Is there freedom in America?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there freedom in America?

Grammatron said:
Very well, define freedom for me.

I'd say freedom starts at having absolute control and dominion over your life, body and mind.
 
Talking of prostitutes and freedom of speech.

So senators in Congress may speak freely without fear of reprisal! So can reporters in the media! And government workers, military personnel, the general public, etc.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there freedom in America?

Tony said:
I'd say freedom starts at having absolute control and dominion over your life, body and mind.

Ok, can you elaborate a bit more on the "over your life" part, please?
 
America has done a better job than many other countries at freedom, but that's not to say we don't need any improvement. The thing I'm most particularly flustered about of the things which we could work to improve is the state of our democracy. Every election comes down to just two slightly different viewpoints, one being from the Democrats and the other from Republicans. We need to readjust the system to expand the candidate field to give third-party and independent candidates a fair chance. I'm in great favor of instituting the ranked-voting method to achieve this goal. Politicians seeking to consolidate the two-party dominance will make doing this a difficult task, and I only hope that enough people would be smart enough to see the added appeal of this alternate system.
 
Freedom

Tony said:
So you only care about the individual rights you agree with, not much different than the morons, religionists and fascists who claim to support "freedom" and "liberty". Caring only about things and people you agree with while spitting on everything else seems like the exact opposite of freedom.

So freedom appears to be some absolute quality which you alone are allowed to define. There are two types of countries: free and not free. One that doesn't fit every aspect of your definition of free automatically falls into the second category.

Since every country has laws which restrict the freedom of its citizens in some manner, I guess there is no such thing as a free country on your map. We could take it to the extremes and ask where is the freedom to commit murder, partake in free trade of slaves and freely take the property of others? The presence of laws, while an admitted restriction of freedom in your book, allow society to operate.

One thing which might term to define freedom to your satisfaction though is to ask if the citizens have the ability to change the laws through peaceful means. By that definition the US definitely qualifies even if we choose not to change those laws which you think are limits to freedom.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there freedom in America?

Tony said:
I'd say freedom starts at having absolute control and dominion over your life, body and mind.
I would like to get very drunk and drive my car at high speeds through my neighboorhood and past the elementry school any time I want.

It is my body and my car and I want compete control of both.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there freedom in America?

Tony said:
So you only care about the individual rights you agree with, not much different than the morons, religionists and fascists who claim to support "freedom" and "liberty". Caring only about things and people you agree with while spitting on everything else seems like the exact opposite of freedom.

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself. ~Thomas Paine
 
Re: Freedom

Dan Beaird said:
So freedom appears to be some absolute quality which you alone are allowed to define.

Not at all, I just don't adhere to a definition that leaves room for me to justify restricting things I disagree with.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there freedom in America?

Grammatron said:
Very well, define freedom for me.

Just another word for nothin' left to lose...
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there freedom in America?

Grammatron said:
Ok, can you elaborate a bit more on the "over your life" part, please?

Yes I could, could you please clarify as to what exactly you don't understand about that?
 
A government should not restrict individual liberties unless that restriction is for the direct benefit of the overall society. It seems to me that this should be the litmus test for determining whether any liberty should be restricted.

So I'm quite willing to give up my right to bear nuclear warheads, for the protection of... well, the entire human race.

I'm quite willing to give up my right to drink and drive, knowing that by executing that right, I'm directly endangering the lives of others.

I do not know how I'm harming anyone else by taking illegal drugs.

Likewise with prostitution and gay marriage.

I'm suprised that so many people on this thread are willing to give up their rights just because they don't use them.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there freedom in America?

Tony said:
Yes I could, could you please clarify as to what exactly you don't understand about that?

It's so general that it could mean many things. For example do you mean just the ability to do things or the right to do things, the ability to have a certain job or the right to have a certain job?
 
RandFan quotes:

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

-- John Stuart Mill

RandFan, this is an interesting quote you have there that concerns freedom. Perhaps you can elaborate on it a bit further.

I would say that to criticize J. S. Mill would be to criticize the ideals of democracy in America.

It seems to me that the quote you carry there applies equally to a J. S. Mill as well as a Hitler, a fundamentalist or some other tyrant so long as they have a good sense of their own moral and patriotic feeling. So it condones centuries of fighting between Muslems, Christians, Jews, etc.

I am not completely certain about this one, but it may also condone the person shooting clients at aborting clinics.

I would also assume that Mill did not intend this to mean to individuals except in times of conflict. For example, it would not apply to the regular Joe who is simply supporting his family when all is good--regardless of where he was from. Meaning, that these individuals would not be expected to take off and join the armed forces simply because their sense of morality tells them to leave their families and join a cause.

Who is to say what represents a moral or patriotic cause? In the name of both, tremendous atrocities have been committed in the past.

But of course Mill is coming from a utilitarian belief--the greatest good for the greatest number. Of course, we know what the effect of that has been to minorities around the world.
 
aerocontrols said:
Yes, there is freedom in America. Certainly not absolute freedom, of course. In some areas, we have too much freedom....snip
MattJ

Care to elaborate on this? Which area do we have too much freedom? Is there such thing as too much freedom?

thanks
 
Tony said:
What about the Netherlands where drugs, prostitution and gay marriage are legal, are they more free than us?
The drugs you get from the doctor are legal around here, but they alos are in the US. The drugs you get on the street are illegal in the US, but they are also illegal in the Netherlands. For a limited number of them we just have a 'policy of tolerance (=hypocrisy)'.

When it comes to purely personal matters, I do think we are a bit freer than you lot. But you can have a company and refuse any employees that are union members, you can put a bullet in the head of a burglar you found in your house trying to steal your VCR and claim self-defense and you can even wave swastika flags. Whether someone feels free therefore depends on what s/he wants to do.
 
rhoadp said:
A government should not restrict individual liberties unless that restriction is for the direct benefit of the overall society.

Since anything can be construed to be "for the direct benefit of the overall society", wouldn't that become a danger at a later time when and if tyrants seek to impose their worldview?

I don’t disagree with you, I just think the language needs to be less vague.
 
Grammatron said:
It's so general that it could mean many things. For example do you mean just the ability to do things or the right to do things, the ability to have a certain job or the right to have a certain job?

I'm not sure I completely understand you, so I'll say that it's the right to do things and it's the right to have a certain job.

Let me illustrate me rationale: I have the right to be an astronaut, but lack the ability. I have the right to be a brain surgeon, but lack the ability. I have the right to take my boat to the lake, but lack the ability because I don't have a boat.
 

Back
Top Bottom