"Freedom" is overrated. Give me money, you can have my "freedom"!

I always thought that this ill-defined catch-all word "freedom" is way over-hyped and over-sold. After seeing so many threads over here about freedom and many arguments ranging from Iraq war to US foreign policy to GWB all hinge on freedom I thought it might not be a bad idea to throw some cold water on it.

Personally, I think most humans would trade away a lot of "freedom" (however you define it) and rightly so for economic benefits.

Later in this thread I will give arguments (societal, biological, evolutionary and economic) supporting this idea. But before I do that I would like to know here what others think about this (which is also an excuse for me to actually canalize the inchoate arguments in my mind into a cogent writeup ).

What do you think about this?

I have a feeling I'm going to be on the extreme pro-freedom side here...

And yes, I'd agree that the term "freedom" has become too politically tainted. Is there a better, more precise term that we could use?

Im rich and free, and I want to be both at the same time.

I'd rather be poor and free than rich and have to look over my shoulder or wonder if the person I'm talking to is an informant for some secret police.

IglooDude said:

And yes, I'd agree that the term "freedom" has become too politically tainted. Is there a better, more precise term that we could use?

Click to expand...

Yes. There is. I will provide that too.

If I was rich, I would merely move out of the said country.

Dictatorships are bribable.

Freedom is a beautiful concept and you won't find in me someone ready to bash it.

However, I do have the feeling that the current administration in Washington is using the expression "spreading freedom" just like the Soviets were talking about the "emancipation of the working class". To put it in a nutshell, hiding behind a noble idea a mere ambition of world domination.

I want all the freedom I can get. Given that large chunks have been taken away already, and there's nothing I can do to get them back, I'd prefer a retrospective payment for them.

I wouldn't take cash for what I have left, unless it the freedom to subsidy other people's laziness.

we hide behind a noble idea a mere ambition of world domination.

Click to expand...

I can't stop laughing... that is a cartoon plot at best.

IMO, the only freedoms most people really care about are:

1. Freedom to earn a living.

2. Freedom to eat.

3. Freedom to have a place to live.

4. Freedom to remain alive.

5. Freedom to reproduce.

The fact is that most people dont use their freedom of expression (when they possess it), for a variety of reasons, timidity being foremost among them.

I don't believe that it is only money that people want. They want power, and in our society, money is very easily equated with power. So would people give up freedom for power? Certainly, because power is freedom of a different kind.

Once they have power, they don't need freedom for everyone. Their power affords them freedom for themselves. Money and power affords immunity from laws - just look at Enron or any celebrity jail sentences.

But even at a lower level of money and power, even in the middle class, more money means more status, more influence over your immediate peers. And people in that strata are generally not the target of oppression, nor do they have much to hide. So to them, their freedoms are less precious because they are taken for granted.

And in the lowest classes, money means everything. Money IS freedom because poverty is a prison. To some it may make perfect sense to trade certain freedoms for more opportunity.

But is this everyone? This is my first instinct on this subject and these thoughts are admittedly broad generalizations. But I think for some they may be valid motivations for what Betazed is proposing. However there are MANY who would give up money for more freedoms. So who is it that really subscribes to this way of thinking? I'll consider this further.

storealex said:

Im rich and free, and I want to be both at the same time.

Click to expand...

Exactly, and History clearly points out a correlation between freedom and wealth. The rich nations are overwhelmingly free, while the poor ones are overwhelmingly ruled by strongmen.

Meh... What is freedom? I doubt we can define it sufficiently for the purposes of this thread. Most approxiomations I can think of will be biased and give credence to one side of this debate or the other, IMO.

luiz said:

Exactly, and History clearly points out a correlation between freedom and wealth. The rich nations are overwhelmingly free, while the poor ones are overwhelmingly ruled by strongmen.

Click to expand...

... Wealth = Freedom? Maybe for the wealthy themselves, but not the nations.

Bronx Warlord said:

I can't stop laughing... that is a cartoon plot at best.

Click to expand...

keep laughing then.

And afterwards try to look at yourself and wonder what do you really want. Isn't the UN irrelevant ? Isn't France a despiseful dictatorship loving country ? Isn't the USA, and only the USA, those who know what to do in this world and those who should manage it ?

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

punkbass2000 said:

... Wealth = Freedom? Maybe for the wealthy themselves, but not the nations.

Click to expand...

No it's freedom = wealth.

luiz said:

Exactly, and History clearly points out a correlation between freedom and wealth. The rich nations are overwhelmingly free, while the poor ones are overwhelmingly ruled by strongmen.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah ? What about all Mediterranean ancient nations ? Rome, Egypt, Persia, they had riches, strong men, and slavery.
Indian countries were extremely rich yet had strong men and untouchables...
And today, Saudi Arabia is unbelievably rich, yet it's not a beacon of freedom, no ?

So I don't think your argument can stand very long.

EDIT : and about Freedom, I think the concept Betazed is criticizing is the one coming from the Enlightenment (Greeks did not have the same notion of Freedom as we do). Like all concepts, like everything mankind has devised, thought and created, it's doomed to pass away. And maybe it's currently passing away, being replaced with something new and different.

Well, I'm not sure.
I think that freedom is like plenty of very basic things : when you think about it, it doesn't necessarily sounds that great, but when you've lost it, you realize how precious it was.

Maskerough, Luiz never said a dictatorship has to be poor. He just pointed out a correlation.

And in Saudi Arabia, it's only the elite which is rich, and Im sure they'd all be poor, had they no oil.

It all depends. What freedom are we talking about? Freedom of speech? Freedom to chose your leaders?

Freedom is irrelevant if you don't have anything to eat and mantain your familiy for example. I would prefer to live in a soft dictatoship having a job, a house, a car and so on than in a democracy but starving.