

The freedom afforded by the guidance from above; the absolution of the worker directing her efforts towards the goals set by her superiors. To be truly free, awash in the radiance of absolute power, that is freedom.

The freedom afforded by the organic community; the communal sense, the belonging, the ability to perceive those who do not belong. True freedom afforded by the structure around and above, that is freedom.

Above all, freedom must mean embracing transcendence. Leaving behind old, petty banalities, and aged moralities preached by decrepit and failed old men. The strength and freedom of a nation lie within her youth, the ability of the nation to come together as one, to act as one body and one mind against all those who would strike against us. By removing from us the burdens now found excessive in our forefathers are we at last able, free, to liberate all the greater angels in our being, to act as the greatest of all generations, the last generation. It is possible to find truth, immutable and perfect, to guide us, and through that guidance alone may we become all that we can be. How can that not be the greatest freedom attainable?

The greatest wish is to ascend from the flesh, and become the embodiment of Will, the denial of limitations and boundaries. All flesh will bow before the Will, and only through aspiring for transcended, unified perfection can we become Will, and in doing so set ourselves utterly and completely free. Without bounds and limitations, acting as the first and last true moral agents, only then do we discover the meaning of true freedom.

I don't quite follow what any of that has to do with how the word freedom has ever been defined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I don't quite follow what any of that has to do with how the word freedom has ever been defined.

---

It has been a couple of years, my memory isn't that great...But it felt like a fun writing exercise :) I don't know how I feel about it.

I'm not saying there's something wrong with the goals you mentioned in that post, but I just fail to see how those goals in any way relate to the word "freedom" in all but an Orwellian sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I'm not saying there's something wrong with the goals you mentioned in that post, but I just fail to see how those goals in any way relate to the word "freedom" in all but an Orwellian sense.

---

Christ, now I don't remember for sure whether I have you beat by some years (I think I do, but some of Orwell was during the Spanish thing); I was paraphrasing what I remember from Doctor Goebbels. Who, above all else, was a fighter for freedom :) But I should read some of those books again. After the GULAG...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

but I just fail to see how those goals in any way relate to the word "freedom" in all but an Orwellian sense.

---

Very much in keeping with the theme of the OP, init?

Not exactly unexpected from Slate, but holy hell. Yet another item in the 1984-as-a-work-of-nonfiction column.

I was going to say that it was more on topic than the first two posts, but I didn't. :o

Freedom defined is freedom denied, catch phrase fans.

Wait... why are you quoting an article from one of the biggest hypocrites in the country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Freedom defined is freedom denied, catch phrase fans.

---

For anyone wondering what the point of the constitution is, now you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Freedom is the ability of the people to transcend their petty self-centered concerns, and join an organic national collective. A nation brought together by a common cause, their destiny in a universe of nation-states. The exhilarating notion that you along with everyone around you is working towards the grandest goal; that you all share the same fate as well as the same mind.

The freedom of the person to become that which is greater than themselves, the ability to join and feel welcomed in a society of your kind and make. The freedom of the nation, in turn, to pursue his greatest desires, to act without frailty in the face of climactic changes, and the hostility of other nation-states.

The freedom afforded by the guidance from above; the absolution of the worker directing her efforts towards the goals set by her superiors. To be truly free, awash in the radiance of absolute power, that is freedom.

---

Thank you for so eloquently describing the freedom liberals believe in.

"Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters."

Lewk will probably blow a fuse if he discovers who said that :)

Freedom didn't apply to people who had money apparently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Thank you for so eloquently describing the freedom liberals believe in.

---

"liberal" now also = "übernationalist" huh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Freedom didn't apply to people who had money apparently.

---

Come on, liberating them of the burden of their worldly possessions? That's like the easiest line.

No but seriously fuck Communism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Freedom defined is freedom denied, catch phrase fans.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

For anyone wondering what the point of the constitution is, now you know.

---

People need to define Freedom, at least to distinguish between its absence or presence. I was interested in how people personally define Freedom....and the role of governments and laws in making that definition, then protecting or restricting certain freedoms. Defining 'Rights' are part of this (civil rights, human rights), but those are also defined by government laws and doctrine.

Some people would say (US) Freedoms (and Rights) are things endowed by our creator and inalienable, as written in legal documents by founding fathers (nice paradox there). The interpretation is that we're born with total freedom, and only government can limit that incrementally, or take it away altogether. It's always a sort of "moving goal post" or "slippery slope".

Ideologically and politically, there's a constant argument between an (A) an over-reaching gov't --- defining too many things as Rights, which restricts other Freedoms by default, and (B) when gov't should step aside and not intervene --- because that can only mean more restrictions on Freedoms. Lately, most of that tug-of-war has been between federal or state legislation and constitutions, and the "small government" people are really advocating for "local government" (whether it's on taxation for public programs, or things like gun control, marriage rights or abortion services). Libertarians are the exception, by challenging local-state laws as ardently as federal ones. They get caught in a WTF dilemma, though, since any grievance against Freedom-limiting laws means using government judiciary and legislative branches.

:bulb:


edit to add: There's also the opinion that whatever private enterprise does, or is able to do, is a good way to define, or at least measure, Freedom. That any time gov't intervenes means interference and restricting Freedoms in private sectors. ie, Employers should have the 'freedom' to hire based on prejudiced and discriminatory race/religion/gender/age attitudes; have the 'freedom' to fire pregnant women, the obese, any non-heterosexual or non-Christian; have the 'liberty' to know how employees are living their private lives (adultery, promiscuity, homosexuality, legal use of tobacco, alcohol or prescribed pharmaceuticals...). Those are just the employment issues....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Freedom is the ability of the people to transcend their petty self-centered concerns, and join an organic national collective. A nation brought together by a common cause, their destiny in a universe of nation-states. The exhilarating notion that you along with everyone around you is working towards the grandest goal; that you all share the same fate as well as the same mind.

---

This sounds like a fucking ant colony, ie anti-freedom.

Quote:

---

The freedom of the person to become that which is greater than themselves, the ability to join and feel welcomed in a society of your kind and make. The freedom of the nation, in turn, to pursue his greatest desires, to act without frailty in the face of climactic changes, and the hostility of other nation-states.

The freedom afforded by the guidance from above; the absolution of the worker directing her efforts towards the goals set by her superiors. To be truly free, awash in the radiance of absolute power, that is freedom.

---

Ok, you're joking. I get it.


My Take:

There is very little freedom in the Human Condition, regardless of the structure of the society we live in. To illustrate, try this exercise: Replay in your mind the most erotically exciting experience you've had and freely decide not to feel the least hint of arousal. Another, if you are straight, try to freely choose being aroused while fantasizing about homo-erotic activity. Try the same exercise with fantasizing about a gorilla. An octopus. Our every desire, our every pleasure, our most basic nature springs from pre-written programs we were born with.


Another Take:

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.


Another:

Political freedom really just refers to the extent to which citizens have a role in choosing their masters and how they will rule.

And equality means the ability of rich people to earn money without paying taxes. See what I did there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

And equality means the ability of rich people to earn money without paying taxes. See what I did there.

---

Quoted everyone who took a ride in the Pubbie clown car this year?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

My Take:

There is very little freedom in the Human Condition, regardless of the structure of the society we live in. To illustrate, try this exercise: Replay in your mind the most erotically exciting experience you've had and freely decide not to feel the least hint of arousal. Another, if you are straight, try to freely choose being aroused while fantasizing about homo-erotic activity. Try the same exercise with fantasizing about a gorilla. An octopus. Our every desire, our every pleasure, our most basic nature springs from pre-written programs we were born with.


Another Take:

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.


Another:

Political freedom really just refers to the extent to which citizens have a role in choosing their masters and how they will rule.

---

For the first one; is my freedom limited by the pull of gravity? Does the limitations the heat capacity of water places on my existence infringe on some Platonian ideal freedoms I should enjoy as a feeling creature? You're just slippery sloping your way into saying free will can't exist. Which I think you believe, now that you mention it. Hmm.

A few days before he expires, the Musulman also has nothing to lose. But I would contend they're the least free of all. It is possible they are no longer human. But that may be beside the point.

The third one, sure. Maybe. Can we take it a step further? We're not truly free on a species wide level until everyone has in their pocket the button to trigger Armageddon? That'd be an...Interesting take.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

For the first one; is my freedom limited by the pull of gravity? Does the limitations the heat capacity of water places on my existence infringe on some Platonian ideal freedoms I should enjoy as a feeling creature? You're just slippery sloping your way into saying free will can't exist. Which I think you believe, now that you mention it. Hmm.

---

A. Free will can't exist.

B. Sexuality is a constant and gigantic - maybe the biggest for a non-starving human - influence on human behavior and social interaction. Gravity on the other hand is more of a background fundamental characteristic of the universe. Most people don't believe freedom means the ability to choose to disregard gravitation. However, plenty of people believe they can choose such things as the desire for a buxom blond vs. a flat chested one, or something as simple as the enjoyment of a sugar cube for that matter. But they can't.

Quote:

---

A few days before he expires, the Musulman also has nothing to lose. But I would contend they're the least free of all. It is possible they are no longer human. But that may be beside the point.

---

I'm lost on this one.

Quote:

---

The third one, sure. Maybe. Can we take it a step further? We're not truly free on a species wide level until everyone has in their pocket the button to trigger Armageddon? That'd be an...Interesting take.

---

My point is we always have and always will have masters no matter what mechanisms of political freedom we conjure for ourselves. The political structure just determines what relative level of prosperity most of us have access to and what relative level of social restriction we must live with. But the purpose of even the freest of liberal democracies is to restrict freedom (otherwise chaos, population crash and extinction).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

A. Free will can't exist.

B. Sexuality is a constant and gigantic - maybe the biggest for a non-starving human - influence on human behavior and social interaction. Gravity on the other hand is more of a background fundamental characteristic of the universe. Most people don't believe freedom means the ability to choose to disregard gravitation. However, plenty of people believe they can choose such things as the desire for a buxom blond vs. a flat chested one, or something as simple as the enjoyment of a sugar cube for that matter. But they can't.

---

I think the statement of A is a corollary of defining freedom in a completely asinine way, but since it's mostly a question of personal preference, ehh.

As for B, I suppose. One can marry a woman who isn't handsome if she has, say, a mind that one finds incredibly appealing. Of course we wish for a woman who is both handsome and intelligent, but those things are dangerous to handle! I've personally slept with people of fairly varied looks, but I suspect we could easily figure out which morphological features I find attractive "automatically", and I am keenly aware of a few physical traits in females that make them immediately immensely attractive. In men as well, though not as many (but I am not as interested in men).

And looking past the method of Kant, sexuality is used very acutely in our society to alter behaviour, so can't really argue against that. Not that I'd wish to.

But I'm not sure that's really a meaningful limitation of my 'freedom' than my inability to fly, or boil water instantly. My mind also cannot, for example, picture a four-dimensional object. (I've tried, a lot!) I can understand the projections, and understand mathematically what the thing is like, but I can't see it in my mind's eye like a cube, for instance. That's more or less a structural limitation of my brain (let's assume this for sake of argument), and possibly in the brains of most people. But it seems ridiculous to say that my freedom is somehow limited by this any more than my freedom is limited by the finite speed with which information may travel; these things have consequences on what I can and cannot experience, but a meaningful definition of freedom should at the very least take into account the form of the cosmos, which includes even the structure of little us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

I'm lost on this one.

---

For some reason history has not recorded (or shown to me, at any rate), in the Lager those prisoners who had lost their will to live by starvation and torture were called Muslims in all the various Lager languages. Once you became a Muslim, you didn't have very long left. I'm reading Solzhenitsyn at the moment, and he wrote something to the effect that those prisoners (who also existed in the gulag archipelago, of course...) no longer felt the loss of anything, they were beyond caring even about physical pain. But at the same time, they are no longer capable of any actions, so their freedom is more or less zero, non?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

My point is we always have and always will have masters no matter what mechanisms of political freedom we conjure for ourselves. The political structure just determines what relative level of prosperity most of us have access to and what relative level of social restriction we must live with. But the purpose of even the freest of liberal democracies is to restrict freedom (otherwise chaos, population crash and extinction).

---

Larry Niven wrote that F x S = k, where k is a constant, F is freedom and S is security. I suppose Robinson Crusoe was incredibly free, but at the same time he wasn't free to exchange thoughts with anyone else. Hmm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

My Take:

There is very little freedom in the Human Condition, regardless of the structure of the society we live in. snip

---

We already had the Human Condition and Free Will threads. :p But the structure of society does affect how we define freedom, especially in how people structure their governments and legislating.

Quote:

---

Another Take:

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

---

More song lyrics? Okay, then pure freedom comes only the moment before death (nothing left to lose), but in the meantime, there's a huge gap in time between now and then.

Quote:

---

Another:

Political freedom really just refers to the extent to which citizens have a role in choosing their masters and how they will rule.

---

Agreed. Assuming We The People get the rule-makers we choose....and part of that decision is based on their definition of Freedom and how it correlates to our personal ideas of Freedom...the same philosophical question remains. :bulb:

<addition>

Quote:

---

B. Sexuality is a constant and gigantic - maybe the biggest for a non-starving human - influence on human behavior and social interaction. Gravity on the other hand is more of a background fundamental characteristic of the universe. Most people don't believe freedom means the ability to choose to disregard gravitation. However, plenty of people believe they can choose such things as the desire for a buxom blond vs. a flat chested one, or something as simple as the enjoyment of a sugar cube for that matter. But they can't.

---

The relevance to sexuality isn't about human beings being able to freely (willfully) change their brain's hard-wiring of who they find attractive (any more than we can willfully decide to prefer broccoli over chocolate). It is related to peoples' freedom to freely (and willfully) practice the sexual orientation they're born with, the freedom to marry whom they choose, and have a family if they want.

The US debate on sexuality and marriage is being debated in state legislatures (amending constitutions to define marriage between one man/one woman) and on the federal level, too. There's a fierce effort to ban and/or legalize gay marriage: limiting freedom via legislation vs expanding freedom via legislation. Opponents like to say they're "protecting" the Rights of heterosexuals, either by citing constitutions (which they'd amend :rolleyes:) or religious and cultural beliefs.

*IMO, those morons need to be dragged into the 21st century, and be reminded that homosexuality isn't aberrant, abnormal, or pathological. Hell, medical psychiatry decided that back in the 1970's when de-listing it from the DSM. But some of those people don't believe in science, either. sigh*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Larry Niven wrote that F x S = k, where k is a constant, F is freedom and S is security. I suppose Robinson Crusoe was incredibly free, but at the same time he wasn't free to exchange thoughts with anyone else. Hmm.

---

But, but, but F x S ist the denotation for a cross product - which would make k another vector, not a scalar ;)

But don't ask me how I would go about interpreting that one.

Subsection: When modern technology and science collide with Freedom, and changes definitions.

We're all familiar with changes that came with computers, the internet, mobile phones, CCTV, airlines/airports, policing, national security, international security, unmanned drones, radar/sonar/satellites. Personal privacy and liberty at odds with societal crime and/or terrorism. Dilemmas and conflicts acknowledged.

Here's what I don't get, regarding the politicization of Modern Freedom: when legislators willfully ignore or dismiss science in one area, while embracing it in others. :confused: Military hawks and the 'military industrial complex' are big advocates for new technology, R & D for weapons and military projects, and massive funding for those things. Those people have traditionally been Republicans, but includes anyone claiming the best defense of Freedom is found in a strong military.

Meanwhile, those same ~party politicians~ don't find the same validity in other scientific fields, or they want to manipulate science to match their outdated definitions of Freedom. They've become the anti-evolution, anti-environmentalist, anti-regulatory, anti-homosexual, anti-birth control, anti-abortion (and even anti-Muslim) ~party politicians~. They've also managed to paint themselves as anti-government or anti-public anything, while using governmental legislation to define Freedom as they define it.

They're the Governors and state legislators trying to pass Personhood amendments....in order to ban abortions without having to over-turn Roe v Wade. The federal Blunt amendment was bad enough, but the latest "crazy" is states trying to mandate trans-vaginal probes before a legal abortion, or defining Life (ie, Personhood) beginning two weeks before conception! Yeah, like banning hormonal birth control or defining all those IVF embryos as "people" is the way to go. Just ignore physicians, medical science, and women, too. Only the government can make these decisions, see. :rolleyes:

Who ARE these people? They're the ones fighting to teach Creationism/ID in public schools---without teaching evolution, or sex-ed---while also de-funding public school nurses, public health clinics, and Planned Parenthood. They're the same politicians saying Drill Baby Drill, abolish the EPA, boycott global energy summits, end all Regulatory oversight or Regulations, let "Free Enterprise" create our energy policies (but don't remove subsidies or tax breaks for Big Oil). Ban same-sex marriage, adoption, or teh gays from military service, let churches and religious doctrine create our social and civic public policies.

This schizoid type of "freedom philosophy" is more prevalent than anyone wants to admit. Exhibit 1: Santorum.

Each of your posts is becoming increasingly less related to the concept of freedom. I didn't think it was actually possible, but you're doing a masterful job thus far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

I think the statement of A is a corollary of defining freedom in a completely asinine way, but since it's mostly a question of personal preference, ehh.

---

A is irrelevant because the complexity of the universe, and likely the design of our own brains, leaves us not only convinced we have free will but unable to conceive of not having it. But it's still a fact.

Quote:

---

As for B, I suppose. One can marry a woman who isn't handsome if she has, say, a mind that one finds incredibly appealing. Of course we wish for a woman who is both handsome and intelligent, but those things are dangerous to handle! I've personally slept with people of fairly varied looks, but I suspect we could easily figure out which morphological features I find attractive "automatically", and I am keenly aware of a few physical traits in females that make them immediately immensely attractive. In men as well, though not as many (but I am not as interested in men).

---

There are certain characteristics the 'average' male finds attractive in a female and certain that are unattractive - and these characteristics are all related to what makes a female a good breeding partner. This does not mean certain people's 'wiring' doesn't deviate from the norm. Nor does it mean they choose to deviate from that norm.

I choose sexuality in discussion about freedom b/c it dictates a great deal of our behavior regardless of choice. Inability to boil water instantly, fly, or picture 4D objects does not dictate the better part of our daily behavior so I count them irrelevant to a discussion of freedom. And yes, if you want to manipulate lots of people (i.e. surreptitiously remove some of their freedom), sex is a great choice. Hmmm.... What's a better driver of behavior, sex or fear?

Quote:

---

... but a meaningful definition of freedom should at the very least take into account the form of the cosmos, which includes even the structure of little us.

---

If you include the cosmos, we're back to A --- there is no free will.

Quote:

---

For some reason history has not recorded (or shown to me, at any rate), in the Lager those prisoners who had lost their will to live by starvation and torture were called Muslims in all the various Lager languages. Once you became a Muslim, you didn't have very long left. I'm reading Solzhenitsyn at the moment, and he wrote something to the effect that those prisoners (who also existed in the gulag archipelago, of course...) no longer felt the loss of anything, they were beyond caring even about physical pain. But at the same time, they are no longer capable of any actions, so their freedom is more or less zero, non?

---

Oh. Interesting.

Quote:

---

Larry Niven wrote that F x S = k, where k is a constant, F is freedom and S is security. I suppose Robinson Crusoe was incredibly free, but at the same time he wasn't free to exchange thoughts with anyone else. Hmm.

---

Niven's right, depending on what security means. If taken as a general level of safety in the world, I agree totally. The more freedom a community has, the more risk of every type the individuals take on. Crusoe was also a prisoner and in solitary confinement. I guess. I confess I've not read the book, only seen adaptations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Each of your posts is becoming increasingly less related to the concept of freedom. I didn't think it was actually possible, but you're doing a masterful job thus far.

---

Pfft. Like you've never smoked some bad crack either. :downcast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

"Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters."

Lewk will probably blow a fuse if he discovers who said that :)

---

Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Pfft. Like you've never smoked some bad crack either. :downcast:

---

Crack is like sex. Even when it's bad it's good.

Or maybe crack is like scooping your eyeball out with a spoon, even when it's good it's bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Okay, then pure freedom comes only the moment before death (nothing left to lose), but in the meantime, there's a huge gap in time between now and then.

---

I think you just illustrated the impossibility of freedom. The last thing you have left is your life and when that's gone freedom is meaningless. What I was trying to say above is that no matter how a society is structured, even if it attempts to maximize individual freedom, we are not free. Most of what we are in a behavioral sense - the many things we do that we think we choose - is really more like a program.

Quote:

---

The relevance to sexuality isn't about human beings being able to freely (willfully) change their brain's hard-wiring of who they find attractive (any more than we can willfully decide to prefer broccoli over chocolate). It is related to peoples' freedom to freely (and willfully) practice the sexual orientation they're born with, the freedom to marry whom they choose, and have a family if they want.

---

Everyone likes chocolate. I went through a period of time where I craved and loved spinach. I didn't choose that, it just happened - probably because of some nutrition deficit. We don't choose much. Really. Freedom to practice being gay when you are gay? Wow. Talk about making big decisions in life. It's a sad commentary on our society that we can't even get past that low threshold of freedom....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Each of your posts is becoming increasingly less related to the concept of freedom. I didn't think it was actually possible, but you're doing a masterful job thus far.

---

Actually, my posts reflect the politicization of freedom, and the tilting of scales. Technology + Homeland Security --- what's that famous quote about trading freedom for security leading to neither? State legislatures + Christian Conservatives --- redefining Personhood to give embryos equal status, while defining marriage to deny homosexuals equal status. The Vatican expects their Catholic-affiliated employers be exempt from covering Birth Control, as extension of their religious freedoms, while Bishops preach politics from the pulpit and expect to retain their tax exempt freedom.

Par for the course, since corporations are people and money is free speech? :donkey:

So, where's the post on your concept/definition of Freedom, Loki? :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

I think you just illustrated the impossibility of freedom. The last thing you have left is your life and when that's gone freedom is meaningless. What I was trying to say above is that no matter how a society is structured, even if it attempts to maximize individual freedom, we are not free. Most of what we are in a behavioral sense - the many things we do that we think we choose - is really more like a program.

---

Just because freedom is never total doesn't mean it's impossible. There have always been degrees, and "maximum" is a moving metric.

Quote:

---

Everyone likes chocolate. I went through a period of time where I craved and loved spinach. I didn't choose that, it just happened - probably because of some nutrition deficit. We don't choose much. Really. Freedom to practice being gay when you are gay? Wow. Talk about making big decisions in life. It's a sad commentary on our society that we can't even get past that low threshold of freedom....

---

Well, yeah. That's the point...thresholds. Ironic that Freeedom Fighters generally claim to want maximums, while their political party can't get beyond that minimum threshold. :sour:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Par for the course, since corporations are people and money is free speech? :donkey:

---

I still fail to see how anyone can make the case that it is perfectly OK for an individual to have free speech but then do not think its OK for a group of individuals to have free speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

...

I choose sexuality in discussion about freedom b/c it dictates a great deal of our behavior regardless of choice. Inability to boil water instantly, fly, or picture 4D objects does not dictate the better part of our daily behavior so I count them irrelevant to a discussion of freedom. And yes, if you want to manipulate lots of people (i.e. surreptitiously remove some of their freedom), sex is a great choice. Hmmm.... What's a better driver of behavior, sex or fear?

---

How do you mean? We're all born as 'sexual beings', or at least as curious and physical learners. Toddlers running naked in the backyard sprinkler, or fiddling with their private parts in the bathtub is normal. But they need to be taught it's not okay to do that at the local Mall. They also need to learn all that 'good touch, bad touch', and the concept of personal space. I suppose that's removing some of their "freedom", but it's a necessary preparation for real life, public and school life...and it can be done without using fear or punishment.

Children are one group most of us would agree don't have much freedom, for obvious reasons, but gain more liberties as they mature. We assume maturity and responsibility hit an automatic point in time....at 16th-18th-21st birthdays....and give them legal 'adult freedoms' to drive, vote, enlist in the military, marry, buy booze. But it's crazy that those ages aren't consistent, that an 18 yr old can fight and die in a War, but not buy a beer. Or still needing someone over 21 to co-sign an apartment lease or credit card application. :rolleyes:

When it comes to economic freedom, which is a big political platform lately, very few 18 to 25 yr olds are totally independent or free from relying on others, private or public. Whether it's help from family, student loans, subsidized healthcare, or public transit, their level of freedom depends on a lot of things outside their control. Now that college debt has surpassed credit card debt for the first time in our history, there will be (too) many young adults who will spend a decade or two as debt hostages. Talk about fear... :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I still fail to see how anyone can make the case that it is perfectly OK for an individual to have free speech but then do not think its OK for a group of individuals to have free speech.

---

How can one voice speak for the disparate individuals that make up a group? In the case of a corporation, not everything espoused by the leadership is in the best interest of the entire group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

How can one voice speak for the disparate individuals that make up a group? ...

---

With that logic we should eliminate elected officials too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

With that logic we should eliminate elected officials too?

---

Participating in an election means you are participating in consensus. Corporate workers do not elect their leadership. Corporate workers have in no way given their leadership consent to speak on worker's individual beliefs.