How 'free' do you think you are?

[ASU2003]

A lot of us live in a free country. We can say what we want, go where we want, do some of the things we want. But, how 'free' are we?

We have some rights, yet those are checked and can be taken away if we break laws that a representation of some people in society came up with. Some keep things civilized, others prevent people from living the way they want. Money also helps in becoming free. But very few people actually choose to escape

Some people voluntarily give up freedom in order to conform to a set of rules in order to belong to a religion, company, or government agency. Most people are happy paying a company each month to not have to do everything themselves. There are long legal contracts to sign to do anything anymore.

Yet they have no idea how to keep themselves alive if society fails. But, I'm not saying that they all will resort to violence if the reject any of the things put in place to control people and make them live according to 'the rules'.

Is it sad that such a basic thing as not being controlled by others is considered to be extremist, unreasonable, impractical, and weird? You either have to live 'off the grid' in the woods or buy a sailboat and live in international waters or some uninhabited island and hope the country that claimed it doesn't show up. How else could you truly be free from governments, corporations and societies rules and make your own?

Can freedom be bought with lots of money and good lawyers? Or do you need to buy something like Sealand and start your own country to do what you want?

[Plan9]

I don't see myself as free at all. I've traded my freedom for some dude to pick up my trash and a house that I didn't build myself that holds food that won't kill me. I traded my freedom for paved roads and the ability to buy my woman lingerie online at 3 AM while sitting in a third world country.

I'm a meat puppet that must do A, B, and C while avoiding X, Y, and Z in order to meet "character standards" in my job. And, sure, I can spend all my money on Cheerios and duct tape, but then I won't have money left over for retirement or to pay taxes. I am a slave to frugality. I don't make enough money to have health insurance and pay for school and buy a house and have a car, so I have to pick and choose to get the kind of lifestyle I want.

As mentioned in another thread, this is often referred to as the Paradox of Dispossession (William Ker Muir). The idea is that the things you own begin to own you. The more you have, the more you have to lose and thus the less you'll deviate from norms and/or demands to maintain and protect it.

...

To suggest "total freedom" is to be a teenager with an anarchy symbol on the back of his leather jacket: self-centered, myopic, zit-faced.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Plan9

I am a slave to frugality.

I am a slave to debt, and my cell is frugality.

Other than that, I'm pretty free. As long as it doesn't cost anything (or much).

I don't have kids. I cohabitate with low-maintenance creatures.

I'm broke, but I have a lot of free time.

[Plan9]

Hmm, interesting.

I am a slave to frugality. It controls me with worry.

I have money, but I have no free time to use it.

[Cynthetiq]

I am as free as my mind allows me to be. I can always be unbonded by my mind. I have a good amount of savings so my freedom also comes from that.

As far as the reality of stuff, I have obligations to concern myself like 3 mortgages.

I'm frugal, but not to the point that I don't enjoy my life and my earnings.

[Wilhelm]

Freedom... What is it? This is an ancient discussion, no doubts about it, but what has improved since we became aware of the loss of it?

Freedom would be what we have now if a war had begun. Freedom, as Plato suggests, differs in war and in peace.

Was I anyhow deprived to talk to anyone here? Were there restrictions to meet besides speaking the same language? Isn't freedom something that, in order to exist, it must be shared by others in equity? If so, them there would be so many different concepts freedom as we pleased to imagine.

So, what about mine? My freedom? I don't feel free when I'm afraid to walk late at night around my neighborhood. Neither when justice has different meanings for people with different status.

What I have to carry is the past, what I judge is the present, what I hope is for the future. But then, I'm not alone... And my freedom implies in yours. So, finally, can I still maintain enough freedom, if not to do, at least to think and say as I please? At least I'm trying and might just find out some day or another... When its concept has changed or when I'm changed

I'm enough free to endeavor in new projects just for the thrill of learning.

So, enough of balcony-philosophy
Best regards.

Sent from my HTC HD2 using Tapatalk

[snowy]

If I were truly free, I wouldn't have to show up to work in a while. I could fritter my time away however I chose. Alas, that's not the case; I have bills to pay, or as Cyn said, obligations to meet (I like that). I'm working on the savings end of things, but being one step away from poor studenthood does not do much to help that cause.

I also have no interest in living off the grid in a shack, but wouldn't mind living somewhere in between the two on a hobby farm with chickens and goats, where I could raise the majority of my own food.

[dlish]

freedom?

pfft... not with a name like mine, or a lineage that comes from the middle east.

as much as i travel and know ive done absolutely nothing wrong, i still cringe when i walk up to passport control. and i dont even look 'muslim-ey'

screw you Al Qaeda

[Grancey]

Freedom, in my mind, would be no one relying on me and not having to rely on anyone else. That is never going to happen. I've got my signature on so many different documents it's difficult to keep them straight. And people look to me to make decisions that will enable them to live a more satisfactory life while I dwell on the accuracy of my decisions. I sometimes feel "free" when I can be where no one can find me.

[Wes Mantooth]

The problem lies in how people view freedom. Just because we have responsibilities and feel chained to our jobs, families and lifestyle doesn't mean we don't have freedom. Most of us (within reason) choose the lifestyle we wanted to lead, the jobs we take, the families we build and we have the freedom to foster those lifestyles how we see fit.

I guess it really depends on on how you look at it. Yeah I could bum around, not work, get rid of my responsibilities and such but I'd suddenly be up against a whole new set of problems and that's not really freedom either. What good is making up my own rules and doing things my way if I'm still a slave to finding food, shelter ect? Building my own country or living isolated on some island in the middle of nowhwere would probably be even worse.

I think being truly free means being able to live my life as I see fit, do the things I want to do and make decisions for myself all with the main goal of making the most out of the time I have. Really though at the end of the day "freedom" is in the eye of the beholder.

[RogueGypsy]

Is freedom really anything more than a concept? How can one truly be free and still alive? Everything we do aside from breathing requires us to give up some little bit of freedom just to exist more than a few weeks. Existing it's self requires us to give up some freedom to continue existing, we have to eat and drink. Essentially, we are born into slavery to our own existence.

Thinking about it, even the founders of our nation were only looking for a few basic freedoms, religion, unreasonable taxation and a say in how the government works. Maybe a few others that escape right now.

I'm free to starve to death or I can relinquish some of that freedom and go to the store or go hunting.
I'm free to freeze to death or I can build, buy or rent a shelter.
I'm free to live in the day light hours or I can make a fire or buy electricity.
I'm free to dehydrate or I can fetch or buy water.
I'm free to walk everywhere or buy transportation.
You get the point and maybe that is the point, having the freedom to choose how much freedom you surrender to live a comfortable life.

Freedom is good in theory, but not in practice.

[snowy]

Originally Posted by dlish

freedom?

pfft... not with a name like mine, or a lineage that comes from the middle east.

as much as i travel and know ive done absolutely nothing wrong, i still cringe when i walk up to passport control. and i dont even look 'muslim-ey'

screw you Al Qaeda

I couldn't help but notice today that the Mediterranean/Middle Eastern falafel place has scrubbed the "Middle Eastern" off of its door.

[dlish]

what did they replace it with snowy?

[Lindy]

I don't feel much existential angst about freedom. I think that I am about as free as I choose to be. Freedom is always about choices. Choices and trade-offs. No woman is an island, so of course I have responsibilities. I deal with them... responsibly.
Responsibility is not the lack of freedom, but it is (for me) the price of freedom. Delaying gratification is not a lack of freedom. Planning for the future is not a lack of freedom, it is an enhancement of freedom. Discipline does not preclude freedom, and freedom does not preclude discipline.
In other words, freedom does not mean that I should be able to have my cake and eat it too.
I make plenty of money (I paid my poverty dues in the past) but live modestly well below my means.
I've never lived in another country, but I see extraordinary freedom in the USA.
I can get in my old car and drive halfway across the country (or all the way, for that matter) without asking permission of any authority. I can take a job anywhere, subject to my abilities.
Oops! Out of time. Must go take care of one of those "responsibilities."

Lindy

[tasineah]

I am free. I am free in comparison to those who do not share or have acess to freedoms our country offers us as citizens. I am more free than some of our citizens because I am white. My race gives me permissions and privelages here that other races are not naturally ascribed in our country. In some ways I am less free than the males of our country in some regards. I dont feel free to dress certain way without fear. I dont feel I can go certain places at certain times without fear. Thats not freedom.

I am free that I can choose where to live. If I have resources. And if I dont, my government provides basics for me. Hopefully enough.

I am free to work or not work. I can go on welfare. Or I can find a job. If there are jobs.

I guess it depends on my ambition, the opportunities available, and how at ease I feel in the circumstances.

I know I can be as queer and kinky as I want to be and no one has shown up at my door to haul me to a camp.

and I can be a druid pagan and no one burns my house down

I can be the long legged silver haired vamp of the neighborhood and no one stones my windows as being a witch.

so I guess I feel pretty darn free.

I was free to get a college education, to marry who I wanted and get a divorce when I wanted.

I am free enough to fly all over the internet and pump out words in places like this and not worry that my house would be trashed the next day inside and out

I dont have a government telling me how many children I can or cant have. And I even have a government that says my body is my own. Amazing.

and I owe all this to my veterans and the soldiers who are fighting now. And to those who work here in the states to advocate for rights on our own turf...

I am grateful for my freedoms...and for those who serve to uphold them....

[Plan9]

Originally Posted by dlish

what did they replace it with snowy?

"Freedom Falafel"

[dlish]

Originally Posted by Plan9

"Freedom Falafel"

thats why 'they' hate your freedoms!

[Jinn]

The gyro place I go to sometimes for lunch just put up a sign that said "100% Halal" and no one firebombed the place. Then again, I now live in the liberal capital of the country

[snowy]

Originally Posted by dlish

what did they replace it with snowy?

Nothing. It just says Mediterranean food and there's a blank where the Middle Eastern used to be. I find it strange because I live in a community with a significant Middle Eastern population, due to the presence of the university, and I'm not sure anyone here would really give them grief over that.

[Cimarron29414]

snowy,

Did they change the menu and simply eliminate some of the more middle eastern dishes, hence they scratched it to reflect a change in offerings?

[snowy]

Nope, the menu hasn't changed.

[dksuddeth]

Anymore, freedom is just a concept, an illusion, something that you can dream of. In todays society, you're no more free than whatever government official decides you can have today. When one can have their liberty removed, even temporarily, for the simple exercise of an ancient right that used to be protected by a legal document, you are not free.

[Baraka_Guru]

Absolute freedom has always been a concept. Absolute freedom is anarchy.

[Lindy]

Originally Posted by snowy

I couldn't help but notice today that the Mediterranean/Middle Eastern falafel place has scrubbed the "Middle Eastern" off of its door.

Perhaps they are trying to become more "politically correct" in their terminology. After all, "Middle Eastern" only has meaning in a "Euro-centric" context. We all know how incorrect that is. And I'm not talking about money (the Euro) here. This is similar to how "Asian" is now preferred over "Oriental." Since Oriental means Eastern --in relation to Europe. All said tongue-in-cheek. Sort of.

Lindy

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Absolute freedom has always been a concept. Absolute freedom is anarchy.

absolutely false.

[Baraka_Guru]

Are you hinting at utopia, dk? Or do you take the word absolute loosely?

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Are you hinting at utopia, dk? Or do you take the word absolute loosely?

it's comical how some people like to take some terms and turn them in to singular definitions, with no possibility of any other alternative. This is sometimes called 'extremism'.

'Absolute' doesn't mean 'anarchy' unless it's defined by someone that doesn't care to recognize personal responsibility. Absolute freedom has always come with responsibilities, generally not to cause harm to any other person. It's been this way since the time of the founding fathers, yet lately gets misconstrued in order to promote a statist society......the belief that government MUST legislate behavior lest we fall in to a state of lawlessness and disorder.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

it's comical how some people like to take some terms and turn them in to singular definitions, with no possibility of any other alternative. This is sometimes called 'extremism'.

I imagine one would find comical the position of many without fully understanding it or desiring a clarification or qualification.

'Absolute' doesn't mean 'anarchy' unless it's defined by someone that doesn't care to recognize personal responsibility. Absolute freedom has always come with responsibilities, generally not to cause harm to any other person. It's been this way since the time of the founding fathers, yet lately gets misconstrued in order to promote a statist society......the belief that government MUST legislate behavior lest we fall in to a state of lawlessness and disorder.

Personal responsibly does not need to be taken into account within the concept of absolute freedom. With absolute freedom, personal responsibility is optional.

What you're talking about is another matter, not absolute freedom, and it predates the time of America's founding fathers by at least several decades, if not centuries. Could you provide any examples of specific ideas that imply that freedom and liberty exist outside of the state and state authority, one that you'd subscribe to?

I mean, why form a government at all?

Are you talking about Kant's categorical imperative? Buddhism's Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold Path?

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Personal responsibly does not need to be taken into account within the concept of absolute freedom. With absolute freedom, personal responsibility is optional.

I disagree.

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

What you're talking about is another matter, not absolute freedom, and it predates the time of America's founding fathers by at least several decades, if not centuries. Could you provide any examples of specific ideas that imply that freedom and liberty exist outside of the state and state authority, one that you'd subscribe to?

a person has the absolute right, freedom, and liberty to preserve their own life. Self preservation is at the heart of right to life. It exists outside of the state nor does it require the state authority to acknowledge. It doesn't require anything but your own determination if your life is at risk.

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I mean, why form a government at all?

The US government was formed to protect the rights of the people and to provide fair and equitable opportunity for individuals to be free and prosper.

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Are you talking about Kant's categorical imperative? Buddhism's Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold Path?

I'm talking about the simple human trait that everyone knows right from wrong.

[Lindy]

Competing interests, differing ideas of right and wrong, family, tribal, or social ties make it difficult for us all to "just get along." If I have absolute freedom, it certainly does not end where yours begins. Why should it? Mix in scarce resources and limited space and absolute freedom becomes rule of the strongest. I want, you have, I take. Some may benevolently rule like Solomon, but others will rule like Stalin. Some may be capricious and unpredictable in their absolute way.
Any restraint, whether personal or social, impinges absolute freedom.

Lindy

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I disagree.

To disagree is to misunderstand the meaning of absolute freedom. For example, if I have absolute freedom over my life---i.e. I am free to act any way I choose---then I may choose to ignore personal responsibility. However, absolute freedom doesn't exist on a practical level, which means that I am not unbound by personal responsibility. If I do not have that choice, then my freedom is not absolute; it is limited.

As a citizen of the state of Canada, of Ontario, and of Toronto, I am beholden to their laws and bylaws. However, these laws are in place as a way to establish such responsibility in people.

We don't have absolute freedom, nor would I want everyone to have it. Most of us appreciate the concept of law.

a person has the absolute right, freedom, and liberty to preserve their own life. Self preservation is at the heart of right to life. It exists outside of the state nor does it require the state authority to acknowledge. It doesn't require anything but your own determination if your life is at risk.

A person does have the right to self-preservation (except in those deplorable states that practice capital punishment), but this does not mean a person has absolute freedom. This is only one aspect. Absolute freedom is the complete absence of restrictions on how one lives one's life.

The US government was formed to protect the rights of the people and to provide fair and equitable opportunity for individuals to be free and prosper.

They used the concept of law to do so. This is not an environment of absolute freedom.

I'm talking about the simple human trait that everyone knows right from wrong.

Is knowing right from wrong instinctual? How do we know for certain what is right and what is wrong? This doesn't sound like a natural state; it sounds more like a process.

The reason why I brought up the concept of absolute freedom in the first place was because you seemed to be disappointed in the idea of the social contract, which states that we forfeit complete liberty in exchange for a set of laws enforced by an authority, in most cases a government or set of governments.

You seem to dislike the idea of a government managing these laws, as though arresting someone for breaking a law and incarcerating them is an infringement of some kind of natural law. I'm pretty sure this isn't the case. I'm just trying to suss out what your position is.

---------- Post added at 08:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:17 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Lindy

Any restraint, whether personal or social, impinges absolute freedom.

This is what I'm getting at. Laws and personal moral codes restrict freedom.

[Wes Mantooth]

But again at the end of the day we're still "slaves" to survival. No matter how much we toss aside societies constraints absolute freedom will simply never exist because at the very least you're going to have to give in and find food & water or you're going to die.

Is being beholden to cultivating a crop, hunting/foraging or building/maintaining shelter any different really then being beholden to a boss? Are the laws of nature really all THAT different from the laws of man? Sooner or later something is going to get in the way of absolute freedom and there is really nothing you can do about it.