Power = Freedom
The more power you have, the more free you are to do what you want.
The more power you have, the more free you are to do what you want.
Love is true, infinite power.
Force is a false sense of power. It is finite control.
Topic: What is freedom? (Read 1427 times)
Love is true, infinite power.
Force is a false sense of power. It is finite control.
The ability to choose is freedom in my eyes. Having no choice is what I'd consider slavery.
Power = Freedom
The more power you have, the more free you are to do what you want.
The more power you have, the more free you are to do what you want.
Freedom is when you can do whatever you want, and are not forced to obey anything outside simple ethics. As long as we have to pay taxes or some guy comes to our house and takes us into jail we are not free.
I think freedom is always circumstantial and can never be generalized. You will never have absolute freedom in everything.
If you define it by perception, a lot of mentally ill people are emotionally free, especially if they are detached from the real world, but even then they have the physical constraints and bound by society's laws, their health etc.
If you define it by perception, a lot of mentally ill people are emotionally free, especially if they are detached from the real world, but even then they have the physical constraints and bound by society's laws, their health etc.
For me freedom is Simplicity, Following the group of people that have same interest like me, Relax, to live and allow others to live, no need to convince any one world is big enough, everybody can have a space in it, No fear only interest. etc
If your freedom is not free, then you are not truly free.
All people do want to be free. Or to say it differently, everybody wants freedom for themselves. Even tyrants want that. No tyrant in history has ever fought to enslave or oppress himself. It's in the wanting of freedom for others that we lack.Freemen and tyrants are indistinguishable from each other in their love of personal liberty. The only way to tell them apart is to watch and see what they do to others.
The Northerners and Southerners before the Civil War were a perfect example of this. If you read nothing but the writings of both sides, you cannot tell them apart in their arguing for freedom. The only difference being that one wanted individuals to be free to eat the bread of their own labor, while the other wanted to be free to compel others to provide his bread for him.
The pro-choice crowd is another example. All their crying out for the freedom to choose sounds pretty fine and dandy until you look at it from the perspective of their unborn child.
The great freedom fighter Jesus Christ tried to teach us the true code of freedom, 'do to others as you would have them do to you' and 'love your neighbor as yourself'
If your freedom is not free, then you are not truly free.
Nature is freedom. Anarchy is natural. Anarchy is freedom.
Freedow is not free,We need to work hard. 
Repeat after me: We are free )))
What is freedom!? Baby don`t hurt me, don`t hurt me, no more! 
peace is freedom . if you don't have peace in your mind and life . then you are not getting freedom 
I think freedom is comparative not absolute
Agreed.Freedom means different things to different people - freedom from, for eg, oppression. Or we might say a prisoner has his freedom rescinded. Freedom of choice - shall I have a cup of tea or coffee etc.
But mostly how the word is used today, even on forums likes this, freedom becomes an ideologically driven bullshit concept that makes little sense. It comes to denote a means by which man transcends the chain of cause and effect/empiricism which dictates the workings of everything else in the known universe (quantum mechanics (possibly partially) aside ?) - and confers on him a God like status that gives him the ability to act outside of time and space and to be unaffected by them.
I say the term is used ideologically because it becomes a means by which inequalities are legitimated - if you find yourself at the bottom of the heap its no-one elses fault but your own buddy
- don't you know that this is the land of the free/we live in a free country etc etc.The way I've always understood freedom - the way in which I'v been able to add the term freedom to my lexicon in any meaningful way - is in the way that Engels described - "Freedom is the recognition of necessity"
"We wanna be free!
We wanna be free to do what we wanna do.
We wanna be free to ride. We wanna be free to ride our machines without being hassled by The Man!
... And we wanna get loaded."
We wanna be free to do what we wanna do.
We wanna be free to ride. We wanna be free to ride our machines without being hassled by The Man!
... And we wanna get loaded."
I can do what I want.
I think freedom is comparative not absolute. I think it's obeying the laws and not violating other people's freedom first.
I would like to be free financially first of all. Not being subjected from my birth to taxes which support elite and politicians.
If you have the right to vote, if you live in state with a working separation of legislative, executive and judicial functions and if you have the right to emigrate, I think you are free.
Well, that's nice that you think you are free but clearly your definition is entirely subjective.
An objective definition of being free is that someone else can't tell you to do anything. I think that's much closer to the objective, dictionary meaning.
I'm sure people in socialist countries claimed they were free too.
Than no-one has ever been free?
If you have the right to vote, if you live in state with a working separation of legislative, executive and judicial functions and if you have the right to emigrate, I think you are free.
Well, that's nice that you think you are free but clearly your definition is entirely subjective.
An objective definition of being free is that someone else can't tell you to do anything. I think that's much closer to the objective, dictionary meaning.
I'm sure people in socialist countries claimed they were free too.
Freedom is to practice ethics.
So, let's compare:
First, let's understand what rights are. A right exists between two or more people who agree a specified behavior should be shared equally. If I say, "Hawker, I want the right to free speech," I must then say, "I will also allow you free speech if you promise not to impede mine." You say, "Okay that sounds reasonable," and thus, a right is born. As more people recognize these rights we share and decide they, too, would like these rights, so these rights spread and become a societal norm; the majority, then, has power over the minority, who would say "I don't want the right to free speech"; since most of us like this right, we typically make up the majority and overrule what they want.
Now, let's take emigration, for example. The state, in a hypothetical situation, has decided that nobody can emigrate or immigrate due to terrorist threats; all borders are regulated shut and everyone is on a temporary no-fly list, except for certain important members of the state. Despite individuals agreeing that there is a right to emigrate, they had this right artificially removed by an external source of power. The fundamental purpose of a right has been tarnished; we can no longer call this a right, though we commonly believed it to be before; we must now call this as it is properly identified, a privilege. You had the privilege to emigrate, and it was taken away. Ergo, if the state controls the borders, and can decide, without individual approval, to close those borders, you do not have the right to emigrate, you are privileged to. This applies today to no-fly lists; if it's possible to have your right to flight taken away, you never had a right to flight to begin with, you had a privilege to use the airlines. A right which can be taken away is a privilege.
With this distinction in mind, we can name many privileges which are egregiously referred to as rights; the privilege to free speech, until the state needs you silenced; the privilege to bear arms, until the state needs you disarmed; the privilege to emigrate, until the state needs you to stay put; the privilege to occupation, until the state needs you in the military. We can go on and on, but the basic idea is there; if you can call these rights, I can call a swine handsome.
Anyway, because we cannot practice this philosophy on our own, we must succumb to the whims of whomever does have this freedom, i.e. the republic in the case of America, our politicians. If they say, "Killing this nation's soldiers and civilians and stealing their oil is right", or in our case, if a single man in a suit says it's okay, then it is okay. Do you object to murder? Too bad; you have no privilege to practice ethics, and whether or not you believe killing is wrong, you will be paying for it. Do you object to theft? Too bad; you have no privilege to decide if you'll be stolen from or not. Do you object to threats? Too bad; you will be threatened if you fail to comply. Because these decisions on ethics can only be made by the state, you are crippled to make decisions on what is right and what isn't. You have no right to be a human being under these standards, as you are stripped of your right to be virtuous; you have only the privilege of being a citizen, and you are as vicious as the men who represent you.
So what is freedom? Simply put, freedom is to have rights, including the right to grant them, or not.
So, let's compare:
If you have the right to vote, if you live in state with a working separation of legislative, executive and judicial functions and if you have the right to emigrate, I think you are free.
First, let's understand what rights are. A right exists between two or more people who agree a specified behavior should be shared equally. If I say, "Hawker, I want the right to free speech," I must then say, "I will also allow you free speech if you promise not to impede mine." You say, "Okay that sounds reasonable," and thus, a right is born. As more people recognize these rights we share and decide they, too, would like these rights, so these rights spread and become a societal norm; the majority, then, has power over the minority, who would say "I don't want the right to free speech"; since most of us like this right, we typically make up the majority and overrule what they want.
Now, let's take emigration, for example. The state, in a hypothetical situation, has decided that nobody can emigrate or immigrate due to terrorist threats; all borders are regulated shut and everyone is on a temporary no-fly list, except for certain important members of the state. Despite individuals agreeing that there is a right to emigrate, they had this right artificially removed by an external source of power. The fundamental purpose of a right has been tarnished; we can no longer call this a right, though we commonly believed it to be before; we must now call this as it is properly identified, a privilege. You had the privilege to emigrate, and it was taken away. Ergo, if the state controls the borders, and can decide, without individual approval, to close those borders, you do not have the right to emigrate, you are privileged to. This applies today to no-fly lists; if it's possible to have your right to flight taken away, you never had a right to flight to begin with, you had a privilege to use the airlines. A right which can be taken away is a privilege.
With this distinction in mind, we can name many privileges which are egregiously referred to as rights; the privilege to free speech, until the state needs you silenced; the privilege to bear arms, until the state needs you disarmed; the privilege to emigrate, until the state needs you to stay put; the privilege to occupation, until the state needs you in the military. We can go on and on, but the basic idea is there; if you can call these rights, I can call a swine handsome.
Anyway, because we cannot practice this philosophy on our own, we must succumb to the whims of whomever does have this freedom, i.e. the republic in the case of America, our politicians. If they say, "Killing this nation's soldiers and civilians and stealing their oil is right", or in our case, if a single man in a suit says it's okay, then it is okay. Do you object to murder? Too bad; you have no privilege to practice ethics, and whether or not you believe killing is wrong, you will be paying for it. Do you object to theft? Too bad; you have no privilege to decide if you'll be stolen from or not. Do you object to threats? Too bad; you will be threatened if you fail to comply. Because these decisions on ethics can only be made by the state, you are crippled to make decisions on what is right and what isn't. You have no right to be a human being under these standards, as you are stripped of your right to be virtuous; you have only the privilege of being a citizen, and you are as vicious as the men who represent you.
So what is freedom? Simply put, freedom is to have rights, including the right to grant them, or not.
Mike, what you are describing is contractual rights which are a subset of a right defined as "a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something."
Since social relationships outside of business are not based on contracts, you can never enjoy "freedom" as you have defined it in a way that cannot exist.
Jump to: