"Freedom"

[Steamboat Ricky]

Yesterday was the 4th of July, and just like hundreds of the 4ths of July that preceeded it, the word "freedom" was thrown around like a baseball. People thanking soldiers for "keeping our country free" and saying how blessed we are to live in a "free country" litters Facebook and printed slogans across the country.

But what exactly does this mean: "freedom"? Perhaps it's leftover rhetoric from anti-communist propaganda from the Cold War. Is it in reference to our separation from the British Empire in the late 18th century? I have no idea.

What do you think it means...and furthermore, what does it mean to YOU?

 

[amazing_blue]

To me it means that I get to live my life how I choose to live it. I get to go down my own paths.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

To me it means that I get to live my life how I choose to live it. I get to go down my own paths.

Ok, but what does that have to do with the United States of America? Don't people in Britain have that option? Canada? Literally hundreds of countries around the world, despite their official forms of government?

That's what the thread is mostly about, I suppose.

 

[Ultra Awesome]

With a society like the one we live in today, words like "freedom" will always be thrown around everywhere with little to no significance. Inevitably, broadening the definition to which that term holds.

When the 13 colonies separated themselves from Great Britain, "freedom" then, I suppose, meant to be "free of control"--the 13 colonies could now become their own country and establish their own set a regulations. Regulations that they felt would be the best for emphasizing on, well, freedom. But as any person should know, for a society to exist peacefully, there can never be absolute freedom. Why? Because then there would be no restrictions to what one can do. Thus, chaos will emerge and destroy the very freedom that said country preaches to no end. Kinda anti-productive, if you ask me.

I think it's stupid how people are always claiming, "it's a free country"--uh, no it's not. If it were you'd prolly be some homeless twat begging for money by a freeway exit as the homeless guy next to you is getting pounded mercilessly by some idiot who has no restrictions because he's living up to the "absolute freedom."

So as to what "freedom" means to me, I'd have to go with: being able to live life with the natural rights that I was born with; and yet, still live comfortably knowing that I'm in a society that does not just emphasize on "freedom," but on "peace" and "justice" as well. To me, freedom can't get any better than that.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

***Clarification***


What do you think when you hear things like soldiers are "fighting for our freedom" and "we are blessed to live in a 'free' country."

 

[Mustang Sally]

Looking at it from a negative standpoint, freedom is something we appreciate only when it's taken away. We don't sit around every day and ponder how "free" we are, because we don't have to. If we Americans lived in many other countries, we would find out how free we really are and would surely be more grateful for what we have.

It's the same principle as thinking about the electricity in our homes that refrigerates our food, cools (or heats) the rooms, powers our electronic devices, etc. We don't give a second thought to it when it's working; the only time we think about it is when the power goes out, right?

Same with freedom; on an everyday basis, we ignore it........... because we can.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Looking at it from a negative standpoint, freedom is something we appreciate only when it's taken away. We don't sit around every day and ponder how "free" we are, because we don't have to. If we Americans lived in many other countries, we would find out how free we really are and would surely be more grateful for what we have.

It's the same principle as thinking about the electricity in our homes that refrigerates our food, cools (or heats) the rooms, powers our electronic devices, etc. We don't give a second thought to it when it's working; the only time we think about it is when the power goes out, right?

Same with freedom; on an everyday basis, we ignore it........... because we can.

I've been to another country and did not feel any less free there than I did when I was in the good ole U.S. of A. And electricity seems to be available in all of the countries listed above, and likely in the vast majority of 3rd World nations to some capacity. So, if freedom equals electricity, then how is the United States different from Russia, France, Mexico, Brazil, Australia, etc?

And if access to electricity equals freedom, then what do you say to Californians? Are they less free because of rolling power outages? What kind of freedom are they thankful for?

 

[Mustang Sally]

If you think I'm equating freedom to electricity, we're a little too far apart to make this a useful discussion.

Good luck with your thread.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

If you think I'm equating freedom to electricity, we're a little too far apart to make this a useful discussion.

Good luck with your thread.

But aren't you? Perhaps you could clarify what you were trying to say in your first post.

 

[Calderownz]

Yesterday was the 4th of July, and just like hundreds of the 4ths of July that preceeded it, the word "freedom" was thrown around like a baseball. People thanking soldiers for "keeping our country free" and saying how blessed we are to live in a "free country" litters Facebook and printed slogans across the country.

But what exactly does this mean: "freedom"? Perhaps it's leftover rhetoric from anti-communist propaganda from the Cold War. Is it in reference to our separation from the British Empire in the late 18th century? I have no idea.

What do you think it means...and furthermore, what does it mean to YOU?

Like any word that can have a philosophical meaning to it, it has an opposite word attached to it of equal importance. In this case, that word would be "imprisonment".

So, let's look at imprisonment for a minute. What it means, anyway. It means to be removed from those that you love and the things that you love. To lack the things that keep you happy as a human being. Caged in, whether that's physical or mentally or emotionally.

So, in order to have freedom, you must be the opposite of THAT. Which, really, points out how none of us are completely free. We simply all have our little prisons that control us or keep us from one thing or another.

Still, I do think that freedom in general is easier to detect. It's just a matter of allowing yourself the room to BE yourself. It's a matter of feeling that you have that human RIGHT and it's a matter of knowing you have the legal right as well.

When two or more of those elements are missing, you're probably not a free person.

So, freedom in this country, might be debatable. Depending on your personal experiences.

 

[ChickenWaffles]

Freedom means that you, not the state, should have responsibility for your own life. Of course there are limits to this, but overall this could include freedom to chose where you want to live, where you send your kids to school etc.

It also includes the freedom to exclude people. Freedom to say "I only want people here who can afford to be here".

The two are interdependent. Unfortunately for idiot left wingers they think these two characterizations of freedom can be separated but they can't in any meaningful way.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

OP - I understand your cynicism regarding freedom. Too often we are bombarded by politicians and those that want to serve their own self interest by throwing around the term "Freedom".

Mostly people just use the term/word/concept when they can't come up with a more convincing argument or they want to instill fear that something you have may be taken away.

Although I liked some of the opinions provided, asking this question on an internet forum is just asking for conflict and bias (the Ayn Rands and Michael Moores of the world always hijack and destroy any good debate). Read the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, although they may be interpreted in different ways I think those two documents give a strong sense of the idea of freedom.

 

[H33LTurn]

You hit it right on the head when you mentioned the Cold War and the British Empire. Thats exactly what freedom is in America, the fact that we're not under the rule of the British anymore.

Freedom to me is the ability to express yourself without being persecuted to the point where it troubles you. We all have the ability to disagree but I feel that when it comes to the point where it messes with someones personal life then its a problem and something should be done about it. However, I dont think people should be allowed special treatment just because something someone said about them doesnt sit right with them. It has to be something that can logically cause harm to someone else. And thats the problem in America, the lack of use of logic. We constantly give the government the idea that we're incapable of using logic, and therefore the government and certain associations think they have the right to influence what we say, dont say, eat, dont eat, believe in, or practice. Its not an direct violation of our freedoms because its done so subtle that we hardly even notice it. Thats how the Holocaust happened, subtlety at its finest. One day we cant say one thing, next day we cant go somewhere, and it keeps escalating until we resemble sheep.

This is a country where our freedoms and the rights that we are supposed to be born with come with conditions. You have the right to vote, only when you are 18, to drink when you are 21, to get a driver's permit at 16. Some people need these limitations and others dont, but we have a habit of generalizing the population. Just like everybody boarding a plane has to be treated like a terrorist. TSA recently pulled aside a 96 year old woman with cancer because there was a hard wet substance in her diaper. Again, logic people, logic.

Another thing, whether you believe in conspiracy theories or not, you cant deny the truth that the government hides certain truths from us, truths which we have a right to now. Its funny how people think that everyone who has power and wears a suit and sits at Washington has the people's best interest at heart. As long as our rights are violated, we dont have the freedom that the founding fathers imagined, and we dont have the freedom to fully control the events in our life. We dont need people to hold our hand down the road of life, specially if they want to send us to a dead end.

sorry if it sounds like rambling, I went a bit off topic but i think its something to get at nonetheless.

 

[Xemmy]

I'm going to use this to rant a little. It's a related topic, but I'll bring it back.

Freedom is an abstract piece of rhetoric that's been over used for the last hundred years. We're not free. We might be more free than some under developed country, but no country is really free. True freedom comes at the price of chaos, and whether or not you think that's a good thing, I'll leave to you. Our modern societies try and find a balance, but we always seem to be on the wrong end these days. Even freedoms that are suppose to be guaranteed in the American Bill of Rights are watered down and defiled on a daily basis. You sure as hell can't say whatever you want to the police. Hell, you can't even film the police in several states (freedom of the press). This has become a crime that can land you over a decade in prison. Which is of course the right thing to do. What possible reason could there be for filming police while they're making an arrest? Every authority needs checks and balances. But instead of having a check on these assholes- the people get their freedom limited for no reason other than to "protect" the authority figure. And in court, who's word matters more- the cop's or yours?


Calling something a country "free" is stupid. You can say that it's laws are fair, moral, or decent- but as long as a country has laws- it's not "Free". I'm sick of hearing the word, and I think most intelligent people are. The term needs to be buried.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Freedom means being able to do the things that we have the right to be doing. There are rights that we believe we each have. Freedom involves being allowed to enjoy them without anyone stopping you because it has become common knowledge that it is alright to do those things. If I lived in a country that had no freedom, things would be entirely different. The government would be taking rights away from people and pushing around the people they represenlt only to further their own agenda. Wait a second, that sounds awfully familiar.... Hmmmm.... Sounds like perhaps we are not as free as we might think, doesn't it?

 

[Good Golly It's Ollie]

I have to agree with Xemnas to a greater extent, you need a balance because freedom is good, but too much of it will only cause dissent. "Freedom" is a bizarre concept. You are, if you should so wish, "free" to break the law, "free" to resist arrest, "free" to kill loads of people. But then you're putting the risk of others' "freedom" because, as Xemnas mentioned, of chaos. That, in this extreme situation, had been perpetrated by you the murderer. But others are also free to try and stop you or to resist you. Say you're one of the murdered. Your freedom has been snatched away unjustly, and that's just not cool. Should anyone really be free to take away others' freedom? I don't think so.

However, while I agree with a lot of what Xemnas said, I think it's important to remember not to get too pedantic over the use of a word, especially when that word defines a culture. When people say "freedom" in that American sense, they're talking about something much more general and good-natured than what I was saying.

Let me give you an example. About a year ago or so there was some law suggested in the UK that youths could no longer be arrested for swearing at police, because apparently they're free to say what they like. I personally thought this was an outrage; you shouldn't be allowed to swear at anyone just because they work for whatever law enforcement, disputes on the efficiency of said law enforcement aside.

On the other hand, this News of the World story. For those who don't know, a newspaper in the UK got shut down for phone hacking, illegal exchanging of personal details etc. I don't know the whole story and it's probably been heavily distorted by now, but I do believe that people should be free to protect their privacy, and I don't think you should be allowed to breach it. This was one breach of freedom, caused by others' exaggerated sense of freedom, that I was disgusted by. "We're allowed to do this, it's our responsibility to give the public information." No it isn't. It's you're responsibility to do so in an ethical and sensitive manner. But then, we are talking about British media, when is that ever ethical and sensitive, really?

So to summarise, I think it depends how and when you apply the word, as to its true definition. Total true freedom, in its purest sense, would result only in anarchy and chaos. There has to be a boundary so people know what is and what is not acceptable. But it's no bad thing to have a generally positive concept to rally a nation around.

 

[Xemmy]

Let me give you an example. About a year ago or so there was some law suggested in the UK that youths could no longer be arrested for swearing at police, because apparently they're free to say what they like. I personally thought this was an outrage; you shouldn't be allowed to swear at anyone just because they work for whatever law enforcement, disputes on the efficiency of said law enforcement aside.

Freedom of Speech should cover everything. Even Hate Speech to an extent- as long as what you're saying doesn't suggest violence. Youths, and adults, should be able to say virtually anything they want to the police. You should be allowed to swear at anyone regardless of working conditions. People swear at them, because police have a bad reputation that they've earned. For example, beating the shit out of youths for saying something- and then getting away with. Or arresting them for something they say- which is now legal. Arresting someone because of something they said (As long as it wasn't a threat) is wrong.