What is your definition of "Freedom" ?
-
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
-
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}
Actually, freedom is the ability to do whatever you please. period. It is not really a goal, is it? Salmon have freedom, by anyones definition, right? Does that mean a bear does not have the freedom to eat it? It seems we always define freedom with a clause (ie. "no harm to others") It's not freedom we're interested in defining, it's "natural rights", or "reasonable rights within a society". BW {insert witty/thought-provoking saying here}
-
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 = Anarchy So to limit the amount of anarchy in society, we limit the amount of freedom we have. The trick is to balance the two.
CPUA 0x5041 Sonork 100.11743 Chicken Little "So it can now be written in stone as a testament to humanities achievments "PJ did Pi at CP"." Colin Davies Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
-
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.
Black Cat wrote: It is interesting that you did not comment on the second item in my post I didn't comment this concept 'cause I don't like it, and for the reasons you explained. I agree with you, IMHO this notion of "illegal immigrants" is opposite to the one of Freedom. 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 AfricaPaul Watson wrote: 99% of what we ramble on about has been rambled over before, often by greater minds and by people in higher positions I agree, but it doesn't mean they found the good solution. The most evident prove is that "we are basically in the same place" :) Paul Watson wrote: I concluded that we talk well but act poorly I understand your point and quiet agree, if you mean than without action thinking is futile Paul Watson wrote: 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 Do you mean thatit's impossible for a Law to be fair and neutral ? We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
-
Actually, freedom is the ability to do whatever you please. period. It is not really a goal, is it? Salmon have freedom, by anyones definition, right? Does that mean a bear does not have the freedom to eat it? It seems we always define freedom with a clause (ie. "no harm to others") It's not freedom we're interested in defining, it's "natural rights", or "reasonable rights within a society". BW {insert witty/thought-provoking saying here}
brianwelsch wrote: Actually, freedom is the ability to do whatever you please. period Accepting this would say you're free to kill if you want it, isn't it ? We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
-
brianwelsch wrote: Actually, freedom is the ability to do whatever you please. period Accepting this would say you're free to kill if you want it, isn't it ? We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
Karl wrote: Accepting this would say you're free to kill if you want it, isn't it ? Am I not? I have the freedom to kill, if I choose. Saying I don't, means that no matter how much I wanted to kill, I could not commit the act. All we've done with society is incorporate consequences to the act. BW {insert witty/thought-provoking saying here}
-
well, if you want oru best take on the whole issue: http://www.usconstitution.net/[^] -John
John Morales wrote: _http://www.usconstitution.net/\[^\]_ And how well implemented is it? South Africa has a world leading constitution as well, but implementation has been poor (plus it is being abused, every slight against anyone is "against the consitutional right of the induh-vid-ual.)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa -
Paul Watson wrote: 99% of what we ramble on about has been rambled over before, often by greater minds and by people in higher positions I agree, but it doesn't mean they found the good solution. The most evident prove is that "we are basically in the same place" :) Paul Watson wrote: I concluded that we talk well but act poorly I understand your point and quiet agree, if you mean than without action thinking is futile Paul Watson wrote: 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 Do you mean thatit's impossible for a Law to be fair and neutral ? We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
Karl wrote: Do you mean thatit's impossible for a Law to be fair and neutral ? Using the tried and true method of decomposition one can arrive at the conclusion that codified law is simply a mechanisim for the weak to protect itself from the strong. In a Darwinist society the strongest ( and this is not always physical strength ) gets the goodies ( food females etc.. ) while the rest of the pecking order waits its turn. This assures that the genetic pool is kept at its peak. In a "civilization" this natural order is short circuited by "laws" that limit the power of the strongest. So by that definition law is unfair on its surface by favoring those who would not survive without it. It is, on a natural scale , unnatural and is one of the first things to go when a society decomposes. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
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)
Absolute Freedom: having an infinite ammount of money. Relative Freedom: having twice more money than anyone that wants to restrict your freedom. Concussus surgo. When struck I rise.
-
Karl wrote: Do you mean thatit's impossible for a Law to be fair and neutral ? Using the tried and true method of decomposition one can arrive at the conclusion that codified law is simply a mechanisim for the weak to protect itself from the strong. In a Darwinist society the strongest ( and this is not always physical strength ) gets the goodies ( food females etc.. ) while the rest of the pecking order waits its turn. This assures that the genetic pool is kept at its peak. In a "civilization" this natural order is short circuited by "laws" that limit the power of the strongest. So by that definition law is unfair on its surface by favoring those who would not survive without it. It is, on a natural scale , unnatural and is one of the first things to go when a society decomposes. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
Richard Stringer wrote: In a "civilization" this natural order is short circuited by "laws" that limit the power of the strongest. I disagree. Natural selection is the individuals most likely to survive in a given environment. When the environment changes the ones that adapt the fastest and use the changes the best that survive and so are naturally selected. So when civilisation came to be it was simply a change of environment. Now the environment contains not only physical challenges but mental and social challenges. The most able to adapt and survive those are naturally selected. So those who use the laws most effectively are the strongest. Natural selection still happens.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa -
Absolute Freedom: having an infinite ammount of money. Relative Freedom: having twice more money than anyone that wants to restrict your freedom. Concussus surgo. When struck I rise.
Daniel Turini wrote: Absolute Freedom: having an infinite ammount of money. Relative Freedom: having twice more money than anyone that wants to restrict your freedom. Interesting... from this I can conclude that F. Beiramar is a free man :) :laugh: Mauricio Ritter - Brazil Sonorking now: 100.13560 MRitter :jig: I've gone sending to outer space, to find another race :jig:
-
Black Cat wrote: It is interesting that you did not comment on the second item in my post I didn't comment this concept 'cause I don't like it, and for the reasons you explained. I agree with you, IMHO this notion of "illegal immigrants" is opposite to the one of Freedom. We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
Karl wrote: didn't comment this concept 'cause I don't like it, and for the reasons you explained. I agree with you, IMHO this notion of "illegal immigrants" is opposite to the one of Freedom Then you are endorsing the concept of a Global Government. You can't have one without the other. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
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 Hey !!! Something we are in agreement on. Will wonders never cease. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
Paul Watson wrote: 99% of what we ramble on about has been rambled over before, often by greater minds and by people in higher positions I agree, but it doesn't mean they found the good solution. The most evident prove is that "we are basically in the same place" :) Paul Watson wrote: I concluded that we talk well but act poorly I understand your point and quiet agree, if you mean than without action thinking is futile Paul Watson wrote: 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 Do you mean thatit's impossible for a Law to be fair and neutral ? We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
Karl wrote: Do you mean thatit's impossible for a Law to be fair and neutral ? Fair in whose mind? I think stonning is a terrible and unfair method of execution. Yet it is vehemently upheld by certain individuals in this world. In "my" country I would make it illegal, but if one of those individuals lived in my country then they would be angry. What law can fix that? There is a definite problem in the clash between belief and law. Maybe seperation of church and state is not the best solution? Karl wrote: agree, but it doesn't mean they found the good solution. The most evident prove is that "we are basically in the same place" No I tink the "we are basically in the same place" evidence shows that we have not implemented our ideas very well, not that we don't have good ideas.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa -
Actually, freedom is the ability to do whatever you please. period. It is not really a goal, is it? Salmon have freedom, by anyones definition, right? Does that mean a bear does not have the freedom to eat it? It seems we always define freedom with a clause (ie. "no harm to others") It's not freedom we're interested in defining, it's "natural rights", or "reasonable rights within a society". BW {insert witty/thought-provoking saying here}
Perhaps the application of the real Golden Rule: "Do unto others as they would do unto you -only do it first" or is that "Those that have the gold - make the rules" Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar