What is your definition of "Freedom" ?
-
Karl wrote: ... hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights ... I am just wondering who are the "other members of the society"? Do they include: 1. Slaves (since it was written in 1789)? 2. Illegal immigrants? 3. People from the evil-axis countries?
In the mind of the writters, this declaration was universal. It was not made for French, but for every man. That's also why France was so enthusiastic to export its Revolution through Europe in the 90's (1790's :) Black Cat wrote: Slaves (since it was written in 1789)? Not in 1789, but Slavery was abolished in France because of this contradiction, in 1848 (and temporary in 1794). Shamely, The "category" which has had to wait the longest was the women (right to vote in 1945 only, for example) Black Cat wrote: People from the evil-axis countries? Parodying Sartre, I would say "Evil is other people" ;) We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
-
It seems the notion of "Freedom" is relative to the place or to the culture, and would like to know what is your signification of this concept. Mine is based on our 1789' Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen [^] "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law." We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
-
Paul Watson wrote: What do you define as "injury" to another? Good question. I was about to ask the same thing. What kind of injury are we talking about? If someone hurts my feelings is that considered an injury? (etc..) --James Drinking In The Sun Forgot Password?
[James Pullicino] wrote: If someone hurts my feelings is that considered an injury? And don't forget there are multiple levels in all of this and situational aspects. Total mess really and no wonder we have not got it right yet.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa -
Karl wrote: 0ne man's freedom stops where another's begins I appreciate the thoughts but as Tim said, the devil is in the details. Which is why I asked my "injury" question. We can be all high minded and talk all we want. We can solve the worlds troubles over a cold beer on a sunny Sunday afternoon around the braai. But that is talk, not action, not implementation. Hell, same rules apply to software. Great design, great idea, great concept, but damn, how do we implement it?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa -
It seems the notion of "Freedom" is relative to the place or to the culture, and would like to know what is your signification of this concept. Mine is based on our 1789' Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen [^] "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law." We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
Karl wrote: "Freedom" is relative to the place or to the culture Freedom is relative, however I do try to convince myself that there are a set of fundamental freedoms which must be universally applicable: freedoms of expression, movement, worship (even though i'm an atheist). Without these freedom you really can't call a man a human being - without the freedom to think man is nothing but an animal (unfortunatly not many people make use of this freedom!). Even these freedoms I mentioned above are not absolute: sometimes freedom of movement must be restricted as in the case of war. Freedom of expression too might be curtailed in other special circumstances. All other freedoms (freedom from want, torture etc) are subsidiary rights and sometimes reflect a political agenda. BTW, I have noticed that people sometimes confuse freedoms with rights viz: having the freedom of expression does not give you the right to incite hatred. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
Karl wrote: 0ne man's freedom stops where another's begins I appreciate the thoughts but as Tim said, the devil is in the details. Which is why I asked my "injury" question. We can be all high minded and talk all we want. We can solve the worlds troubles over a cold beer on a sunny Sunday afternoon around the braai. But that is talk, not action, not implementation. Hell, same rules apply to software. Great design, great idea, great concept, but damn, how do we implement it?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: But that is talk, not action, not implementation. Sometimes it goes better by saying it :) The assembly solved the "details question" by adding that the limits were set by the Law, and refining what the Law is by others articles. Paul Watson wrote: design, great idea, great concept, but damn, how do we implement it? As you said, before implementation you need the concept first, don't you ? We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
-
Karl wrote: 0ne man's freedom stops where another's begins I appreciate the thoughts but as Tim said, the devil is in the details. Which is why I asked my "injury" question. We can be all high minded and talk all we want. We can solve the worlds troubles over a cold beer on a sunny Sunday afternoon around the braai. But that is talk, not action, not implementation. Hell, same rules apply to software. Great design, great idea, great concept, but damn, how do we implement it?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: We can solve the worlds troubles over a cold beer on a sunny Sunday afternoon around the braai. But that is talk, not action, not implementation. Great words Paul! I must have had an effect on you: you're getting less idealistic by the day :) Your point is correct: it's the implementation which is the problem; we can all argue about how to save the world but it sure is hell trying to do it. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
Paul Watson wrote: But that is talk, not action, not implementation. Sometimes it goes better by saying it :) The assembly solved the "details question" by adding that the limits were set by the Law, and refining what the Law is by others articles. Paul Watson wrote: design, great idea, great concept, but damn, how do we implement it? As you said, before implementation you need the concept first, don't you ? We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
Karl wrote: As you said, before implementation you need the concept first, don't you ? I never said talk was useless or not needed. I have merely come to the conclusion over the last year that 99% of what we ramble on about has been rambled over before, often by greater minds and by people in higher positions. And yet we are basically in the same place. Same problems, same disputes, same discussions. Many of these problems have been conceptually solved within their limits (because you will never integrate two different people of differing beliefs with laws. The law will favour one and not the other and you will be back at square one .) I concluded that we talk well but act poorly :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa -
It seems the notion of "Freedom" is relative to the place or to the culture, and would like to know what is your signification of this concept. Mine is based on our 1789' Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen [^] "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law." We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
That sounds like a fairly good definition to me, except that I would add that, "Government has no rights, and may exercise only those priveleges granted to it, and freely revocable by the People."
-
It seems the notion of "Freedom" is relative to the place or to the culture, and would like to know what is your signification of this concept. Mine is based on our 1789' Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen [^] "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law." We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
Live and let live - the world would be a better place if greed could be put aside to start living by this old cliche The following statement about your geekness is true. The previous statement about your geekness is not true. -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/IT/P d- s: a- C++++$ UL+>++++ P+ L++$ E- W+++$ N !o K+ w++$ O---- M-- PS- PE Y+ PGP--- t !5 X- tv b+++ DI++ D+ G++ e++>e+++ h--- r+++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
-
absolute:the freedom to pack my boots and move somewhere else, If I don't like a place relative:having the same liberties as my immediate neighbour.
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
peterchen wrote: absolute:the freedom to pack my boots and move somewhere else, If I don't like a place Unless your boots emit some suspicious smell which triggered the alarm in a security-sensitive airport ;P peterchen wrote: relative:having the same liberties as my immediate neighbour. Not if you live next door to Dr. Hatfill, the "person of interest" of DOJ ;P
-
It seems the notion of "Freedom" is relative to the place or to the culture, and would like to know what is your signification of this concept. Mine is based on our 1789' Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen [^] "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law." We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
Freedom: The ability to exercise ones will in all aspects of ones own life so that the exercise of this will does not cause physical harm, or undue stress on another person. There is a certain level of stress that is simply the "cost of living". What this level is can't be defined, strictly, because of the uniqueness of our individual psyches, but can be nearly guessed with reasonable success. One of the biggest causes of stress, I believe is related to the notion of ownership. BW {insert witty/thought-provoking saying here}
-
That sounds like a fairly good definition to me, except that I would add that, "Government has no rights, and may exercise only those priveleges granted to it, and freely revocable by the People."
Roger Wright wrote: and freely revocable by the People Who is the people? Who regulates the "voting"? Who votes in the regulators? * Sorry, feeling very cynical at the moment :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa -
Karl wrote: "Freedom" is relative to the place or to the culture Freedom is relative, however I do try to convince myself that there are a set of fundamental freedoms which must be universally applicable: freedoms of expression, movement, worship (even though i'm an atheist). Without these freedom you really can't call a man a human being - without the freedom to think man is nothing but an animal (unfortunatly not many people make use of this freedom!). Even these freedoms I mentioned above are not absolute: sometimes freedom of movement must be restricted as in the case of war. Freedom of expression too might be curtailed in other special circumstances. All other freedoms (freedom from want, torture etc) are subsidiary rights and sometimes reflect a political agenda. BTW, I have noticed that people sometimes confuse freedoms with rights viz: having the freedom of expression does not give you the right to incite hatred. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: Freedom is relative, Relative to what? Drinking In The Sun Forgot Password?
-
In the mind of the writters, this declaration was universal. It was not made for French, but for every man. That's also why France was so enthusiastic to export its Revolution through Europe in the 90's (1790's :) Black Cat wrote: Slaves (since it was written in 1789)? Not in 1789, but Slavery was abolished in France because of this contradiction, in 1848 (and temporary in 1794). Shamely, The "category" which has had to wait the longest was the women (right to vote in 1945 only, for example) Black Cat wrote: People from the evil-axis countries? Parodying Sartre, I would say "Evil is other people" ;) We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
Karl wrote: In the mind of the writters, this declaration was universal Come on, there is no such thing and will never be such thing as "universal freedom" in the real world. But I have a lot of respect for the writters. It is interesting that you did not comment on the second item in my post, "illegal immigrants". If there were one thing that free people in a free society hate most, it would probably be "illegal immigrants". I am not saying that every country should welcome foreigners with open arms. My point is, "illegal immigrants" is one proof that "universal freedom" does not exist, not on this planet anyway.
-
Karl wrote: As you said, before implementation you need the concept first, don't you ? I never said talk was useless or not needed. I have merely come to the conclusion over the last year that 99% of what we ramble on about has been rambled over before, often by greater minds and by people in higher positions. And yet we are basically in the same place. Same problems, same disputes, same discussions. Many of these problems have been conceptually solved within their limits (because you will never integrate two different people of differing beliefs with laws. The law will favour one and not the other and you will be back at square one .) I concluded that we talk well but act poorly :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: I have merely come to the conclusion over the last year that 99% of what we ramble on about has been rambled over before ... And yet we are basically in the same place. I agree with you. We seem to be hopeless at actually doing things. This is probably due to the fact that thinking is left to the thinkers (philosophers, priests, politicians ...) and working is left to the workers (miners, construction workers, programmers ...) Schools and Universities concentrate very much on the 'thinking' aspect of the world and too little on how to put those thoughts into action. We need to improve our 'action' skills if we want to see any real progress. BTW Paul, I like the way you think ;) --James Drinking In The Sun Forgot Password?
-
Karl wrote: "Freedom" is relative to the place or to the culture Freedom is relative, however I do try to convince myself that there are a set of fundamental freedoms which must be universally applicable: freedoms of expression, movement, worship (even though i'm an atheist). Without these freedom you really can't call a man a human being - without the freedom to think man is nothing but an animal (unfortunatly not many people make use of this freedom!). Even these freedoms I mentioned above are not absolute: sometimes freedom of movement must be restricted as in the case of war. Freedom of expression too might be curtailed in other special circumstances. All other freedoms (freedom from want, torture etc) are subsidiary rights and sometimes reflect a political agenda. BTW, I have noticed that people sometimes confuse freedoms with rights viz: having the freedom of expression does not give you the right to incite hatred. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
Roger Wright wrote: and freely revocable by the People Who is the people? Who regulates the "voting"? Who votes in the regulators? * Sorry, feeling very cynical at the moment :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: * Sorry, feeling very cynical at the moment Okay, who are you, and what have you done with Paul?!? Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
-
Roger Wright wrote: and freely revocable by the People Who is the people? Who regulates the "voting"? Who votes in the regulators? * Sorry, feeling very cynical at the moment :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa -
It seems the notion of "Freedom" is relative to the place or to the culture, and would like to know what is your signification of this concept. Mine is based on our 1789' Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen [^] "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law." We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
My definition of freedom comes from Rudolf Steiner's book, "Philosophy Of Freedom". (Steiner, among other things, created the Waldorf School movement). It's a difficult book to read with difficult concepts, and I'm going to totally butcher his definition of freedom, but here goes: Freedom is only possible when individuals accept and perform their duties and obligations to society, and make choices based on true spiritual research. Now, there's layers of complexity in here, because Steiner involves both legalistic and religious obligations in his definition, and then there's the whole issue of "whose interpretation", which I can't remember how he addresses. Anyways, read his book if you're interested. There's lots of other books by other great thinkers (and not so great ones) about this issue too. Marc