The Value of Freedom

[hue-man]

Originally Posted by xris

Freedom is in the detail , it is an illusion your political freedom. The detail can be choice and democracy does not always favour the majority. My fathers fought for freedom so i think your advice on the value of freedom is just a bit over rated.

So in your opinion, not being able to get a less expensive water supplier is enough evidence that political freedom is an illusion? If you can't get everything you want the way you want it political freedom is worthless? Only a person living in such a free, egalitarian society has the convenience to take their freedom for granted on such a basis.

[xris]

Originally Posted by hue-man

So in your opinion, not being able to get a less expensive water supplier is enough evidence that political freedom is an illusion? If you can't get everything you want the way you want it political freedom is worthless? Only a person living in such a free, egalitarian society has the convenience to take their freedom for granted on such a basis.

Its an example, if you want me to continue giving examples , I can. Do you think ticking a box is the ultimate freedom we can experience?

[re_turner_jr]

I always liked the scene from the movie 'Instinct', where A. Hopkins has C. Gooding pinned to the table. Under the thread of death C. Gooding is asked to correctly answer the question, "What have I taken from you?"
"Freedom" was one of the first attempts at the answer, but was wrong. After a little prodding from A. Hopkins the correct answer was finally reached...

"You took my perception of freedom from me."

IMHO
Equality of social/political status would be just as destructive to society as anarchy (total freedom).

[BrightNoon]

Originally Posted by hue-man

So in your opinion, not being able to get a less expensive water supplier is enough evidence that political freedom is an illusion? If you can't get everything you want the way you want it political freedom is worthless? Only a person living in such a free, egalitarian society has the convenience to take their freedom for granted on such a basis.

Freedom does not mean 'getting whatever you want.'

The following statements use the word freedom in very difference senses.

"I am free to sell my labor to whomever I please on whatever terms I please"

versus..

"I am free to recieve drinking water, which was gathered, purified, and distributed to me at the expense of someone else, for whatever price I please." Or, in other words "A person who spends capital in the production of drinking water does not have the right to sell his water to whomever he pleases, on whatever terms he pleases."

Rights to things, to property, are not rights; they are entitlements.

[Arjuna]

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

Philosophically, I describe myself as an 'aesthetic nihillist' which is to say that I believe in nothing except that which I choose to believe in, for pleasure or neccessity, knowing that my belief is unfounded nonetheless. My prime maxim is that the meaning of life is living, the only reason to live is to enjoy life, not to please a God, not to conform to a morality, and not to work towards the interest of the collective. I believe that individual freedom, not only in a political sense, though obviously that is important, is the conditio sine qua non for this kind of good life, or any other for that matter.

Me too!

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

There is nothing on earth that has caused more misery, more poverty, or indeed led to the slaughter of more innocent human beings than the desire to centralize control in the hands of the state, whether justified by the 'divine right of kings' or the 'common good.'

There's a poignant story in the old testament in which the people of Israel, governed by a judge named Samuel, desired a king. The went to Samuel and told him to give them a king. He said: no, reconsider, you're going to regret it... you're choosing slavery if you choose a king. They told him that they were under attack and only a king could access the power of their collective to defend themselves. Samuel gave in and chose a king.

I imagine it as a latent survival tactic that can be activated: the drive toward collective action which can only take place with a leader. The challenge of maintaining freedom is keep things stable. Chaos will result in tyranny, because people won't tolerate chaos... it interferes with their abiltiy to pursue happiness.

Another oddity is the point when the women of the US, outraged by what child labor was doing to their offspring, appealed to the federal government to outlaw child labor. The individual states couldn't do this, because if one state outlawed it, it would be crippling itself in terms of competition with the others. Only a central authority could do the job... outlaw it for everyone.

I see a dynamic between the desire of the people for central authority to accomplish what they can't do individually, and the agendas of those who become leaders in answer to the longing of the people. I don't rule out that a tyrant can be advantageous at times when freedom isn't the driving issue. Yes?

[BrightNoon]

If individual freedom is not the primary objective, then yes, some kind of authoritarian regime may be helpful. Centralized power is definately better than freedom at waging wars and ensuring political stability. Sometimes the Roman idea of electing a dictator in times of extreme peril appeals to me. If we could do this in the U.S. we might have a chance of reversing the policies of the fascistic, oligarchic establishment. But then again, that experiment has historically tended to end very badly. Those granted extraordinary powers don't often give them up voluntarily.

[Reconstructo]

We don't want freedom in itself. Freedom just means a lack of obstacles in the pursuit of our desires.

We desire to walk down the street feeling relatively safe. Therefore those who injure others are caged. So freedom depends upon bondage.

Your "freedom" to breath clean air is Jim's being prohibited from smoking.

Equality of opportunity is already an impossible dream, but one that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. But equality is a dream, as no too humans are born with the same capacities. Some are more beautiful. Some more intelligent. Some more courageous. And most important perhaps, some have the immune systems to survive childhood.

Equality can only mean an equality of rights. As in the abolition of social class (lords and ladies, knights and serfs.) But capitalism creates a different sort of social hierarchy, one with more mobility. And also one that continually revolutionizes the means of production. And also a runaway machine that just might screw up this ball of muck we call home.

[Camerama]

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

We don't want freedom in itself. Freedom just means a lack of obstacles in the pursuit of our desires..

Who doesnt? I sure want freedom. I don't like obstacles. Even absolute freedom does not eliminate "all" obstacles. It eliminates unjust obstacles.

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

We desire to walk down the street feeling relatively safe. Therefore those who injure others are caged. So freedom depends upon bondage..

I think "Justice" "requires" bondage is more apt, as opposed to freedom depends on bondage.

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

Your "freedom" to breath clean air is Jim's being prohibited from smoking.

Except on private property, where freedom is applicable, exclusively, and unconditionally

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

Equality of opportunity is already an impossible dream, but one that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. But equality is a dream, as no too humans are born with the same capacities. Some are more beautiful. Some more intelligent. Some more courageous. And most important perhaps, some have the immune systems to survive childhood.

Equality of opportunity is an ideal, it's ambitious but theoretically possible.
Advantages are inevitable, but opportunities entitled. We are born with the "opportunity" to achieve ANY value. Some lack the means, but that can be fixed.(probably not anytime soon) Provided there are inequalities among individuals, the opportunity is there.

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

Equality can only mean an equality of rights. As in the abolition of social class (lords and ladies, knights and serfs.) But capitalism creates a different sort of social hierarchy, one with more mobility. And also one that continually revolutionizes the means of production. And also a runaway machine that just might screw up this ball of muck we call home.

True, an equality of rights or entitlements or opportunities. Capitalism creates the social hierarchy based on worth, based on ability, as it should be.

[deepthot]

No one has yet rigorously defined "freedom" here. I will take it as a primitive term, and note that there are three basic kinds.

There is Freedom of Thought (Systemic freedom.) We can think as we please and no power restricts this - although attempts are made at brainwashing up via the mass media.

There is Freedom of Action (Extrinsic freedom.) We are (relatively) free to travel and to move the limbs of our body; free to move about ...within limits.

There is Freedom of Conscience (Intrinsic freedom.) To follow one's conscience, and if necessary to be a Conscientious Objector, is the highest freedom of all. When we see evil we ought to conscientiously object to it. That is what Ethics teaches me.

As you know, I believe Politics is Applied Ethics. [Political Science is (ideally) the same field as Social Ethics ...when it concerns institutions, organizations, and associations - their structure and meaning.

As Spinoz may have said: We are determined to be free !

[Reconstructo]

Originally Posted by Camerama

Who doesnt? I sure want freedom. I don't like obstacles. Even absolute freedom does not eliminate "all" obstacles. It eliminates unjust obstacles.
.

But obstacles only exist in relation to desire.

---------- Post added 12-14-2009 at 02:43 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Camerama

Equality of opportunity is an ideal, it's ambitious but theoretically possible.
Advantages are inevitable, but opportunities entitled. We are born with the "opportunity" to achieve ANY value. Some lack the means, but that can be fixed.(probably not anytime soon) Provided there are inequalities among individuals, the opportunity is there.

That's just it, there are inequalities on the biological level. Still, I agree with the ideal of equal opportunity.

---------- Post added 12-14-2009 at 02:48 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Camerama

Except on private property, where freedom is applicable, exclusively, and unconditionally
Capitalism creates the social hierarchy based on worth, based on ability, as it should be.

1. There are taxes, which is a limitation of the right to property.
2. These taxes are justified in many cases as a contribution to equality of opportunity.
3. I agree with the spirit and ideal of capitalism, but once capital becomes big enough to buy the government and squeeze the taxpayer out a 600 billion dollars, we are no longer dealing with capitalism. Ayn Rand had a great ethic. She hated corporate welfare. I agree with her on that. But it happens anyway. I don't know the solution, but I do know that in the real world capitalism violates its founding ideals. It's a system that demands new markets and natural resources, often generating war.
4. Our values are probably similar. I don't think the lazy should hold back the industrious and that the cowardly should hold back the brave.