You wan't freedom, but what is that?

Really? What is freedom, what is freedom to you?

What do you think that Freedom means?

At what point does freedom equate to chaos?

At what point does freedom go too far?

What would you restrict? What is Taboo, what is Wrong, what do you think people SHOULDN'T have the freedom to do?

True freedom is where there are no laws and only you.

reply to post by whatukno


As long as I don't harm another, don't tell me what the hell to do!!!!!!!!!!!

That to me is what freedom means. I already have the freedom to think what I want, but everyday there are new laws, new taxes, new rules, none of which make me harm anyone if I break them. I don't like being controlled and take many of these laws as a threat to me as a human just trying to get by in this screwed up world.

In another of these "what is freedom?" threads, there are many, a poster responded with something like being free to say 'no.'

I suppose we are all free to say 'no' we'll just end up in prison as felons and all of our property confiscated and wages garnished to the grave if we do.

I would like to live my life without a gun to my head. That'd be pretty nice.

My ethos:

1) So long as it does not threaten the well being of myself or the people under my care (such as family, friends, and those asking for help), do as you will.

2) You can do anything you want in this world, so long as you are willing to accept the consequences.


Funny thing is that this was considered a normal point of view not too long ago.

Originally posted by whatukno
Really? What is freedom, what is freedom to you?
Freedom is the right to exercise the rights granted by the laws of God, Nature and Country.

What do you think that Freedom means?
Same question as #1.

At what point does freedom equate to chaos?
When laws are removed that protects person and property.

At what point does freedom go too far?
When freedom becomes confused with anarchy. Anarchy will always lead to self destruction.

What would you restrict? What is Taboo, what is Wrong, what do you think people SHOULDN'T have the freedom to do? I would restrict any action that would cause harm to person or property. What is morally taboo, wrong or right should be up to the individual to decide. With that said, If what an individual decides and/or acts upon threatends the life, harm, destruction or well being of another person or property, then the offender must pay the price with his/her's freedom.

edit on 2/23/2011 by whatukno because: (no reason given)

reply to post by whatukno


Freedom is an imposing will. It knows no bounds, yet it is believed to break or adhere to them.

Boundaries to freedom come in the forms of morals, physical limitations, science, lines in the sand, etc.

We create boundaries from our freedom to do so.

Freedom to me is being able to do what you choose as long as you are not hurting someone else or infringing on another's basic human rights.

Well its hard to find it probably in most western countries..

I think there was a lot more freedom in the past. I think if people had a better feel for local community, and less feel for the broader picture...people would feel a bit more in control and have more freedom. In the past, things were more determined by yourself and small, local community, but now decisions are often made far removed from those things.

reply to post by whatukno


Freedom is the ability to live, unhindered.
In nature, or the wild, animals are free.
Free to live instinctively and without oversight.

Freedom is a falacy created by slave owners.
As long as you want, or crave, societal pleasures...you are NOT free.

Freedom is unobtainable to those who want luxuries.

Freedom is the ability to live on your own land, with your own support.
Nothing owed to anyone, ever.
Not relying on any government entity to help.

Freedom is impossible.
I have come to terms with that.
Governments globally, make it impossible.
The entire Earth has a feudal system still in place.
Keep your slaves happy and they will think they are free.
That's exactly the case today.

One is only truly free when they cease to exist.
Because you can be a nomad all you want, but you can't cross borders.
And if caught, you will find out how 'free' you really are.

It's ashame, really.
Freedom is a lie, just like everything else "they" teach you.
Americans are not free, they are just allowed more rights.
We are as free as it gets.

reply to post by havok


We should distinguish freedom from being free.

The former is falsely associated with a 'state'--a state of being free. In fact 'freedom' is widely seen as an ideal 'thing'. Freedom is no such ascertainable 'thing', but 'free' is a recognized 'state'.

If we are to consider 'being' as a state of man, then there is the obligation to consider the 'becoming' as varied states over time. Each of us rank our values of freedom on a level of consciousness when we ponder this.

Consciousness plays a critical and central role in ranking the 'free' states, exercising its 'freedom' to do so.

If we were to graph the freedom of man, 'freedom' would be the height on the y-axis, time on the x-axis, and 'free' would be an unidentified--or identified, as the case may be--plot on the graph.

This wave, representing consciousness over time, will, at life's end, disappear at its last known height. The act of drawing graphs, and their analysis, may rank high, low, or vaguely at all, in one's value affairs. Nevertheless, from a blade of grass to a graph, the impact on 'freedom' and the personal, unique sequences that gave rise to a subsequently judged 'free act' have their roots in the so-called 'free state' of conscious, 'free acts'. This imagined battle, competition, and invasion of 'free-will' is as explosive as an atomic bomb and as minimal as observation. This is crucial to understanding the difficulty 'free-will' poses to philosophy.

Here's an excerpt from Nietzsche's work, which ties together my idea of the 'imposing will' of freedom and a 'free being' ("free-spirits", as he recognizes them), as in a state of consciousness and the varied states thereof:

My idea is, as you see, that consciousness does not really belong to man's individual existence but rather to his social or herd nature; that, as follows from this, it has developed subtlety only insofar as this is required by social or herd utility. Consequently, given the best will in the world to understand ourselves as individually as possible, "to know ourselves," each of us will always succeed in becoming conscious only of what is not individual but "average." Our thoughts themselves are continually governed by the character of consciousness--by the "genius of the species" that commands it--and translated back into the perspective of the herd. Fundamentally, all our actions are altogether incomparably personal, unique, and infinitely individual; there is no doubt of that. But as soon as we translate them into consciousness they no longer seem to be.
This is the essence of phenomenalism and perspectivism as I understand them: Owing to the nature of animal consciousness, the world of which we can become conscious is only a surface- and sign-world, a world that is made common and meaner; whatever becomes conscious becomes by the same token shallow, thin, relatively stupid, general, sign, herd signal; all becoming conscious involves a great and thorough corruption, falsification, reduction to superficialities, and generalization. Ultimately, the growth of consciousness becomes a danger, and anyone who lives among the most conscious European even knows that it is a disease.
You will guess that it is not the opposition of subject and object that concerns me here: This distinction I leave to the epistemologists who have become entangled in the snares of grammar (the metaphysics of the people). It is even less the opposition of "thing-in-itself" and appearance; for we do not "know" nearly enough to be entitled to any such distinction. We simply lack any organ for knowledge, for "truth": we "know" (or believe or imagine) just as much as may be useful in the interests of the human herd, the species; and even what is here called "utility" is ultimately also a mere belief, something imaginary, and perhaps precisely that most calamitous stupidity of which we shall perish someday.

We could look at the "herd" or "average" people as representative of what, exactly? Democracy? A republic? [Insert Party Name]? Can you imagine such representation despite our personal uniqueness and "animal consciousness"? It takes forms ranging from invading personal space (spy, rape) to brutal discrimination (slavery, genocide).

"To comprehend what is" was what Hegel saw as the philosopher's task, while Nietzsche contends such comprehension requires self-deception.

One must read forwards and backwards, in other words, but there's infinitely more than meets the eye.

total "freedom" is no civilization. you being the only one living on an island thousands of miles away from any other land mass. no one to care for or about, but you.
unfortunately, I don't think man was created for this way of life. we are social creatures. we meet people, some we like, some we love, and well, some we could care less about. but well, those we like and those we love, we find ourselves often setting aside our freedoms, expending our energy, sharing our resources, laying aside our desires for them. humans have a need to feel secure, they also seem to have a tendency to be violent occasionally, to steal what isn't theirs, to create wars, and well, enslave each other, so thus, we find ourselves laying aside our freedom to become a part of a large group for our own protection. then well, these large groups often need leadership, so we lay aside more freedom when we agree to follow the leader.
humans have also found it easier to survive if they can focus on certain aspects of meeting their needs while others focus on meeting other needs for the group. they specialize. this works out great, but leaves one dependent on others to gain those things needed that they no longer have the time or ability to aquire, since they are spending much of thier time specializing in that one small area. dependancy =servitude in one degree or another. I don't think any really want to be totally free. they want friends, they want loved ones, and well, they will very often find themselves willing to lay aside that freedom for those they care about. and they will always value the security of themselves and their families enough to conform enough to belong to a larger group for protection....
so, what we are talking about really is to what degree is that servitude acceptable. just when is society overstepping it's boundaries, and how? and that is something that mankind has been trying to balance out since the beginning of time, and we have made great advances in that direction. slavery has been replaced with employment. the king has been replaced with elected representatives. and the pope has been replaced, in many cases, with our own conscious. someday, maybe, we humans might find the balance, who knows. but well, before that can happen, ALL humans must accept the responsibilities that come with the freedom that is given to them and learn to live in peace with one another. they must learn to love each other as they love themselves, and before they can do that, they must learn to love themselves.

what is total freedom, something that the humans rejected a long, long time ago. it wasn't meeting the needs that human were built to have. we are social creatures!