| LIFE How do you define freedom in today's rapidly changing world?

[RTB Twitter Bot]

 

[PurlJam]

 

[rocknthefreeworld]

Freedom isn't that you get to do whatever you want. It is that everyone gets to as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else. Too many scream about their freedom yet would refuse others the same benefit.

 

[ElephantStomp]

I define freedom by when everybody is treated the same no matter sexual orientation, political affiliation, race, etc, that’s freedom

 

[Rsedge72]

Also an inclusion of diversity of thought. Not trying to make everyone think the same.

 

[sk33tr]

Freedom is the same, today, as it has always been. It doesn't change depending on who's making the laws, or who's in the Oval Office.

 

[PurlJam]

Changing from briefs to boxers, now that's freedom.

 

[rick4bama]

Changing from briefs to boxers, now that's freedom.

To commando now that is freedom!

 

[PurlJam]

To commando now that is freedom!

Rick, at my age, the only problem with commando, there's a good chance of sitting on one of my Nads.

 

[TerryP]

I define freedom by when everybody is treated the same no matter sexual orientation, political affiliation, race, etc, that’s freedom

That's a utopia.

 

[TerryP]

It is that everyone gets to as long as it doesn't infringe on someone

Infringe is such good and <cough> diverse word here.

 

[rick4bama]

Rick, at my age, the only problem with commando, there's a good chance of sitting on one of my Nads.

I don't have that problem, those things are like a turtle with me!

 

[ElephantStomp]

That's a utopia.

And actual freedom

 

[Sid Youngleman]

I define freedom by when everybody is treated the same no matter sexual orientation, political affiliation, race, etc, that’s freedom

So a condition in which everyone were equally tyrannized and oppressed would satisfy your requirements for freedom? Think again. Such a situation would constitute neither freedom nor a utopia, as those words are rightly and commonly understood.

 

[rocknthefreeworld]

Infringe is such good and <cough> diverse word here.

Intentional too. Me owning a weapon or using pot doesn't hurt someone any more than them being gay or Jewish hurts me.

 

[rocknthefreeworld]

So a condition in which everyone were equally tyrannized and oppressed would satisfy your requirements for freedom? Think again. Such a situation would constitute neither freedom nor a utopia, as those words are rightly and commonly understood.

The tyranny of equality is real. Freedom and equality in this definition are incompatible without parameters to ensure everything does not devolve to the lowest common denominator, which would be dictatorial tyranny and oppression of all.

That is one reason I have a huge issue with most arguments about equality today. They are predicated on the idea of vengeance (ie: tearing down groups seen as the oppressor and oppressing/dehumanizing them) as opposed to the idea of building everyone up to the same level. Equality will only be achieved using those means by making everyone oppressed.

 

[ElephantStomp]

So a condition in which everyone were equally tyrannized and oppressed would satisfy your requirements for freedom? Think again. Such a situation would constitute neither freedom nor a utopia, as those words are rightly and commonly understood.

I’m obviously not talking about “everybody being equally tyrannized and oppressed”, but you know that

 

[bama alum]

To commando now that is freedom!

 

[musso]

Freedom is and has always been the enforcement of property rights over one's body (life), actions (liberty), and possessions (property).

Freedom in no way guarantees favorable immediate outcomes, and while it does help to equalize opportunities for all, it cannot even fully accomplish that. And because our lives are so short, sometimes we do not appreciate the superiority of freedom and uncertainty over security and comfort. Sometimes we get burned by "the market," bad luck, or a natural disaster. Sometimes the burn is short lived, and sometimes it lingers and becomes fatal. Therein lies the temptation for state intervention. And wherever the state intervenes, there is mission creep and a nascent Leviathan ready to feed off of the envy and sloth of grafters of all sorts. The appreciation of freedom therefore usually requires an appreciation for history and the future because freedom's benefits sometimes requires decades and centuries to materialize. It is the shortsighted, impatient, resentful and false prophet types who usually demand the state to limit or constrain freedom. They may use terms like the "common good," "national interest," or as some Founders termed it, the "general will." But all they really mean is, their will be done. And because we succumb to the allure of immediate results denominated in quarterly reports and election cycles, we keep tolerating government intervention and regulation for "our" own good. The best economists, philosophers, and sages from every culture all spoke of freedom in different terminology: spontaneous order, the invisible hand, wu wei, the golden rule, the harm principle, etc. Scientists recognize complexity science (or emergence), chaos theory, and the golden ratio/Fibonacci sequence. There is a natural order, but corralling our ego to yield to it is the hard part. Dominion over other people and over slow, organic processes in the hasty search for short term results is the cancer to sustainable and peaceful civilization.

 

[Sid Youngleman]

I’m obviously not talking about “everybody being equally tyrannized and oppressed”, but you know that

All I can do is to follow the logical implications of what you actually say. What you mean may just have to remain a mystery.

A hint: Freedom and equality are not synonymous concepts, as my response demonstrates.