The Value of Freedom

[deepthot]

We can have both freedom and equality of opportunity.

Freedom can mean choices. Scientists speak of "degrees of freedom" meaning: the number of choices or options. Supposedly, the more choices I actually have, the freer I am. However, this can be over-done. Too many choices to choose among can "drive a person crazy !"

For example, a remote-control with so many buttons on it that it is easy to make a mistake in selecting the one you intend. It has become a disvalue.

Do you agree?

[Journeyman]

[QUOTE=xris;105346] We are restricted by the needs of others freedoms.

It seems right to me that no adult can have legitimate control over another peaceful adult. (Not including exceptional situations like a person with uncontrolled schizophrenia or something.)

This principle has been stated as "non-aggression against non-aggressors" and has other formulations as well.

Isn't this what we mean by "freedom" or "liberty?" - our right to control our own actions, not have someone else be in control of us?

Whenever someone has a proposal that, in effect, puts some adults in control over others, what I want to know is what the justification is supposed to be for doing that. It seems that my body should be under the control of my brain, and yours of your brain, and so on, up to the point were someone's brain tells them to try to control someone else. Is that is what is meant by our freedom being restricted by "the needs of others' freedoms"?

[Reconstructo]

[QUOTE=Journeyman;111335]

Originally Posted by xris

We are restricted by the needs of others freedoms.

It seems right to me that no adult can have legitimate control over another peaceful adult. (Not including exceptional situations like a person with uncontrolled schizophrenia or something.)

This principle has been stated as "non-aggression against non-aggressors" and has other formulations as well.

Isn't this what we mean by "freedom" or "liberty?" - our right to control our own actions, not have someone else be in control of us?

Whenever someone has a proposal that, in effect, puts some adults in control over others, what I want to know is what the justification is supposed to be for doing that. It seems that my body should be under the control of my brain, and yours of your brain, and so on, up to the point were someone's brain tells them to try to control someone else. Is that is what is meant by our freedom being restricted by "the needs of others' freedoms"?

You make good points. Still, the real world is quite a compromise. Just think of traffic lights, stop signs. Freedom in the political sense is always accompanied by a certain amount of bondage. Taxation is a claim on your wealth backed by the threat of prison. Electromagnetic waves from other peoples technology pass through you every moment. The air you breath is polluted by factories. The management of space is seemingly impossible without certain curbs on freedom. A person cannot carry a gun in many places. People are forced by the government to evacuate sometimes. I believe property is seized sometimes in the building of highways or airports. It's tricky. Polygamy is generally illegal. Age of consent laws, drug laws. All of these are impingement on freedom that the majority approves of. Also the definition of adult is a legal concept. We could have made it 16 or 25. It's an imposition on the young to deny them adult status. Perhaps this is justified. I'm not taking sides but mentioning the difficulties of practical freedom.

[BrightNoon]

Originally Posted by 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 !

To me, freedom can be defined as follows.

1) To be protected by law from either the threat or the application of force by another individual or group*

*except the state, but only in the event that the state has found one guilty of a crime through due process of law

2) To be protected by law against loss of property to theft, vandalism, fraud, extortion, etc.

note: the only 'crimes,' referred to in #1, are those against persons or property as described above

3) To be a fully enfranchised citizen of the polity, such that one may by law participate in the functioning of the democratic government* to the same extent as every other person

*Democratic government means a government elected by and responsible to the the citizens of the polity; it does not mean democracy, i.e. the democratically elected government does not have the authority to enforce the will of the people if said will violates the individual rights of any one citizen

Freedom, to my mind, is not characterized by any particular access or right to things or certain standards of living: employment, shelter, food, etc. Freedom always means 'freedom from' not 'freedom to,' with the exception of voting and participation in government.

[Reconstructo]

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

Freedom always means 'freedom from' not 'freedom to,'

I think there's a taboo part of human nature that wants freedom from freedom. Sartre tackles this and who knows else. Happiness in slavery. It explains certain political trends...

[BrightNoon]

We've heard about long-time prisoners becoming institutionalized; i.e. they've become so accustomed to living under the control of strong authorities that they fear or positively reject freedom. Well, I believe society in general is becoming increasingly institutionalized. Without the mandates of government and the Madison Avenue Culture Industry most people wouldn't know what to do with themselves.

[Karpowich]

I personally do not believe that equality is something that everyone should have, rather it's something that should be earned. I believe that freedom gives everyone the right to do something and is often confused with equality. If I'm allowed to carry a gun but my neighbor isn't then we don't have the same freedoms. If we both have the same freedoms and are both allowed to carry guns and my neighbor uses his gun to murder somebody, then I would never view him as equal to myself. Equality should be based on the morality of man, not whether he's permitted to do the same actions as you.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by xris

In my opinion equality is impossible and freedom is an illusion. Freedom is only defined when it appears to be threatened but in fact it is never truly permitted.

Funny. I was free to eat oatmeal instead of Froot Loups this morning. But, like an idiot, I chose to eat Froot Loups. You mean I am mistaken, and that I was forced to eat Froot Loups?
"Freedom" has often been defined when it was not threatened, nor even appeared to be threatened. For instance, John Stuart Mill defined "freedom" in his great essay, "On Liberty".

[xris]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Funny. I was free to eat oatmeal instead of Froot Loups this morning. But, like an idiot, I chose to eat Froot Loups. You mean I am mistaken, and that I was forced to eat Froot Loups?
"Freedom" has often been defined when it was not threatened, nor even appeared to be threatened. For instance, John Stuart Mill defined "freedom" in his great essay, "On Liberty".

If you want to reduce it to the question of the choice of breakfast then be my guest. You are referring to free will not the ability to exert the rights of a citizen.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by xris

If you want to reduce it to the question of the choice of breakfast then be my guest. You are referring to free will not the ability to exert the rights of a citizen.

Isn't it the right of the citizen to choose what he likes for breakfast. However, in this country we do have freedom of speech, the right to vote, and so on. Of course, within restrictions that do not impinge on the rights of others. All this is well-known. So you must think what I just wrote is wrong.