Freedom

[inthesomeday]

How do you define freedom? Does freedom have an end? What would a free society look like?

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Like a single spoiled kid(-ult) and noone else in the whole Universe.

 

[Zkribbler]

You could be talking about national freedom or personal freedom.

A free nation has two requirements: democracy and liberty.
Democracy simply means universal suffrage and majority rule.
Liberty means that in certain areas, e.g., religion, the majority has no say. The US Bill of Rights is one of the most undemocratic documents because it sets out where individual rights trump majority rule.

Personal freedom.also has two requirements.
First the person must live in a free nation.
Second, the person must have self control. If a person is a slave to alcohol, gambling, narcissism, sloth, etc., then that person is not truly free.

 

[Ryika]

Second, the person must have self control. If a person is a slave to alcohol, gambling, narcissism, sloth, etc., then that person is not truly free.

Then nobody is truly free, as self-control is an illusion.

 

[civver_764]

I would define freedom as not being violently coerced.

 

[Synobun]

I would define freedom as freedom from violent coercion.

The only circumstance where this applies is death. That is the ultimate nihilistic viewpoint. Even in an anarchist's society where everyone is somehow on-board with peaceful coexistence there is no freedom from violent coercion. Violence is essentially a cornerstone of human herd psychology and government.

 

[civver_764]

The only circumstance where this applies is death. That is the ultimate nihilistic viewpoint. Even in an anarchist's society where everyone is somehow on-board with peaceful coexistence there is no freedom from violent coercion. Violence is essentially a cornerstone of human herd psychology and government.

That's true, there is no guarantee of freedom, but I'm simply defining freedom. We can say someone is "free" when they are not being violently coerced.

 

[Synobun]

That's true, there is no guarantee of freedom, but I'm simply defining freedom. We can say someone is "free" when they are not being violently coerced.

At that very moment or in general? Depending on how specific you are with this definition, people who live in oppressive dictatorships could technically be free if they aren't being actively coerced. If you're leaning towards more of a general interpretation of coercion, that then begs the question of what the point is of even acknowledging the word 'freedom'. An unattainable goal for something that is regularly touted as the goal/agenda for polities around the world seems suspect and suited for pro-oppressive policy.

 

[inthesomeday]

Well now I think that more important to deciding whether a world free from violent coercion is deciding what qualifies as violence. Does it mean hurting someone?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I would define freedom as not being violently coerced.

So someone who is being non-violently coerced is free?

 

[Birdjaguar]

There is no single definition of freedom that will please everyone. It is to contextual and relative to one's situation.

 

[inthesomeday]

There is no single definition of freedom that will please everyone. It is to contextual and relative to one's situation.

If that is the case then freedom and democracy are highly incompatible.

 

[Ryika]

Under Communism everybody is free if our great leader declares that freedom is defined as being dead or starving.

 

[inthesomeday]

You keep using that word Communism... I do not think that word means what you think it means...

 

[Ryika]

Depends on who you ask I guess.

 

[caketastydelish]

1) not being a slave.

2) everyone has the same rights under the law.

3) no one, at least under professional circumstances, can discriminate against you based on your color, nationality, sex, disability, sexual orientation, etc. The reason I used the word "professional" is that there are at least some realistic ways to enforce these things in a business setting. On the other hand, there's no way on earth you can control someone's opinion.

4) freedom of speech. You can criticize anyone you want. In America "freedom of speech" does not mean you can say anything you want. For example, you cannot yell "fire" in a movie theater. That's a shame because I think it would be hilarious. Or I could even say "everyone drop to the floor or I'll shoot all of you." These days, they would believe me.

5) everyone has the right to vote for all forms of government. Let me clarify here. I think the United States is actually NOT really a free country considering we have no say-so whatsoever in many forms of government, and these happen to be the ones making the most important decisions. None of us get to vote on who will be the chairman of the CIA or FBI, for example.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If that is the case then freedom and democracy are highly incompatible.

I'm sure there are situations when that is true. Keep in mind that democracy also has a fluid definition. Compatibility might be dependent upon which version of which are currently trying to align themselves.

 

[inthesomeday]

A lot of these answers seem to be in the context of the current world order, or use language indicative of certain assumptions about human society. For this exercise I want everyone to try and forget these limitations and think about the absolute most basic definitions you can think of for human freedom.

 

[Ryika]

Thinking very basic thoughts, that I am good at. So let me give it a try.

How about...

Being able to do whatever one wants to do and go wherever one wants to go.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Then nobody is truly free, as self-control is an illusion.

Self-control is a necessity. One of the reasons we count ourselfs as higher animal is becouse we have (partial) self-control which likely can be practicaly extended ad maximum...