Freedom - what is it? And why does it not exist?

[Staunton]

Freedom is a very seductive idea, and our politicians love to use the term in their slogans, especially in the US. 'Freedom and choice' they cheerfully cry. But this freedom that they champion is a strangely ambiguous theme, because what it really means is not the freedom of the individual, but the freedom of the corporate sector to act with impugnity as they force their way into every corner of the globe in pursuit of profit.

 

And if a country dares to resist the US programme, then in go the troops. And how cynically these troops are recruited - usually from poor communities with high levels of unemployment. 'Come and fight for freedom and democracy', they are urged. But this is a lie, a useful lie, but a deception none the less – you cannot urge a young person to cross the globe and to put themselves in harm's way with a slogan such as 'come and help the corporate fat-cats to make more dollars'.

 

Freedom and democracy? Not at all!

 

'Words mean what I want them to mean', said Humpty Dumpty.

[tinfoilhat]

Freedom is a very seductive idea, and our politicians love to use the term in their slogans, especially in the US. 'Freedom and choice' they cheerfully cry. But this freedom that they champion is a strangely ambiguous theme, because what it really means is not the freedom of the individual, but the freedom of the corporate sector to act with impugnity as they force their way into every corner of the globe in pursuit of profit.

 

And if a country dares to resist the US programme, then in go the troops. And how cynically these troops are recruited - usually from poor communities with high levels of unemployment. 'Come and fight for freedom and democracy', they are urged. But this is a lie, a useful lie, but a deception none the less – you cannot urge a young person to cross the globe and to put themselves in harm's way with a slogan such as 'come and help the corporate fat-cats to make more dollars'.

 

Freedom and democracy? Not at all!

 

'Words mean what I want them to mean', said Humpty Dumpty.

 

You can vote for who you want can't you ? With regards to lack of freedoms what do you want to do but can't ?

[Cavegirl]

I've ressurected this because we were having a discussion about philosophy on another thread and I wanted to explore this further without taking that thread off topic.

 

[Questions (in bold) snipped and answered below]

 

Like I said, a continuation of another thread and very philosophical in nature - all thoughts welcome.

 

What is freedom exactly?

 

Freedom is often confused I think, with liberty. Liberty consists of freedoms that are granted to you from an authority that took those freedoms from you in the first place through force and can again deny them to you at any time. This is not real freedom.

 

Freedom is the ability to do and think everything possible, constrained only by your knowledge that all actions have consequences and your willingness to take responsibility for those consequences. If you act irresponsibly, if you harm others, then others then have the right to limit your freedom.

 

This isn't however, how our freedoms were originally taken from us by authority, our freedoms were taken first because the few wanted to have private access to scarce resources and later because we were found to be economically productive when controlled.

 

Freedom isn't a dream of the future, as many people seem to think, it's a memory of the past and because it's now so far behind us, because things have changed so radically, people can no longer envisage how that level of freedom can apply to them.

 

Is it to be without constraint and able to do whatever you choose? Is it to be able to live as you wish but within the bounderies of the laws of the land we live in?

 

Freedom for me cannot be seperated from responsibility. Laws are unnecessary in a responsible society. If the freedom of others is valued as highly as your own, reasonable justice will always be served.

 

Are there different freedoms? Can the mind be totally free even if the body is not? Can the mind be without suffering even if the body is subject to it?

 

There is positive freedom (freedom to do something) and negative freedom (freedom from something), both can have positive and negative effects within the world.

 

The mind can never be totally free, if it were it would be irresponsible and freedoms would have to be forcefully limited. The mind cannot be without suffering, there will always be self-imposed limitations to human curiosity or if not, rejection by others.

 

Can rules and laws help make us free or are they by default inhibitors of freedom?

 

Only one rule is needed- don't do harm to others. If this rule is followed responsibly and justice is served responsibly all other rules and laws become redundant.

 

Can we train ourselves to be 'free' or is it a matter of circumstance?

 

I think that unless all are free, then no one is free, but freedom is like love, if we were all to become free, then freedom would be redundant. It would lose its specialness.

 

Interesting questions Richard, now beat this ideological dogma out of me

[Vague_Boy]

With regards to lack of freedoms what do you want to do but can't ?

 

I'd like to take a picture of a policeman:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7888301.stm

 

I photographed hundreds of police officers during the miners strike and somehow the world didn't come to an end.

[Staunton]

You can vote for who you want can't you ? With regards to lack of freedoms what do you want to do but can't ?

 

Unfortunately we cannot vote for what we want in a state that has been captured by the corporate sector. Whichever of the parties with any chance of electoral success here in the UK that I might be tempted to support have demonstrated a primary concern to protect the square mile and to degrade the function of HM Revenue and Customs.

 

I can vote once every few years, but I cannot influence government, since the very foundations of democracy have been corrupted by neoliberal economic doctrine, and the relentless pressure of corporate political maneuvering, lobbying, bribery, corruption and crime. Ordinary people have no voice, and the political parties are not about to start listening any time soon.

 

Did you vote for tax cuts for the rich, regressive VAT increases and the erosion of benefits for the poor, the privatisation of the NHS and schools or the economic assault on local authorities, because I most certainly did not?

[TJC1]

It has become quite clear that freedom is that which is given to us by those in charge (whether elected by others or having just assumed or been given such power).

 

It is given and it comes with conditions.

 

So, is it really 'freedom'?

 

And, if it is not, can it be said that we exist in a social dictatorship?

 

I ask because I was (foolishly) under the impression that wars had been fought and people had died to protect our freedoms and that freedom allowed each and every one of us to hold views and opinions, however reprehensible or abhorrent to others (or those in power).

 

I appreciate such restrictive measures as incitement to violence, racial hatred, sexual harrassment etc., but, like all 'rules' or 'laws' it is not what they are intended to protect or control, it is almost always down to how the administrators or implementors of those rules perceive them to be.

 

I do not want this debate to veer off down different avenues, if possible (though I understand and accept that, once out there in the ether, it can take on a life of it's own and it is driven by the words and motives of others).

 

On a simplistic or lesser level (where national security or personal liberty is not under threat) how 'free' are we?

 

And, more importantly, how free can we be when our freedom is in the hands of others (and their own motives and agendas)?

 

Actually very free in this country, compared to others.

Still the government put perceived barriers in way of people in an effort to keep people under control and paying taxes.

[tinfoilhat]

Unfortunately we cannot vote for what we want in a state that has been captured by the corporate sector. Whichever of the parties with any chance of electoral success here in the UK that I might be tempted to support have demonstrated a primary concern to protect the square mile and to degrade the function of HM Revenue and Customs.

 

I can vote once every few years, but I cannot influence government, since the very foundations of democracy have been corrupted by neoliberal economic doctrine, and the relentless pressure of corporate political maneuvering, lobbying, bribery, corruption and crime. Ordinary people have no voice, and the political parties are not about to start listening any time soon.

 

Did you vote for tax cuts for the rich, regressive VAT increases and the erosion of benefits for the poor, the privatisation of the NHS and schools or the economic assault on local authorities, because I most certainly did not?

 

Didn't vote. Are the fringe parties such as the greens knee deep in corruption ? You could have voted for them. But freedom goes both ways sadly. When tesco express opens, they don't send the boys round to force people to ignore the corner shop that has served to community for decades. People do that of their own free will. And the labour and Tory fan boys on here, cannot even begin to accept their party of choice have faults. Just try and get them to vote another way (I won't name names, but you can guess) they'd rather cut an arm off.

 

We can create change by our shopping, banking and voting choices. Most choose not to as its too much hassle or they don't mind the status quo.

 

---------- Post added 27-03-2013 at 21:38 ----------

 

I'd like to take a picture of a policeman:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7888301.stm

 

I photographed hundreds of police officers during the miners strike and somehow the world didn't come to an end.

 

This, considering all the fly on the wall cop shows there are, I find disturbing and morally corrupt. I didn't know this existed, mp to be contacted.

[TJC1]

What is freedom exactly?

 

Freedom is often confused I think, with liberty. Liberty consists of freedoms that are granted to you from an authority that took those freedoms from you in the first place through force and can again deny them to you at any time. This is not real freedom.

 

Freedom is the ability to do and think everything possible, constrained only by your knowledge that all actions have consequences and your willingness to take responsibility for those consequences. If you act irresponsibly, if you harm others, then others then have the right to limit your freedom.

 

This isn't however, how our freedoms were originally taken from us by authority, our freedoms were taken first because the few wanted to have private access to scarce resources and later because we were found to be economically productive when controlled.

 

Freedom isn't a dream of the future, as many people seem to think, it's a memory of the past and because it's now so far behind us, because things have changed so radically, people can no longer envisage how that level of freedom can apply to them.

 

Is it to be without constraint and able to do whatever you choose? Is it to be able to live as you wish but within the bounderies of the laws of the land we live in?

 

Freedom for me cannot be seperated from responsibility. Laws are unnecessary in a responsible society. If the freedom of others is valued as highly as your own, reasonable justice will always be served.

 

Are there different freedoms? Can the mind be totally free even if the body is not? Can the mind be without suffering even if the body is subject to it?

 

There is positive freedom (freedom to do something) and negative freedom (freedom from something), both can have positive and negative effects within the world.

 

The mind can never be totally free, if it were it would be irresponsible and freedoms would have to be forcefully limited. The mind cannot be without suffering, there will always be self-imposed limitations to human curiosity or if not, rejection by others.

 

Can rules and laws help make us free or are they by default inhibitors of freedom?

 

Only one rule is needed- don't do harm to others. If this rule is followed responsibly and justice is served responsibly all other rules and laws become redundant.

 

Can we train ourselves to be 'free' or is it a matter of circumstance?

 

I think that unless all are free, then no one is free, but freedom is like love, if we were all to become free, then freedom would be redundant. It would lose its specialness.

 

Interesting questions Richard, now beat this ideological dogma out of me

 

Agree. Only one rule needed: don't harm others.

That's everything from murder to fraud to theft.

First, they used religion then law officials to enforce. Neither has worked.

there had to be a bettet deterrant.

[Staunton]

tinfoilhat remarks - We can create change by our shopping, banking and voting choices. Most choose not to as its too much hassle or they don't mind the status quo.

 

 

However, as I have pointed out elsewhere, I have been boycotting Tesco, Asda, Vodafone, Amazon, Microsoft, Starbucks, KFC and a whole host of other companies for many years, but cannot help but notice that these brands are still flourishing on our high streets or on line (or both).

 

It would take a great deal of awareness and coordinated action on the part of us all if any impact is to be directed against such companies via the mechanisms of consumer choice. But the mainstream media is working hard to distract our attention from the reality of corporate strategy. Tesco don't exist to sell groceries and consumables, KFC are not in business to provide a quick solution for hungry folks - they are simply money making machines, enriching their executives and shareholders, exploiting the poorest markets to supply the cheapest product, and using media advertising to shift their wares as quickly as possible - and to stop us dwelling upon perceptive and penetrating questions about their business model. Oh, and did I mention structuring their operations in order to dodge taxes?

 

So, a deeper question is - has freedom been captured here in the west, leaving us prey to a pervasive 'normal nihilism', in which so many options are open to us - to be a hippy or a homebody, a fitness freak or a fop, trendy or fusty, smart or casual, studious or easygoing - that we are endlessly invited to reinvent ourselves, to make choices which ultimately render us perplexed and insecure?

 

Buy this sauce rather than another and your life will be enhanced, says the advertisement, or drink this form of alcoholic beverage rather than the other...

 

People are overwhelmingly vulnerable to all sorts of demands. Can we find the space to reflect, to free ourselves from the market, to sustain ourselves and our values? Or will these values continue to devaluate before our eyes?

[Tomtom66]

Why does it not exist??

 

can you say anything you want, about anyone, or anything, without any repercussion?

can you do anything you want, to anyone, or anything, (within the law) without any repercussion?

 

 

 

Well no if their is the law to follow