Freedoms

[theprestige]

I figured I'd start this thread in the Religion and Philosophy subforum for a couple reasons: One, because I consistently find that none of the other threads in this subforum interest me in any way. And two, because this one covers a lot of ground, which to me makes it more philosophical than political or ecnomic or whatever.

Anyway, it seems to me there are different kinds of freedom. They probably overlap quite a bit, but I thought I'd take a few minutes to consider them separately, see what people think.

Political Freedom
This is the freedom to speak out in favor of or against government policies, to propose changes to government policies, and to influence government policies (e.g., by voting in free and fair elections).

Economic Freedom
This is the freedom to earn and spend wealth, to acquire and exchange goods and services by mutual agreement, and to own property.

Social Freedom
This is the freedom of association, to speak for or against the values of your community, to accept or reject moral standards according to your own judgement, and to live your own life in your own way.

Physical Freedom
This is the literal freedom of the body, the freedom of movement, the freedom to come and go at will.

What do you think? Are there other freedoms I've overlooked? Better refinements of the ones I've listed? How do they interact and overlap? Is it possible to have one of them but not another? Is it desireable? Is it workable?

[Oliver]

What about Religious Freedoms, now that you posted the thread in here?

[tuc0]

Define Freedom.

[Ikarus]

Originally Posted by tuc0

Define Freedom.

Seconded

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

Define Freedom.

Please don't just ask that, tell him (or her) what's wrong with his OP. He's defined the various freedoms as:

Quote:

Political Freedom
This is the freedom to speak out in favor of or against government policies, to propose changes to government policies, and to influence government policies (e.g., by voting in free and fair elections).

Economic Freedom
This is the freedom to earn and spend wealth, to acquire and exchange goods and services by mutual agreement, and to own property.

Social Freedom
This is the freedom of association, to speak for or against the values of your community, to accept or reject moral standards according to your own judgement, and to live your own life in your own way.

Physical Freedom
This is the literal freedom of the body, the freedom of movement, the freedom to come and go at will.

What more do you want?

[tuc0]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Please don't just ask that, tell him (or her) what's wrong with his OP. He's defined the various freedoms as:

What more do you want?

I am asking for clarity. He defines different types of Freedom (with a capital F and in bold), but it's not entirely clear why he chose the ones he did. Are these Freedoms supposed to be good, natural, god-given, mutually agreeable freedoms that should be protected by law?

For example: What does he mean by "Is it possible to have one of them but not another?" Yes, of course it is. This seems to be a political, not a philosophical question. That's why I want a more precise idea about what Freedom means and how it differs from freedom.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by tuc0

I am asking for clarity. He defines different types of Freedom (with a capital F and in bold), but it's not entirely clear why he chose the ones he did.

They're the ones that came to mind, is all.

Quote:

Are these Freedoms supposed to be good, natural, god-given, mutually agreeable freedoms that should be protected by law?

I don't know. What do you think?

I was only trying to catalog some of the different kinds of freedoms a person might (or might not) enjoy.

Quote:

For example: What does he mean by "Is it possible to have one of them but not another?" Yes, of course it is. This seems to be a political, not a philosophical question. That's why I want a more precise idea about what Freedom means and how it differs from freedom.

Freedom is a subject header, nothing more. Please note that throughout the main body, I use "freedom" (lowercase, not bolded) exclusively. As for definitions, I think each paragraph speaks for itself.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Oliver

What about Religious Freedoms, now that you posted the thread in here?

How would you say "religious freedom" differs from the ones I've listed already?

[tuc0]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I don't know. What do you think?

Political question. Avoid like the plague! <- that's what I think (yes, in grey)

Quote:

I was only trying to catalog some of the different kinds of freedoms a person might (or might not) enjoy.

That's the definition I was looking for.
What if a freedom is enjoyed by one party and not the other? What about my freedom to rape puppies while wearing a Wonder Woman costume?

Quote:

Freedom is a subject header, nothing more. Please note that throughout the main body, I use "freedom" (lowercase, not bolded) exclusively. As for definitions, I think each paragraph speaks for itself.

Yes, I see that now. I'm just allergic to all those capitalized words like Truth, Love, Justice, Puppies or Freedom. I guess I just overreacted

[Fnord]

Let's not get bogged down in a debate on the meaning of meaning.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Political Freedom
This is the freedom to speak out in favor of or against government policies, to propose changes to government policies, and to influence government policies (e.g., by voting in free and fair elections).

Economic Freedom
This is the freedom to earn and spend wealth, to acquire and exchange goods and services by mutual agreement, and to own property.

Social Freedom
This is the freedom of association, to speak for or against the values of your community, to accept or reject moral standards according to your own judgment, and to live your own life in your own way.

Physical Freedom
This is the literal freedom of the body, the freedom of movement, the freedom to come and go at will.

My Cr0.02...

Religious Freedom
This is the freedom to believe or not believe in one or more unverifiable and "Supernatural" Supreme Beings of one's own choosing, and whatever "commandments" such beings allegedly give humans to follow.

Intellectual Freedom
This is the freedom to investigate, learn, know, and understand all that one can, as directed by one's own aptitude and curiosity. This also included the choice to remain ignorant, if one so desires, and unfettered access to informational resources (Ladewig's addition).

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Economic Freedom
This is the freedom to earn and spend wealth, to acquire and exchange goods and services by mutual agreement, and to own property.

Nice post theprestige. It should provide good discussion.

I'll tackle the economic freedom one for the moment. I think that is a good starting point, but I think it is too vague. For instance, what if the ability to earn and spend wealth for certain groups or classes of people is highly hindered compared to other groups/classes? They are still free to earn wealth, yet it would seem inherently oppressive towards some groups/classes.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Fnord

Intellectual Freedom
This is the freedom to investigate, learn, know, and understand all that one can, as directed by one's own aptitude and curiosity. This also included the choice to remain ignorant, if one so desires.

I would add unfettered access to libraries and the internet.

[Ladewig]

Despite my left-wing leanings, I actually am in favor of Freedom to Own Firearms.

[Fnord]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

I would add unfettered access to libraries and the internet.

.
Amended to my original post.

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Despite my left-wing leanings, I actually am in favor of Freedom to Own Firearms.

.
Freedom to Own Firearms
This allows individuals to own or not own firearms, and the responsible use thereof, for personal defense, property protection, and game hunting.

[laca]

Originally Posted by Fnord

.
Freedom to Own Firearms
This allows individuals to own or not own firearms, and the responsible use thereof, for personal defense, property protection, and game hunting.

This seems to fall under the Physical freedom category, except for game hunting, which is I assume a tough one if we take into account serial killers...

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by laca

This seems to fall under the Physical freedom category, except for game hunting, which is I assume a tough one if we take into account serial killers...

Might also be a social freedom, or even an economic freedom, if you're consuming resources like game...

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Please, without any backing, this is just "My ideology, yay!"

Economic Freedom
This is the freedom to have subsistence without requiring the exploitation of labour.

Social Freedom
This is the freedom to gain education, employment, and healthcare without monetary requirements.

Political Freedom
This is the freedom to have direct vote in legislature, or to secede and forfeit all other freedoms.

Physical Freedom
This is the freedom to live in safe shelter without monetary requirements, and to live in a community free of dangerous weapons.

Whoopy, Commies can do this too. It is pointless emoting.

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Please, without any backing, this is just "My ideology, yay!"

Economic Freedom
This is the freedom to have subsistence without requiring the exploitation of labour.

Social Freedom
This is the freedom to gain education, employment, and healthcare without monetary requirements.

Political Freedom
This is the freedom to have direct vote in legislature, or to secede and forfeit all other freedoms.

Physical Freedom
This is the freedom to live in safe shelter without monetary requirements, and to live in a community free of dangerous weapons.

Whoopy, Commies can do this too. It is pointless emoting.

I like your Freedom list, especially the first 3! The 4th one seems to touch a little bit on the others. For instance the safe shelter could be considered part of subsistance in Economic Freedom. I think it would be impossible to live in a community without dangerous weapons. Knives are dangerous but also used to eat. Tools can be used as weapons, but also used for various necessary activities such as farming. And lastly I've come to feel that weapons are an unfortunate necessity. There will always be people who whether due to mental illness, genetics, or their environment grow up to be violent. Without weapons this allows a small group of people to terrorize much larger groups. Even animals attack people sometimes and it would be most unfortunate if a couple enraged bears killed numerous people.

But I love the first 3, they sound excellent.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Please, without any backing, this is just "My ideology, yay!"

Economic Freedom
This is the freedom to have subsistence without requiring the exploitation of labour.

Social Freedom
This is the freedom to gain education, employment, and healthcare without monetary requirements.

Political Freedom
This is the freedom to have direct vote in legislature, or to secede and forfeit all other freedoms.

Physical Freedom
This is the freedom to live in safe shelter without monetary requirements, and to live in a community free of dangerous weapons.

Whoopy, Commies can do this too. It is pointless emoting.

Heh. I was trying to come up with "freedoms" that actually exist. Some of yours seem to require resources, but waive the "monetary requirements". I'm not sure costy benefits can actually be achieved without costs, and so I'm not sure that anybody is every actually free in that sense.

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Heh. I was trying to come up with "freedoms" that actually exist. Some of yours seem to require resources, but waive the "monetary requirements". I'm not sure costy benefits can actually be achieved without costs, and so I'm not sure that anybody is every actually free in that sense.

This would be a problem with how our society currently works. Everything we have is a result of labor, whether mental or physical. So as long as everyone does something to contribute to society in exchange for getting the necessities of life it should be feasable. Regardless of whether you pay people large wages there would still be people who would want to be a doctor, or a farmer, etc. simply because it is what they want to do. But I agree it would require a complete shift in the way our society works. I think such a system is possible, just not yet. Maybe in another 500 years.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by laca

This seems to fall under the Physical freedom category, except for game hunting, which is I assume a tough one if we take into account serial killers...

I disagree that it falls under the Physical Freedom category. There are many countries in the would that guarantee physical freedom and outlaw firearms.

Originally Posted by Fnord

This allows individuals to own or not own firearms, and the responsible use thereof, for personal defense, property protection, and game hunting.

I find your list to be far too limiting. I would add "for plinking cans, for collecting historical artifacts, for committing suicide and for any damn reason at all."

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

This would be a problem with how our society currently works. Everything we have is a result of labor, whether mental or physical. So as long as everyone does something to contribute to society in exchange for getting the necessities of life it should be feasable.

I'm not sure we understand each other. I don't think it's ever feasible for things that cost resources to be acquired without costing resources.

Indeed, you seem here to be outlining exactly a society where people not free to get an education without working for it.

Quote:

Regardless of whether you pay people large wages there would still be people who would want to be a doctor, or a farmer, etc. simply because it is what they want to do. But I agree it would require a complete shift in the way our society works. I think such a system is possible, just not yet. Maybe in another 500 years.

I think it'll take substantially more than 100 years to come up with as system that gets things without paying for them.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

I disagree that it falls under the Physical Freedom category. There are many countries in the would that guarantee physical freedom and outlaw firearms.

That's interesting. Would you say that freedoms are binary, or do they come on a sliding scale?

Can you have a certain amount of physical freedom--say, freedom of travel, but not freedom of firearm use--or does it have to "total physical freedom, or none at all"?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Many of the freedoms that you request put requirements on me. Therefore I will add:

Freedom from cooperating with other people's freedoms

I realize it sounds facetious, but we treat inalienable freedoms as if they have no impact on others. I'm not suggesting we dump any inalienable freedoms, I'm just pointing out that they are not always a one-way street.

~~ Paul

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Many of the freedoms that you request put requirements on me. Therefore I will add:

Freedom from cooperating with other people's freedoms

I realize it sounds facetious, but we treat inalienable freedoms as if they have no impact on others. I'm not suggesting we dump any inalienable freedoms, I'm just pointing out that they are not always a one-way street.

~~ Paul

Certainly. The only way to enjoy maximum freedom is to be a maximum tyrant. Put another way, "your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose".

But of course it doesn't, really: Your freedom to swing your fist actually continues well past the tip of my nose. Which gives rise to another freedom:

Freedom to violently oppose the freedoms exercised by others

[Fnord]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Freedom from cooperating with other people's freedoms

I think this implies something like my daddy once told me:

"Just because you have Freedom of Speech, it does not mean that anyone has to listen to you; nor does it imply that aren't responsible for what you say, or that you have anything worthwhile to say in the first place."

Sometimes, the old man made sense.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by theprestige

That's interesting. Would you say that freedoms are binary, or do they come on a sliding scale?

Probably a sliding scale.


ETA: I want to change my answer to "It is as plain as the nose on my face: freedoms are either black or white."

Quote:

Can you have a certain amount of physical freedom--say, freedom of travel, but not freedom of firearm use--or does it have to "total physical freedom, or none at all"?

I was merely disagreeing with Iace. I so no reason why firearm rights should falll under physical freedom.

[Cavemonster]

While not exactly a zero sum game, almost every "Freedom from" comes at the cost of a "Freedom To" and vice versa.

My freedom to say anything I want gets in the way of someone else's freedom from being sexually or racially harassed at work. You can't have both. Either my speech is limited, or their freeedom to work in peace is. (unless we magically lived in a world where no one ever wanted to excercise their freedoms in such ways)

The freedom I have to feel that our government isn't playing favorites with religion comes at the cost that even if it were the desire of everyone in a town and their elected leaders, they couldn't have the government fund religious activity.

But this isn't just an effect of government, even through inaction, you still have that trade-off. If we don't give government the freedom to lock up violent criminals, then we have much less freedom from violent crime.

Political Freedom
By giving citizens the freedom to speak out, and influence politicians we lose our freedom from Lobbyists who have more time and money to exploit this freedom to further their interests.

Economic Freedom
Gives us the freedom to own land and kick people off it, lessening their freedom to travel where they would like, or live off land that in some societies would be communal.

Social Freedom
Allows the KKK to exist

You get the gist. Now I happen to like the way our freedoms are set up in the US for the most part, but I don't think that this list or any list of freedoms is ideal for any society. For every freedom that's adopted, some other freedom is lost, and I see it as a matter of aesthetic taste and cultural priorities where those divisions are made. Although if you value quality of life, the set up in the UK or Scandinavia goes a bit farther than that in the US, with a bit more freedom from poverty and medical woes and a bit less freedom to keep all the money you earn.

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm not sure we understand each other. I don't think it's ever feasible for things that cost resources to be acquired without costing resources.

I'm working under the assumption that private ownership of resources no longer exists. As a result the only thing of actual value becomes intellectual and physical labor. Or rather that every good/services value is equal to the amount of hours of intellectual/physical labor necessary to produce the good/service. Our current level of production capability allows many goods to be produced in numbers to provide for every person.

Assuming technological innovation and production efficiency continues to rise as it has, in 500 years we should have the ability to produce most things, especially necessities in quantities that exceed what is needed for every single person. And by then I would guess we will be able to synthesize most base materials which goods are made from.

[laca]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

I disagree that it falls under the Physical Freedom category. There are many countries in the would that guarantee physical freedom and outlaw firearms.

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough. I was referring to "personal defense and property protection" falling under the physical freedom category.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Heh. I was trying to come up with "freedoms" that actually exist. Some of yours seem to require resources, but waive the "monetary requirements". I'm not sure costy benefits can actually be achieved without costs, and so I'm not sure that anybody is every actually free in that sense.

I would say the same to you. Those to trump "parental choice" in education or "having the right to the best care you can afford" in health care like to ignore that the less well-off get the shaft, or proclaim them to be suffering the vice of some moral failure.

[Ikarus]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

You get the gist. Now I happen to like the way our freedoms are set up in the US for the most part, but I don't think that this list or any list of freedoms is ideal for any society. For every freedom that's adopted, some other freedom is lost, and I see it as a matter of aesthetic taste and cultural priorities where those divisions are made. Although if you value quality of life, the set up in the UK or Scandinavia goes a bit farther than that in the US, with a bit more freedom from poverty and medical woes and a bit less freedom to keep all the money you earn.

Actually, health is important to enjoying freedoms. Scandinavian countries take away some of the freedom to keep and spend all the money you worked for. They do this to fund the medical costs of their citizens. I think this results in them enjoying more freedom. If you've ever been very ill, then you know that at such times your right to congregate, discuss and go anywhere you want is meaningless to you. You just want to stay in a bed and get healthy, so I think it's a good choice.

But this is just another example of exchanging one freedom for another. To have all freedoms simultaneously seems impossible. What we call freedom is more about cultural or personal preferences and priorities.

The word on it's own is pretty much void. Splitting it out into issues, such as OP, is a necessity to start giving it some meaning. But that one is really just a set of choices. Why not say: "To be able to choose this and that and that". In this light, the list he made more like a categorized list of choices one could make.

Can we say: the more choices the more freedom? Is there not some point at which this becomes pointless, for example, when you have the freedom to choose between 500 brands of soap in your supermarket?

Ah, freedom... It's good to strive for, but let's talk about what we value, if we want to talk about something concrete and real.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by Ikarus

Actually, health is important to enjoying freedoms. Scandinavian countries take away some of the freedom to keep and spend all the money you worked for. They do this to fund the medical costs of their citizens. I think this results in them enjoying more freedom. If you've ever been very ill, then you know that at such times your right to congregate, discuss and go anywhere you want is meaningless to you. You just want to stay in a bed and get healthy, so I think it's a good choice.

Interestingly enough, I think the difference between US and Scandinavian healthcare is more a matter of inefficiency in the US than a different allocation of freedoms. We already about twice as much taxpayer money per capita on healthcare as the so-called more socialist countries.
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

[Ikarus]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

Interestingly enough, I think the difference between US and Scandinavian healthcare is more a matter of inefficiency in the US than a different allocation of freedoms. We already about twice as much taxpayer money per capita on healthcare as the so-called more socialist countries.
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

I can't access the link. Your claim does not surprise me, though. But let's not build a compelling case for socialist healthcare in this thread.

[Beth]

Interesting thread. This quote really made me think.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Freedom to violently oppose the freedoms exercised by others

Like the freedom to kill Dr. Tiller? But of course, we all have that freedom. The wars in Iraq and elsewhere show how this freedom cannot be denied people in any society that falls short of totalitarian rule. We can lock people up afterwards, if they survive.

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

While not exactly a zero sum game, almost every "Freedom from" comes at the cost of a "Freedom To" and vice versa.

But this isn't just an effect of government, even through inaction, you still have that trade-off. If we don't give government the freedom to lock up violent criminals, then we have much less freedom from violent crime.

You get the gist. Now I happen to like the way our freedoms are set up in the US for the most part, but I don't think that this list or any list of freedoms is ideal for any society. For every freedom that's adopted, some other freedom is lost, and I see it as a matter of aesthetic taste and cultural priorities where those divisions are made. Although if you value quality of life, the set up in the UK or Scandinavia goes a bit farther than that in the US, with a bit more freedom from poverty and medical woes and a bit less freedom to keep all the money you earn.

Really good post Cavemonster. What you say makes a lot of sense to me.

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

I would say the same to you. Those to trump "parental choice" in education or "having the right to the best care you can afford" in health care like to ignore that the less well-off get the shaft, or proclaim them to be suffering the vice of some moral failure.

That's not always the case. A lot of people sincerely believe that such systems can provide for a more effective and fair allocation of resources. I think sometimes they are right and sometime they are wrong. It depends on an awful lot of variables. One of those variables is the type of society and culture they would like to live in.

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

Interestingly enough, I think the difference between US and Scandinavian healthcare is more a matter of inefficiency in the US than a different allocation of freedoms. We already about twice as much taxpayer money per capita on healthcare as the so-called more socialist countries.
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

I have heard this before. a great deal of the cost is going into paying armies of white collar workers who sift through contracts and policies and figure out who pays what and how their group can pay less and make someone else pay more. Would you like to hear about my experience trying to get PT covered after I broke an ankle a few years ago?