What is your definition of "Freedom" ?
-
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
-
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: It's not freedom we're interested in defining, it's "natural rights", or "reasonable rights within a society". Yes, well said. But can you imagine "natural rights" to which every culture and person on earth would agree to and uphold? I can't.
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. Oh god. My first freedom clause would be freedom from money! :rolleyes:
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa -
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
Richard Stringer wrote: Something we are in agreement on. Will wonders never cease Don't get your hopes up! :) Just joking! What didn't we agree on coz I don't remember? IIRC it was something to do with american foreign policy? Anyway, that's what's so cool about life: the huge diversity it throws at us is something to treasure. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
brianwelsch wrote: It's not freedom we're interested in defining, it's "natural rights", or "reasonable rights within a society". Yes, well said. But can you imagine "natural rights" to which every culture and person on earth would agree to and uphold? I can't.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: But can you imagine "natural rights" to which every culture and person on earth would agree to and uphold? No, thank God!! That would require us all to think alike. how dull would that be? BW {insert witty/thought-provoking saying here}
-
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 AfricaPaul Watson wrote: I disagree I kinda thought you would :) Paul Watson wrote: So when civilisation came to be it was simply a change of environment By no means can this be true. Does the enviornment change just because a group of animals decide to form a bigger herd. Is an umbrella a survival technique in rainy weather? Civilisation is a human invention - not natures and as such is just a thin veneer over the natural layer. Read "Lord Of The Flies" again please. And the contrast it to "Animal Farm" to see the difference. Paul Watson wrote: So those who use the laws most effectively are the strongest Only as long as the strong decide to obey the "laws" and the weak are bouyed up by "civilasition". And any stress on the system ( war - famine - plague - etc.. ) and guess what happens - we revert to the old ways quite rapidly. 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
-
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 Africai was taking a bit of the piss there, but it is a cool site Paul Watson wrote: every slight against anyone is "against the consitutional right of the induh-vid-ual we are going thru much the same thing here, with everybody suing for the most silly crap, but i think that the pendulum will swing back,,, the US Constitution has the checks and balances to apply some self-correction to absurd circumstances,,, of course, the fix will cause its own problems... and so on... -John
-
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
Black Cat wrote: Not if you live next door to Dr. Hatfill, the "person of interest" of DOJ Why not? he shall enjoy the same liberties I enjoy (blowing up stuff without asking explicitely excluded for both of us). The whole tre-huggin' human rights stuff is not about telling you how to treat people that you like, that are nice and orderly. It's about how to treat people that make you want to kick'n'kill.
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
-
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)
This is a simple and elegant description. :cool: :rose: Elaine (fluffy tigress emoticon) Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
-
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}
you've got the words here backwards, brian "freedom" is the harmony of free will in society, without chaos and murder "natural law" can be taken to mean an absence of law, where "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" is the norm "natural rights" is a PC buzzword used by amnesty international types to exert political pressure on governments that they don't like, the correct term here is "human rights", and the big debate is if the rights that we think of as "freedom" are part of human rights (we say yes, china says no) -John
-
you've got the words here backwards, brian "freedom" is the harmony of free will in society, without chaos and murder "natural law" can be taken to mean an absence of law, where "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" is the norm "natural rights" is a PC buzzword used by amnesty international types to exert political pressure on governments that they don't like, the correct term here is "human rights", and the big debate is if the rights that we think of as "freedom" are part of human rights (we say yes, china says no) -John
John Morales wrote: "freedom" is the harmony of free will in society, without chaos and murder I'm pretty sure that's peace, not freedom. John Morales wrote: and the big debate is if the rights that we think of as "freedom" are part of human rights (we say yes, china says no) I think what we are after is a method of pursuing a peaceful society, without restricting individual freedom too much. Which, I agree, the US is much closer to achieving than China. 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)
After reading all the previous answers, now I can give mine: Freedom is to know Jesus Christ! Isn't freedom? ÿVOTD:32 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven." - Mat 10:32-33
-
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:
Mauricio Ritter wrote: Interesting... from this I can conclude that F. Beiramar is a free man He IS a free man. At least, more than me: I can't use my cell phone from my car, but he can use his cell phone from anywhere he wants! Concussus surgo. When struck I rise.
-
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
Not exactly. I consider that every man/woman has "natural, unalienable, and sacred rights", whatever his/her country, color, religion, and that "Men/Women are born and remain free and equal in rights" About global government, I'm quiet favorable, indeed. 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
Richard Stringer wrote: So by that definition law is unfair on its surface by favoring those who would not survive without it No, it's not unfair, it's not Darwinist, and I don't think these words are synonym, even in English :) . IMHO and following Primo Levi, the more a society is evolved and fair, the smallest is the shift between the strongests and the weakests. We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
-
Not exactly. I consider that every man/woman has "natural, unalienable, and sacred rights", whatever his/her country, color, religion, and that "Men/Women are born and remain free and equal in rights" About global government, I'm quiet favorable, indeed. We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
Karl wrote: I consider that every man/woman has "natural, unalienable, and sacred rights", Only what they can take by force. One is entitled to what they can grab - there is no free lunch. Karl wrote: About global government, I'm quiet favorable, indeed. Then you are , at heart , a communist. 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: I consider that every man/woman has "natural, unalienable, and sacred rights", Only what they can take by force. One is entitled to what they can grab - there is no free lunch. Karl wrote: About global government, I'm quiet favorable, indeed. Then you are , at heart , a communist. 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: there is no free lunch. Yep, that's why I think that "When the government violates the rights of the people, insurrection is for the people and for each portion of the people the most sacred of rights and the most indispensable of duties"[^] Richard Stringer wrote: Then you are , at heart , a communist. No, I'm against the Dictatorship, even the one of the proletariat. I would rather say I'm socialist, but I'm not sure that as American you're able to make the difference ;P We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
-
Richard Stringer wrote: there is no free lunch. Yep, that's why I think that "When the government violates the rights of the people, insurrection is for the people and for each portion of the people the most sacred of rights and the most indispensable of duties"[^] Richard Stringer wrote: Then you are , at heart , a communist. No, I'm against the Dictatorship, even the one of the proletariat. I would rather say I'm socialist, but I'm not sure that as American you're able to make the difference ;P We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children. Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944)
Karl wrote: I would rather say I'm socialist, but I'm not sure that as American you're able to make the difference I struggle to see the difference. It really is one of semantics. A communist believes that everything belongs to the state and a socialist believes that everything belongs to the people. Neither system will ever work as it removes all incentive for individual excellence. 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