Loading ...Handy ‘ol Webster defines Freedom as “the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action”, but the debate over what Freedom truly entails is a debate that has coursed through the veins of human history. Some subscribe to the Lockean definition of natural rights manifested through the right to property, while others see Freedom through the lenses of Marxian thought; the absence of hierarchy and free access to the necessities of society. Then there are those generally ignorant souls (there goes my objectivity) who see Freedom as a political right that is subject to the control of governmental powers and statist progression in order to reach some necessary plateau of security. These people are in need of education, but they are at least leaning in the right direction. They just need a bit (understatement) of adjustment. Hence the word generally.
Whether or not you agree with any of these stances one thing is certain… Freedom is popular, and the idea of Freedom spreads like a super-contagious disease, but with a benevolent spirit. No one person or group will ever be able to ultimately define Freedom. Humans are naturally subjective, but it is possible to work towards a free society in this age of rapid globalism, religious zealotry, economic protectionism or imperialism, and perpetual war. The details can be debated later, as for now, let Freedom ring throughout the Earth!
5 responses so far ↓
1 Absolute // Feb 15, 2008 at 6:41 pm
While I see some value in being open to peoples opinions, it can certainly help start a discussion; however, I take issue with the philosophy that words and ideas are subjective. Freedom does mean something. It is an absolute, and Webster nails it. The reason it becomes subjective is because it is a word that draws a lot of positive emotional feelings and is a value most want to hold on to, so it is linked to ideas to make their words seem more platable. Freedom is desireable, but it is not always good. An individual can not ultimate and unrestrained freedom, unless he lives alone. Once you have neighbors, you must rightly restrict the actions of one to keep from infringing on another. This is the wisdom of our constitution. Complete freedom is anarchy. It is individual driven. Complete absense of freedom is socialism/communism. It is society driven. The comment of freedom being “free access to the necessities of society” is merely an indivdual stealing from someone else, be it state ordained or not. Sure that is freedom for the one who benefited, just as a violent response to that stealing can be called freedom for the one that lost benefit.
In order for freedom to remain a positive value, it must be restrained. To prevent wars, you must prevent state sanctioning of using the banner of freedom to supress another. Our constitutional writers wisely constructed a document to govern the affairs of men while giving a distinct bias towards individual freedoms, but not an absoltue right to anarchy.
2 NoLimit // Feb 15, 2008 at 7:08 pm
I agree, I myself subscribe to the Lockean definiton and fervently fight against Marxian ideals. I was merely inquiring on the wispy translation of Freedom all across the spectrum. I see Freedom as simply the absence of force. That can be applied to any situation.
3 Absolute // Feb 15, 2008 at 8:17 pm
It is encouraging to hear from like minded people who have seen through the idealism of Marxism, and discovered the realism of its tyranny.
I admire political speech laced with high ideals, helping us to see, or imagine, the ultimate goal; however, I am very hesitant to vote for someone who only speaks on those lofty terms. I want to hear specific on how a candidate would implement change. For example, “improving education” is everyone’s goal, but how does one do that. Does it require raising taxes/pouring more money into the system to make it happen? Maybe that is ok, if one can prove that to be true and that the monies would be funneled to ideas that work, and not some pet program of a friend in high places. Is it adding more competition by encouraging more private schools by funneling some of the tax money to those organizations? Again, lets see some data. Is it adding some level of accountability such that teachers who do not perform are penalized or fired? Perhaps a pilot program proving results before we throw billions of dollars on the problem would be warranted.
4 Rebel with a Cause // Feb 15, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Sadly, it seems like the majority of people today confuse diversity with freedom. Diversity is merely a by-product of freedom. Worse, the social demand to accept diversity, outside of courteous tolerance, is a form of infringement–i.e., political correctness that negates one’s freedom to criticize another’s point of view that they disagree with. One cannot just be tolerant of another’s lifestyle, one must cheer and applaud those lifestyles, lest even silence is regarded as bigotry and prejudice. That does not sound like freedom. It sounds like forced compliance.
We see this when people demand special rights for their group–Affirmative action, demanding a Constitutional amendment to define marriage, and charging crimes against certain groups of people as “hate crimes” are just a few examples.
In page 14 of Ron Paul’s book , “Freedom under Siege” (available for download here: http://www.mises.org/books/freedomsiege.pdf),
he argues correctly that promoting such diversity of personal rights results in limited the greater blessings afforded of inalienable rights. This demand to codified rights for special interest groups plays into the hands of those who seek to enslave citizens. It divides us as a people, instead of uniting us–the divide and conquer tactic is a favorite of tyrants. Worse, it has people foolishly trading in valuable alienable rights, rights that they are born with, for customized, limited privileges granted by a government. It is the equivalent of selling one’s birthright for a mess of pottage. And anything given by a government can be taking away, especially in a “national emergency”
5 Absolute // Feb 16, 2008 at 11:11 am
I second the Rebel’s comments!So many times the cause is just, but it comes at too high of a price… new laws giving select groups special rights. There are those of good conscience who support these efforts, but sadly I fear the main driver for many politicians is to be seen “doing something” and something usually means fewer rights for the people. There are already many laws on the books. Murder is a hate crime. Murdering one person should not be any more repugnant than someone else of a difference race, national origin, etc. The ferocity and intent of the murder is already a factor in the crime and sentence (manslaughter/murder and 10 yrs/death penalty). We need equal application of the law, and only then will justice prevail. Without justice, there can be no lasting peace, paraphrasing MLK jr.’s words.
Leave a Comment