The Cost of Freedom

[Rebel_L]

Freedom is one of the iconic western world principles. We see it everywhere, politicians love to trot out the word, Hollywood makes lots of movies about it, and everyone loves freedom.

I have been thinking about freedom a bit lately and it seems to me that in the end to be free is to be vulnerable. Freedom lets us all take the actions we wish and deals with the consequences afterwards. Freedom at its heart is a reactionary state. In terms of the legal system for instance, they more free a society is, the easier it is to commit a crime (you can plan, gather the materials required to carry out your acts and set up for it all without interference if you are free). The will to do so is all that is required, the legal system takes over after you act to give consequences to your actions, the hope is that you will consider those consequences beforehand and so not act in ways which society has generally agreed not to in order to get along.

It seems to me that society in general has taken, after enjoying their freedom for a while, to the general chant of safety. In the name of safety I now see our freedoms continually being eroded (look at things like the patriot act which pretty aggressively attack some of the basic guaranteed freedoms that were granted by the government). I however get the impression from most people that I interact with that they believe there is not conflict of interest between freedom and safety and that the two go together nicely.

I would love to hear your thoughts on freedom and safety and your observations of what is happening in society at large today.

 

[cbrunny]

Huge "conflict of interest" between freedom and safety. But I'd rather think of it in terms of competing norms rather than a conflict of interest.

Read Hobbes' Leviathan and Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government. Competing ideas on the matter, and basically required reading for any debate on this issue.

In Canada, our Constitution entrenches Freedoms as follows:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Freedoms and Rights are different things in Canada. A Freedom cannot be removed or revoked for any reasons ever, but a Right can. Freedom "of" things allows for jurisprudence to interpret freedoms as "for" and "from" as different things in certain situations. One way of attempting to overcome the non-synergy of freedom and safety, albeit success is subjective.

In my personal opinion, freedom and safety do not fit concretely. Must be interpreted in a venn-diagram kind of way. That is, as individual freedom increases, individual safety decreases (e.g. theft without consequences disadvantages the person from whom the goods were stolen). But as individual freedom increases, safety from government tyranny also increases. Interestingly, as government tyranny increases, individual freedom decreases. Essentially what this means is that for a society to exist, individuals must be willing to sacrifice some freedom yet maintain enough freedom to oppose a tyrannical government should it become necessary.

The problem is that individual's interpretations of tyranny vary from one to the next, as does freedom and acceptable limitations on freedom.

But, I always thought freedom cost a buck o'five.

 

[inachu]

Freedom from tyranny of an oppressive govt.

Funny how protecting USA from both enemies foreign and domestic we have totally on purpose neglected the domestic enemies who froth our govt and move them into war.

Those who are cheerleaders to provoke more wars based on false flag events and you can google false flag events to see how many secret south american missions our troops have been on to start wars and scare the local populace to move to America.

When you talk about freedoms then how about the freedom from manipulators.

 

[SMOGZINN]

It seems to me that society in general has taken, after enjoying their freedom for a while, to the general chant of safety. In the name of safety I now see our freedoms continually being eroded (look at things like the patriot act which pretty aggressively attack some of the basic guaranteed freedoms that were granted by the government). I however get the impression from most people that I interact with that they believe there is not conflict of interest between freedom and safety and that the two go together nicely.

Anytime we outlaw something we are taking away some freedom. Safe is the opposite of free. The key is to find a balance between safety and freedom that we can all accept.

 

[Rebel_L]

Huge "conflict of interest" between freedom and safety. But I'd rather think of it in terms of competing norms rather than a conflict of interest.

Read Hobbes' Leviathan and Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government. Competing ideas on the matter, and basically required reading for any debate on this issue.

In Canada, our Constitution entrenches Freedoms as follows:



Freedoms and Rights are different things in Canada. A Freedom cannot be removed or revoked for any reasons ever, but a Right can. Freedom "of" things allows for jurisprudence to interpret freedoms as "for" and "from" as different things in certain situations. One way of attempting to overcome the non-synergy of freedom and safety, albeit success is subjective.

In my personal opinion, freedom and safety do not fit concretely. Must be interpreted in a venn-diagram kind of way. That is, as individual freedom increases, individual safety decreases (e.g. theft without consequences disadvantages the person from whom the goods were stolen). But as individual freedom increases, safety from government tyranny also increases. Interestingly, as government tyranny increases, individual freedom decreases. Essentially what this means is that for a society to exist, individuals must be willing to sacrifice some freedom yet maintain enough freedom to oppose a tyrannical government should it become necessary.

The problem is that individual's interpretations of tyranny vary from one to the next, as does freedom and acceptable limitations on freedom.

But, I always thought freedom cost a buck o'five.

My thoughts were not particularly focused on what the right balance of freedom vs safety should be and what makes for an effective government (personally I lean more to the freedom side than the safety side) but rather a more general sense of how the word freedom seems to widely misunderstood by people I know. There seems to be a general association of the freedom and safety in my contact circles (people without much interest in philosophy or politics but that still like to have an opinion on current events)

The general media campaigns for why the western world is invading other countries seems to be heavy on the "we go to bring freedom to the world" kind of slogans, but they always go hand in hand with it will make the world a safe place, we will no longer have to worry about attacks from foreign countries so long as we have freedom all over the world. For domestic laws that curtail freedom in favor of safety people either agree or disagree based on if they were using the freedom that is being taken away or not. There never seems to be any consideration that a loss of freedom has taken place, but rather a focus on if they personally thought the action was ok or not. Almost like they are saying "we are a free country, no amount of laws can change that".

 

[cbrunny]

Going to war overseas to bring freedom = going to war overseas to remove tyrannical governments, or at least remove governments who seem tyrannical. Or disagree with the USA. Or have oil.

 

[DilipVasan]

Freedom lies in an individuals perspective

 

[Zodiark1593]

One may find their mind to be a far more effective cage than any law or prison.

 

[VirtualLarry]

some of the basic guaranteed freedoms that were granted by the government).

"Freedoms" are not granted by the gov't. They are inalienable, granted by God. (And upheld and partially codified by the Constitution.)

 

[Dessicant]

"Freedoms" are not granted by the gov't. They are inalienable, granted by God. (And upheld and partially codified by the Constitution.)

This is incorrect. Freedom is not inalienable, nor does it come from God. Firstly there is no God. But even if there were, which is silly, we do not know what God is or is not. So to ascribe Freedom to an unknowable entity is irrational.

Freedom comes from Man in the form of philosophy. The decision to create a free society is a choice based on philosophical decisions that recognize the Law of Identity. That a thing is what it is, and behaves in a specific way. In the case of Man, Freedom as a fundamental political characteristic recognizes that man is a rational animal, who survives by Reason, and flourishes when free to think and act without compulsion.

So, since we have learned through time that our lives and our societies are maximized when we live in a state of freedom, our best political philosophers have developed Freedom as a fundamental tenet of a correct and proper political system. Capitalism is the economic component that best expresses Freedom, and is the correct economic system to choose when designing a free society.

A truly free society has never existed, and Capitalism has never existed. The country that has come closest to the perfection that would be achieved in a truly free society is the United States of America. We have pushed political freedom and Capitalism to new levels. However, we have always been hobbled by a nasty mixed economy and constraints to freedom, but to a lesser degree than other countries.

On a scale of 0 to 100, I estimate that the United States has combined political and economic freedom to maybe a 50 rating. There is still a long, long way to go. We need to move to a system of full laissez-faire Capitalism and total and true political freedom.

As Man evolves, and depends more on Reason, and finally dispenses with silly concepts such as God and other Mysticisms, our political and economic systems will evolve to true Freedom.

But that Freedom will come from one and only one source: Ourselves. And it will come through the only process and discipline that is suitable for the development of politico-economic systems: Philosophy.