Freedom Vs. Liberty

I suspect few outside the U.S. will find this has much traction as a subject.

This goes back a ways for me. I was surfing Sirius, a North American satellite radio service, just after Bush's second inaugural speech and landed on ABC Radio with a chap by the name of Bachelor hosting.

He had some academic on from Georgetown U. who was discussing the fact that Bush's speech-writer had misplaced the word freedom as opposed to Liberty.

Semantics, you say? Not so fast. The discussion led to an epiphany behind our Constitution and the responsibilities therein required by our citizenry. It changed my views on a fundamental level from there on out.

The phrase is "give me Liberty or give me death" not give me freedom or give me death. Some might remember seeing the phrase, "you take liberties".

Apparently, this hasn't been fully cleared up as even the academics were stilling debating the etymology of these concepts...at that time.

If my understanding is correct, freedom is just that, freedom. Liberty, is granted, taken and assumed to ensure those freedoms. Responsibility.

You are responsible for your gov't. You are it's militia. (Original version...not so sure these days). It's defender. It's critic...and supporter. Every individual is the gov't, the overseer, the benefactor of the rewards of that responsibility.

Each man is King....or Queen. Absolute ruler and suffering the responsibilities of those privileges.

I believe this concept is definitely elitist, in origin, and bestowed upon the citizenry with the same privileges and 'cross to bear' as those elites Via the Constitution.

Obviously, we have failed to live up to those standards and suffering the consequences as a result

Do I have this right?.

a reply to: nwtrucker
Indeed. Freedom and liberty are two different things, yet intertwined in a world consisting of more than one person. The very idea behind the United States being a "democratic republic" if you'll forgive the term, is to grant freedom to ourselves within the confines of respecting other peoples freedoms, and not infringing upon them. This is liberty.

True freedom can only be had when only one individual exists. In a society(group), unfettered freedom is akin to anarchy, therefore the group grants freedoms through contractual agreement(law). It's the way the it has been done throughout history to one degree or another.

a reply to: Klassified

I think they're the same, but if I had to make a distinction, I'd have to say freedom is the ideal that liberty is based on.

TRUE freedom I can't be obtained, because of the laws of the universe, i.e. Physics and what-not. (Caveat, if there IS a creator, He/She/It/They could ha e true freedom.)
True Liberty can be obtained, even if not really feasible. (There's gotta/gonna be some laws, even if only on the local level.)

a reply to: japhrimu

freedom, as discussed here, relates to human determinism.

You have the freedom to determine your next move. But your choices are limited to what is available. So, for example, you can move up, down, left, right, forward, and backward. But you cannot move "in" or "out", as those directions are not available to you (interestingly enough, the same concept is why there is no such thing as "random numbers", as the set of numbers that the "random" is derived from is itself finite).

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Ok.

To clarify, or simplify my point, liberty is freedom, but politicized. Right?

Isn't it like the following?:
All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
Liberty is always freedom, but freedom isn't always liberty.

a reply to: japhrimu

Liberty is the state of being free. The actual act of it.

I TAKE liberties. But i AM free.

I often say on ATS that I don't ask for liberty, and I don't ask if im free to do something. I just DO it. As a reasonable man, my judgement of right and wrong is sufficient for me, and I ignore legal requirements otherwise.

If i feel that there being zero traffic on a highway between Marathon, TX and Ft Stockton, TX is justification to drive 90 mph...I suspect that not many folks will be present to dispute my taking such a liberty. Thus, I am free to do it.

a reply to: Klassified


I see your point. For me, undercutting those laws is the personal responsibility in their maintenance and protection.

That was my personal realization stressed.

If I AM those laws, that gov't, I am also it's President, at least in attitude, in interest and participation.

Therefore, is the concept of 'Liberty' senior to our Constitution? Senior even to this Union? The U.S.A. sans Liberty or Liberty sans the U.S.?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I'm not disagreeing with you, I don't think...

Liberty is the state of being free. Freedom is the state of being free, too, by default, isn't it? I say, "So, same thing, different words?"

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Klassified


I see your point. For me, undercutting those laws is the personal responsibility in their maintenance and protection.

That was my personal realization stressed.

If I AM those laws, that gov't, I am also it's President, at least in attitude, in interest and participation.

Therefore, is the concept of 'Liberty' senior to our Constitution? Senior even to this Union? The U.S.A. sans Liberty or Liberty sans the U.S.?

I would say liberty is senior to the constitution in that, we have the right to redress of grievances when the law is found to be infringing or limiting freedoms in an unjust way.

originally posted by: japhrimu
a reply to: Klassified

I think they're the same, but if I had to make a distinction, I'd have to say freedom is the ideal that liberty is based on.

TRUE freedom I can't be obtained, because of the laws of the universe, i.e. Physics and what-not. (Caveat, if there IS a creator, He/She/It/They could ha e true freedom.)
True Liberty can be obtained, even if not really feasible. (There's gotta/gonna be some laws, even if only on the local level.)

Had to do a google search for something similar to what I'm getting at. See if this explains it better than I.
Liberty or Freedom?

Text

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: japhrimu

freedom, as discussed here, relates to human determinism.

You have the freedom to determine your next move. But your choices are limited to what is available. So, for example, you can move up, down, left, right, forward, and backward. But you cannot move "in" or "out", as those directions are not available to you (interestingly enough, the same concept is why there is no such thing as "random numbers", as the set of numbers that the "random" is derived from is itself finite).

Taking it one step further. Our revolution was, in fact, taking liberties. Despite laws of the Empire. Despite consequence-winning or losing-and in that level there is no restriction on 'taking Liberties'.

Subjective labels come after the fact or by those opposed to taking those 'liberties. Rebel, terrorist, freedom fighter, all are taking liberties.

Now it approaches the same level, potentially, as anarchism. I'd guess the Constitution was not only an 'agreed upon', is was a balance between barriers and 'freedoms'.

I'm getting a headache again....

a reply to: japhrimu

I'd suggest looking them up in quality dictionaries. Say the Oxford English Dictionary.(The absolute best of the best.)

The Etymology of the two words is key in differentiation.

I think you are liberated INTO freedom.

It's one of those glass half full/half empty things. You can go back and forth....

Until someone like me shows up. *toothy grin*

See, the glass is half FULL if you FILL IT UP HALFWAY.

The glass is half EMPTY if you EMPTY IT BY HALF.

So, you have liberty if you are liberated into freedom -- and you are free if you are liberated from a previous state of not being free.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Ok... I like that enough.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Damn straight.

A free man does not ask to be free. He just lives it, and readily defends that freedom when challenged. Its why it pisses me off so much to see people chiding others for not being compliant with police.

If you REALLY know how to American, you aren't compliant with authority.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Freedom can be given to you; liberty implies that you are not controlled to begin with.

We are given an enormous amount of liberty by the 9th and 10th Amendments of the COTUS, but sadly, we have allowed a lot of control to be placed on us as the Federal government has placed many forms of control and restraint on us.

Look at how they are attempting to use language to place more.

Watch how Hillary and others refer to freedom of worship instead of freedom of religion for an example.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

There is compliant with authority and compliant with authority.

At some level, there has to be some respect or else we have anarchy.

Anarchy wouldn't be so bad. The only people who would suffer are those who are slow to defend themselves.

The majority of "crime" today is manufactured as a response to unjust laws. Without those unjust laws, all you are left with really is violent crime. Where I live...not much of that going on. No one wants to be shot.

Text

a reply to: MystikMushroom


One is 'liberated' by someone who took liberties to achieve it.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Sorry, I changed my thought mid stream when I realized I wanted to address teh OP and my comment went a whole new direction, but what you quoted still stands.

And what I wrote above also addresses the whole "unjust" laws issue. We allowed those constraints to be placed on ourselves. They are unjust in many cases, but we got complacent and let it happen. We let too many "do gooders" take away our liberty in favor of their perceived "greater good." And what government takes for itself, it seldom surrenders.

However, given the advanced state of societal/social decay, I can't really say I want to have a state of anarchy. It would look a lot like what they are suffering in Venezuela.

a reply to: ketsuko

Venezuela may be the perfect example of where we are headed.

It was an affluent nation in it's day.