The fetishization of "Freedom."

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Is capital-eff "FREEDOM" the highest ideological value?

Many on ATS and elsewhere act like it is. The preservation of "liberty" or "freedom" is a seeming argument-stopper for many, and related concepts (personal freedom, civil liberties, being free of government meddling, and so forth) are frequently trotted out as sacred, shining goals, beyond any other.

With this thread I would like to make two points:

1) "Freedom" as an ideological value is usually very poorly defined in any given argument that pushes for it.

2) When it is defined, it is usually given excessive, almost mystical importance.

Now I can hear all the steam hissing out of libertarian ears as they read this...for "freedom" truly is the sacred cow of libertarianism. I do not argue that "we need no freedom." So save your strawmen. Individual freedom is an important value for almost every society. However, it is not the only value, or in many cases even the primary one. The is also the difference between "freedom from" and "freedom to." Freedom as usually conceived by libertarians and others on the right is usually "freedom to make this or that choice." However, less talked about, there is also "freedom from hunger, freedom from want, freedom from fear." These are usually not considered by those who enshrine "liberty" as a sacred value.

The truth of the matter is that personal (or corporate) liberty is only one facet of what defines a society. It is wrong to attach a mystical or inflated value to freedom at the expense of needs like social protection, cooperation, justice, defense against hostility, community, and the "freedom from" instability, hunger. poverty, want, exploitation, and so on. A society that pushes sketchily-defined "liberty" at the expense of these other goals is not a just or fully-functioning society.
edit on 5/30/2012 by Leftist because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 30 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Complete freedom is anarchy.

Moderation in all things.
edit on 30-5-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
Complete freedom is anarchy.

Moderation in all things.
edit on 30-5-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)


In addition to that I think that the force that moderates freedom must come from inside each person. Morality and education. The state is too unwieldy and easily corrupted an apparatus to do this.

edit on 30-5-2012 by Mkoll because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   
If I have a fetish for freedom, then why am I not sexually aroused?
Oh, that's because we're not free.
edit on 30-5-2012 by MrUncreated because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
God forbid you started a thread on the reality of Rights with a capital aaarrrrgh! Instead it is better to play a propaganda game declaring "Freedom" as a poorly defined ideological value. Had you attempted such a things with capital aaaarrrrrgh Rights, you would face a bevy of members who would clearly and cogently define rights, and then you'd be left with that comparison up against your Leftist indoctrination where capital aaaarrrrrrght Rights are reviled and feared.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   
The right to the fruits of my labor.
The right to protect myself and my property.

The founding fathers had it pretty spot on....minus the slavery and racism part.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


I would disagree if you mean anarchy to mean chaos.

If you do something to take away someone else's freedom then that is not freedom. If by your actions you take away someone else's freedom, then that is not freedom.

So everyone running around simply doing what they want without regard for others is not freedom. It's simply chaos.

True freedom only comes from the right to be able to provide for yourself without constraints created by hierarchies, or dependence on outside entities such as institutions of the state. That has to be the case for everyone, not just people lucky enough to own property.

Capitalism creates hierarchies, and allows legal slavery basically. Are you free if you are dependent on someone to give you a "job"? No. Can we live freely off the land, no because someone "owns" it.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomXisntXFree
The right to the fruits of my labor.


Which we don't have.

Capitalism takes part of the fruits of our labour for their profit. Workers are required to produce more than they are paid for, surplus value, which is taken by the capitalist to live off and reinvest. Thus the capitalists financial power is always gaining, while the workers financial power stays stagnant or is decreased.

The working class as a social group never improve their economic status, only some lucky individuals. We will forever be the exploited class within capitalism.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Somehow you always make me smile. I'm not sure exactly why. This is not a bad thing.

Rights...can be slippery, slippery. But I am in favor of Rights. Perhaps not the same ones as you.
But Rights all the same.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
If freedom is not the highest political end, what is?



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
God forbid you started a thread on the reality of Rights with a capital aaarrrrgh! Instead it is better to play a propaganda game declaring "Freedom" as a poorly defined ideological value. Had you attempted such a things with capital aaaarrrrrgh Rights, you would face a bevy of members who would clearly and cogently define rights, and then you'd be left with that comparison up against your Leftist indoctrination where capital aaaarrrrrrght Rights are reviled and feared.


But capital rights are only because of laws created by capitalists. Capitalists created their own set of rights, that the people had no say over.

Should anyone really have the right to exploit others because they own property? It's a rigged system that created its own laws to justify itself, but it doesn't make it morally right or the best form of economy we could have.

You can argue "rights" due to ownership, but what about the basic right to live freely off the land you were born on? I didn't agree to allowing people to have the right to exploit me, they created the situation that gives us no choice but to be exploited.

edit on 5/30/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
If it were up to me, I would take a sizable loaf of special interest,
Cover it snugly in a socialist latex wrapper and
Shove it right up their communist agenda

edit on 30-5-2012 by redneck13 because: v



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Leftist
 


I think freedom is pretty easy to define;

1. The individual right that one can do anything they want as long as it does not impinge upon the rights of others and is not commonly deemed as morally reprehensible.
2. The right to say NO and it means no, there is no extortion or force that can be exerted to change your mind or force you to do something you don't want to do.

That seems pretty simple and defined. Anything to add?

Cheers - Dave



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


or simply emancipation from the arbitrary rule of others.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


1. Define "does not impinge upon the rights of others" more specifically.

2. The right to say no to taxes is included in your condition #2? If not, why not? Gets more complex, doesn't it?



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


That's a nice, very short and sweet breakdown into even more simplistic terms.

Cheers - Dave



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leftist
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


1. Define "does not impinge upon the rights of others" more specifically.

2. The right to say no to taxes is included in your condition #2? If not, why not? Gets more complex, doesn't it?


1. Does not impinge means that my rights end where your rights begin.
2. No means no, which includes a scope of everything, so yes it means no to taxes as well if need be.

Personally, I would not say no to taxes because they do provide a certain function towards the social good, that being roads and other infrastructure, but I would say no to excessive taxation that I determine to be excessive from my own subjective experience.

Cheers - Dave



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by redneck13
If it were up to me, I would take a sizable loaf of special interest,
Cover it snugly in a socialist latex wrapper and
Shove it right up their communist agenda


And what is the communist agenda? Can you explain it all for us please?



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
And what is the communist agenda? Can you explain it all for us please?


I'll take a shot at that...

The desire to plan the lives of others coupled with a monopoly on the force necessary to impose that plan on unwilling subjects, put into the hands of a centralized bureaucracy of self serving busybodies, all for the good of society?

How'd I do?



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


Compared to historical observations you did pretty damned well, I think.

You forgot the tens of millions of deaths imposed on those who disagree in any way, however.
edit on 30-5-2012 by Mkoll because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join