True Freedom: What's Your Price?

I will keep this very simple.

True freedom does not exist. True freedom is the ability to make a choice - any choice - without consequence...and no matter what system you look at, there is no such thing. Every action has a reaction, and therefore, every choice has a consequence. You take one opportunity, you lose another opportunity.

We are asking for true, pure freedom. This cannot be accomplished. To establish true freedom, is to complete the collapse of reality as we know it.

No responsibility, no accountability, no reliability. Everything will be uncertain, and nothing will have value. There will be no priority or organization, there will be no progress or development.

True freedom will mean death for our species. I leave you all to ponder this understanding, and to reevaluate your desires in this world. If you can't have true freedom...

What kind of freedom do you want? And better yet, what will it cost you? Everything has a price. And that, my friends, is the meaning of freedom. The ability to choose your price.

What's your price?

True freedom is nothing? Nothingness?

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Try reading the OP again.

reply to post by Starchild23


Why is true freedom only when it is without consequence?

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? Karma? I'll just stop there.

only thing id trade my freedom for is.. freedom

reply to post by Open2Truth


Because freedom implies lack of influence or coercion involving choices.

Since every action has a consequence, you don't have true freedom to make any choices...you have limited freedom.

If you had true freedom, you could go to Denny's and still visit Ihops. But since you only have 20 minutes to eat, you can only choose one. Or since you only have $15, you can only go to one. Or since you like grits and only one place serves them, you can only go to one.

This applies to every decision you make. You walk on the other side of the street, you miss seeing something. You choose to leave five minutes early, you miss the beautiful lady walking in, or you miss getting caught in a robbery.

There is no true freedom. True freedom is the ability to make any choice at any time without losing anything.

[quote[ For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? Karma? I'll just stop there.


Karma? I never mentioned karma. You walk to one side of the street, and the equal and opposite reaction is lack of presence on the side where you would overhear a conversation regarding an awesome sale at an electronics store.

You just lost that opportunity...unless you happen to see it on the side of the street you just walked to. In which case, you walk in and buy a radio, then walk out with 12 dollars gone from your pocket. In true freedom, you wouldn't have had to pay for that radio.

True freedom is choice without consequence.

reply to post by Starchild23


I did not choose freedom, I chose slavery to Truth. I do not wish for freedom. But this was my free choice.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


That's a wise choice. Slavery to truth...in which your actions are dictated by the truths in life, removing your freedoms by cause of survival and pleasure...or whatever you live for.

But let me ask you: are these the truths you know, or the truths that apply with or without your knowledge?

Freedom is emptyness.

Being in a place where you see but are not touched.

Understand but not empassioned.

Cheers.

oh yes, the price. Losing the ability to be self deluded, or wonder into fantasy.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

Try reading the OP again.

There was nothing there at the time. I see you edited though.

For me, true freedom means that the government stays out of my life unless I hurt somebody else. It means I can buy what I want, eat what I want, go where I want, hire/fire who I want, contract with/or not whoever I choose, own the weapons of my choice, defend my self/family/friends/property without fear of persecution, actually OWN property, perform the type of work that interests me, and generally live my life without governmental interference. It also means that I am not required to surrender the fruits of my labor to those who will not work, that I should not have to support others at the cost of taking care of my family and their needs.

Originally posted by Starchild23
I will keep this very simple.

True freedom does not exist. True freedom is the ability to make a choice - any choice - without consequence...and no matter what system you look at, there is no such thing. Every action has a reaction, and therefore, every choice has a consequence. You take one opportunity, you lose another opportunity.

We are asking for true, pure freedom. This cannot be accomplished. To establish true freedom, is to complete the collapse of reality as we know it.

No responsibility, no accountability, no reliability. Everything will be uncertain, and nothing will have value. There will be no priority or organization, there will be no progress or development.

True freedom will mean death for our species. I leave you all to ponder this understanding, and to reevaluate your desires in this world. If you can't have true freedom...

What kind of freedom do you want? And better yet, what will it cost you? Everything has a price. And that, my friends, is the meaning of freedom. The ability to choose your price.

What's your price?

You're right that every choice collapses the wave of probability in an actuality, upon which absolute freedom is lost. True freedom only exists prior to choice and prior to any judgement.

However, creative action that isn't vested in a desired outcome, but which takes creative action for it's own intrinsic value IS absolute freedom. Which reminds me of the timeless wisdom contained in the Bhagavad Gita.

We are also absolute free to be ourselves as we are, but only to the degree that we first become fully present to ourselves as we are not or our inauthentic self.

reply to post by Starchild23

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by Open2Truth

 

There is no true freedom. True freedom is the ability to make any choice at any time without losing anything.

We shall agree to disagree then. True Freedom is the ability to make a choice - yes. How is it really a choice if all is identical afterwards?

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

That's a wise choice. Slavery to truth...in which your actions are dictated by the truths in life, removing your freedoms by cause of survival and pleasure...or whatever you live for.

But let me ask you: are these the truths you know, or the truths that apply with or without your knowledge?

it is Truth i know, we cannot choose a thing we do not know, I know this Truth, these truths, they are One, only different manifestations of the same. Nothing applies without knowledge.

reply to post by Starchild23

True freedom does not exist. True freedom is the ability to make a choice - any choice - without consequence...and no matter what system you look at, there is no such thing. Every action has a reaction, and therefore, every choice has a consequence. You take one opportunity, you lose another opportunity.

Maybe change it too...

"True freedom does exist. True freedom is the ability to make a choice - any choice - without consequence"

Then I think you are onto what the rulers of this world are seeking.

If you use others for your bidding and to fight your battles, there are not many consequences if everyone is playing by your rules.

I still think there are some things that are missing though of course.

Freedom to me is the ability to do and be whoever you want to be as long as you are not hurting another person.

Our very societies contradict this because every single time I can afford to make a payment, someone else cannot because of the banking system.

Everytime I eat, someone else starves.

I could keep going on here until it gets to the point im stealiing someone else oxygen.

I guess my point here is that Freedom, is not possible if everyone wants to survive.

We have to pick our poison.

It's easy to trip yourself up in discussions like this. It's all based on definitions, so if you choose to define "true" freedom in a very narrow way, you get to control the dialog, kind of like winning a coin toss. But I don't know that you have accomplished anything profound, or even valid. Words have definitions enabled by consensus. Re-defining them for a personal agenda smacks of egotism.

I would suggest that most people consider "freedom" to be free from external constraints by government, institutions, people (including parents), excessive regulations, etc. We sometimes codify these freedoms in the Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights. Some of them we take to be "self-evident," and some of them are torturously construed, like the 35 hour work week. These kinds of freedoms can be characterized as defining who we are compared to each other, i.e.: Humans interacting. Without other humans involved, the point is moot.

Those kinds of freedoms have little to do with the physical world and it's "every action has a reaction" principle. If you put your bare hand on a hot stove, you get burned. Action, consequence. Few people would argue that you are "not free" because that can happen to you. Some may argue that you had the freedom to not do that, too. In any case, claiming real-world consequences means you lack freedom doesn't make much sense. If you do something stupid, you die. That you are intelligent enough to avoid doing something stupid does not mean you are constrained and lack freedom. You are free to die if you want to. Just leave a forwarding address for the Darwin Award.

The point is that because you are compelled to make a choice, one over the other, does not mean you lack freedom. Unless you buy off on Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Theory you physically can't be in two places at once. You are free to make a choice which avenue you want. That you chose specifically to make one choice over the other does not constitute lack of freedom.

Personally, I want the freedom to take a daily hot shower. I will make sure that happens any way I need to. I don't think that I chose to not stay dirty inhibits my freedom. I thiink it enhances it.

Why does "true" freedom require no consequences? What is a consequence, if not the same thing as an effect? If I choose anything, regardless of the effect, it would be true freedom. What you are saying is that there should be no conflicting dissonance between choices, which then wouldn't really be about freedom but more so about eliminating an uncomfort.

As both schuyler and juveous have correctly pointed out, you've rigged the game and demanded we accept your definition of "true freedom". You have also placed a definition on a phrase: "true freedom" but lexicographers shy away from defining phrases and simply define words. True is generally defined as being consistent with fact or reality; not false or erroneous. Freedom is generally defined as being free of restraints, liberty from slavery, detention, or oppression; political independence, exemption from arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of specific action...interestingly the link I provided also cites "freedom from want" as an example of freedom.

It is in your insistence of want where you go astray from true freedom. The less we want the freer we tend to be. Beyond this, you've presented a contradiction by declaring there is no such thing as true freedom. Of course, since true is consistence with reality you have a contradiction, and in my experience there are no contradictions, and when confronted with one it is best to reexamine the premise.

Freedom as we have been sold it in todays society is not true freedom (I know, semantics).

Freedom is not living life without consequences or responsibilities, thats anarchy. Its only one branch that we can choose to follow.

Freedom is being able to make that choice. Yes you can be free to make a choice, but you must still deal with the consequences. That does not make it any less of a free choice.

But alas... as others have said, its all about definitions and such. Just thought Id add my 2 cents anyways.

The kind of game-rigging mentioned by above posters has been called "No true Scotsman".

Now how's this for mental gymnastics? Consider the freedom to constrain another person's freedom. Would that violate that other person's freedom? How about the freedom to constrain oneself. Would that violate your own freedom?

reply to post by socialist


The mental gymnastic game you offered is an interesting one and I have often run across this similar type of mental gymnastics when reading arguments as to why there are not unalienable rights. The argument goes that one mans rights can trample upon another mans rights. In the same way the O.P. has rigged the game on "true freedom" those arguing against unalienable rights presuming one right can negate another is yet another form of rigging the game.

Of course, by declaring that one right can negate another right we are again confronted with a contradiction. The premise is flawed. A logical fallacy, if you will.