Monday, December 12, 2011

FREEDOM

What's your definition of FREEDOM?  
I'm not able to find an image for this post that doesn't influence the thinking on freedom, so....fire away, folks.  You're on your own.

Thanks!

Z

53 comments:

Bob said...

Freedom to me:

1. Let me do what I want when I want.
2. Let me think what I want.
3. Let me say what I want when and to whomever I want to say it.
4. Let me worship how I want.
5. Let me socialize with whomever I want.
6. Let me defend and protect my property.
7. Let me buy and sell what, when, how, and for how much I decide.
8. Mind your own business.

Bob said...

Oh, and "don't fence me in".

Silverfiddle said...

To do what you want with your life, liberty and property so long as you do not violate those same God-given rights of others.

Ducky's here said...

To be able to act according to ethical principles rather than act to satisfy the dictates of capitalism.

beamish said...

To not be coercively forced under threat of violence and / or imprisonment to surrender a portion of my property and earnings to perpetually non-productive parasites or to finance the irreversible shortfalls of a failed 19th Century ideology and its attendant Ponzi schemes.

Ducky's here said...

@Silverfiddle - To do what you want with your life, liberty and property so long as you do not violate those same God-given rights of others.

----------

Can you apply this idea to the concept of "national interest"?

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: Yes. Ron Paul enunciates it quite well. Leave other countries alone. Respect one another's sovereignty. Based upon this principle, we never would have invaded Iraq, and Afghanistan would have been a quick punitive strike.

Unfortunately, the real world is not so principled, which is the problem I have with Ron Paul.

DaBlade said...

Obama is demonstrating what freedom is not, so my definition is opposite of everything he is doing to us.

Speedy G said...

Freedom is omni contra omnes of the wild, where anyone can drive on whatever side of the street they like. Liberty is "freedom" set within agreed to LIMITS of freedom pre-defined in a Constitution. It's everyone "forced" to drive on the right hand side of the road.

Freedom "absolutists" like beamish ignore the "surplus values" that materialize out of "nothing" when everyone agrees to apriori limits to absolute freedom.

Speedy G said...

erratum - add the word "bellum" before "omni".

Brooke said...

I agree with Silverfiddle.

And wow, it sure didn't take Ducky long to start showing his ass.

Speedy G said...

...and duckmeister, if your "personal ethics" are in violation of Constitutional principles, you can "shove them where the sun don't shine", as they are "unethical" by any legal definition of the term.

sue hanes said...

Z - Good one.


~Being free

~Living in America

~Being able to criicize leaders

~Being able to laugh at public figures when I watch talk shows and know that they are not going to be 'punished' for it

~Being able to travel about my Country freely

~Being free of undue harrassment -
although I realize that this is not true for everyone

~Having a good feeling about my Country

~more and more being really glad that I am an American - and being Proud to say that

~being free to Blog and say what I darn please on my own Blog

~the right to Vote

~anything else I can't think of right now


we can keep our Country Free but there may be Sacrifices involved for all of us - but havn't there always been

sue hanes said...

Z - These comments so far are over the top great - although I would need all day to figure out what the h*ll Speedy G is talking about.

: )


but then that's just me...

sue hanes said...

~to be of whatever Political leaning I choose to be - such as an American Liberal

Chakam said...

Freedom is only provided through The New Covenant, that wonderful and costly plan of Salvation our Father implemented the moment Adam and Eve sinned.

Freedom cannot be found in a man-made document, such as The US Constitution. Freedom cannot be found through wealth, social standing, or politics, no matter how well-intentioned.

Freedom is only to be found at The Cross and the Empty Tomb.

That, my friends, is the freedom that is eternal and not temporal. For truly, freedoms can be removed here, this side of Heaven, with a gun or forced legislation. But in the really real world of the spiritual, the freedom Jesus brings is untouchable, immovable, and unrelenting.

FrogBurger said...

Bob summed it pretty well.

As far as Ducky's definition....

To be able to act according to ethical principles rather than act to satisfy the dictates of capitalism.

1/ Define ethics and what is ethical.
2/ Are you free if you buy an iPod that is partially made in China and other countries where Apple exploits cheap labor?

FrogBurger said...

And 3/ are you free when you have to obey the dictates of statists, whether it is crony capitalism or socialism?

I think people who feel free under socialism feel free from material necessity.

Those people are just wussies in my books. They're not ready for actual freedom.

Mustang said...

@ FB ... excellent points. Add this: whose ethics? Ducky Stalin's?

FrogBurger said...

Mustang, I think that must be it. Stalin's or Mao's ethics. We all know how ethical those guys were.

It's funny how easy Ducky and his pseudo intellectualism can be deconstructed.

Only difference between liberaldude and him is the use of language. Ducky's a lot better at making idiots believe he is actually deep and has though things through.

Z said...

Bob....super. I think you summed it up well!

Silverfiddle, "Unfortunately, the real world is not so principled, which is the problem I have with Ron Paul." I couldn't agree with you more ...he seems very very naive in regard to foreign policy, doesn't he. As if we have no enemies and no threats.

DaBlade...I know what you mean. I had a friend send me questions regarding Obama and one was something about how I rated his successes. I know I blogged on two things over the last 3 years which I had to give him credit for but I can't remember them and had no answer to his successes. no way.

Speedy G...I'm with Sue; Please TRANSLATE

Sue, you very frequently sound a little defensive when discussing your liberal bent..Why? Do you think anybody here resents your freedom to be whatever you want to be? We don't care; we think you're usually dead wrong, but freedom means being what you want to be in this case, don't you think?

Chakam, that is THE only real freedom, isn't it. Thank you for that reminder to ALL of us. Beautiful.

FrogBurger, they never have to define anything; it's edict and you have to agree or else.
Good questions, by the way.

Z said...

I just saw Mustang's and FB's latest comments...thanks, guys.

"I think people who feel free under socialism feel free from material necessity."

One can feel completely free from material necessity in capitalism, too...don't you think? I think people under socialism (wherever that might be?) feel the need for luxury. Who wouldn't?

Mustang...Stalin; THERE was a man of ethics :-)

Silverfiddle said...

Speedy G had the best definition, Ducky the worst.

I say that because Speedy's definition is grounded in fundamental truths borne out by human history and enunciated by philosophies such as Locke's. It has been weighed and analyzed. You can argue with the truth or falseness of it, but the philosophy is coherent.

Ducky's definition is based upon however the powers that be define the terms.

FrogBurger said...

Z, if you ask an average French. he or she'd tell us that capitalism is "precarious" (precaire in French), which, to them, means they feel like they are not in a guaranteed situation of minimum material comfort or peace of mind.

Z said...

Silverfiddle...I saw the Latin and blanked out of Speedy's comment but just read it again and you're so right.
And so is he.
LIBERTY....what an excellent way of describing the differences and how important that difference is in a society other than some small island in the Pacific with no roads!?

FrogBurger; one gets that feeling in Paris, you're right, when one sees the many 'manifestations' (strikes, or protests, as you know)...I guess we'd all like the guarantee of comforts, wouldn't we.
But what a trap that is..quel horreur.

sue hanes said...

Z - You bring up a good point here about my 'defensiveness.'

I'm defensive about EVERYTHING - and I'm not sure where that comes from.

But that is a personal issue - and perhaps what you said about it will help me explore that.

Thanks Z

I'm a firm believer in getting things out in the open.

Chakam said...

Z,

Thank you for the kind words!

Yes, there is TRUE freedom in Christ Jesus, but then there is also that secular/governmental freedom that we all desire as Americans, too.

This is why, for lack of a better label, I'm simply a Conservative. Conservatism represents my take on how I believe the government above me should engage with The People of our Nation. Simple enough.

So on the one hand, we have true freedom in Christ, and on the other we have the secular freedom of proper and Constitutional secular governance.

In The Big Picture, our God controls and knows all, but He is giving us the privilege of interacting here, this side of Heaven, with one another and hopefully putting forth His principles in all areas of our lives. It's utterly delicious.

Thanks for reading!

Z said...

Ya, Sue...thanks for taking it in the spirit in which I meant it.....


Chakam, it started feeling better to me when I realized we can't all do BIG things for God but even just touching one or two people every once in a while is a good thing. A mustard seed.
I produced and solo'd in a Christmas music program this last week and know that 250 people were touched by the songs, the singers, the selection of songs, the really uplifting music which helped us all reflect on Christmas. I do that every year and, every year, it's an honor and a great feeling to affect that many people all at once! It's a privilege to be given the opportunity. "utterly delicious" is exactly how I felt when the show was over and the reactions were so wonderful.

Speedy G said...

Translation:

Freedom is CHAOS.

Liberty (limits to freedom) establish ORDER.

You wouldn't want to drive on a road with no rules (limits) to a drivers "freedom". But establish some rules, and you can safely drive in opposite directions at fatal collision speeds with only a line of paint separating the vehicles in near perfect safety and efficiency.

Ducky's here said...

Well Silver fiddle - Leave other countries alone. Respect one another's sovereignty.

------

But remember, this is coming from someone who was quite happy to take sides in Colombia and do the oil companies' bidding despite good documentation of the miserable working conditions in the fields and the extensive assassinations of unionists who have tried to organize.

So you need to revise a bit.

I think that Libertarians who blunder into an economic system that guarantees we will play zero sum when a better functioning society requires cooperation should be more objective.

Many who have the loudest voice complaining about the lack of freedom in the current system are the very ones being hurt by it.

Somehow an equitable resolution of conflicts of interest becomes Stalinist in that strange haze that envelops the right.

Speedy G said...

The speed with which you can now safely travel are a "surplus value" (something over and above) the results would get if you allowed complete freedom on the roads.

Marxists love the concept of the "worker" being the "owner" of any "surplus values" that are derived from the organized division of labour associated with capitalism. But it is the capitalist who "organizes" the labour which thereafter generates the surplus value we all know as "profit". Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" clearly demonstrates that surplus values belong to the capitalists, not the labourers/ workers. It is the capitalists brainpower that set the conditions/rules which limit the workers to their respective specialized functions (ie - Henry Ford's assembly line) that generate industry's enormous profits.

Z said...

Ducky, why do you read conservative blogs? You still just don't get it.

Speedy, very well said. thanks

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: Well-spoken for someone who gets all his knowledge about Colombia from The Nation Magazine. You are fundamentally unqualified to speak about what really went on in Colombia.

The "oppressed union" meme has a grain of truth but is overblown. Unions are mostly communist joints down there, and Colombians do not like communism; they've seen it up close and have recoiled at the stench.

Colombians do like economic activity. They are very entrepreneurial people, so they like things like pipelines.

The rest of your comments are essentially gibberish.

Z said...

SF...my stepdaughter does a lot of business in Venezuela and spends weeks there at a time....
She says they can't stand Chavez and blame the nightmare that's Venezuela today on him.
To be fair, her dad also did work there and was there for months at a time and told me it was dangerous even 35 years ago, too..

I asked her to ask her Venezuelan friends about Chavez and what he's doing and they hate him; it's getting very hard for educated young people to succeed in business, and they're otherwise hard workers.

SO, I figured the young educated class was smart and understood Chavez's idle promises so I asked her to very carefully ask cab drivers and waitresses she came into contact with ...you have to be really careful there what you say and where you go, etc....she said even they hated Chavez.
We sure do hear otherwise here, don't we.

Thanks for the Colombia information..it's nice to get facts and not The Nation's take.

Ducky's here said...

Silverfiddle, do you deny that laissez-faire ultimately becomes a last man standing zero sum game?

Play prisoners dilemma all you like but until you can learn to cooperate, you lose. If that makes you feel "free", fine.

beamish said...

I don't see where my definition of freedom - not being treated (at the point of a gun) as the expense account for mendicant socialism dependent adult-aged children like FJ - amounts to a desire to abandon the rule of law or "drive on any side of the street I want."

But I suppose lacking intellectual honesty grants FJ the "freedom" to blather on all day while people are working.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Ducky: Silverfiddle, do you deny that laissez-faire ultimately becomes a last man standing zero sum game?

Give us an example where this actually happened.

queenish said...

(_X_)

beamish said...

Right on cue.

FrogBurger said...

Play prisoners dilemma all you like but until you can learn to cooperate, you lose. If that makes you feel "free", fine.

It's because you decide to be in a manichean vision of the world, Ducky. A victim mindset. A vision of the world where if one wins, another loses. That's true in sport for one single game but that's invalid in economics and in life.

As long as you stick to this vision, you won't feel free indeed. But in that case, you decide to lose.

beamish said...

It's because you decide to be in a manichean vision of the world, Ducky. A victim mindset. A vision of the world where if one wins, another loses. That's true in sport for one single game but that's invalid in economics and in life.

Spot on, Frogburger. People incapable of creating new wealth tend to believe someone else has theirs.

But Ducky would be the first to tell you Jackson Pollack's paint drippings are "worth" something.

FrogBurger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FrogBurger said...

Well I like Pollock :)

beamish said...

But would you pay for a Pollack "painting" if it cost more than the canvas and the gravity that did the work?

beamish said...

Or worse, pay to see it in person for a few moments? Maybe take a photograph posing next to it?

FrogBurger said...

If I like it and have cash to waste I'd pay for it. I don't care if other people don't like it.

That's freedom, my friend :)

beamish said...

You've got it, Frogburger. Pollack would have to get a real job if not for whatever support he's garnered from being spastic with a paintbrush.

But Ducky takes it beyond that. If nobody cared to frame up Pollack's paint spills and call it "art," he'd want a government subsidy for Pollack and dialectical materialist regimes demanding turds be considered candy bars in every textbook.

It's not at all philosophically different from other left-wing enemies of freedom like FJ seeking perpetual "entitlement" bliss on the backs of productive people and screaming "grandma killer" at capitalists from his government-provided Laz-E-Boy chair.

queenish said...

...and hitting people with his purse!

*giggles like a girl*

beamish said...

Do you fags giggle any other way, FJ?

queenish said...

I wouldn't know, do we queenish?

Kid said...

Freedom is doing anything you want without impacting someone else in a way they they don't want to be. In the case of children being impacted, laws must be in place to protect them. Otherwise, remove any law that is in conflict with the above.

beamish said...

Your Pee-Wee Herman impression is impeccable, FJ.

Too bad it pays nothing, loser.

FrogBurger said...

Freedom is doing anything you want without impacting someone else in a way they they don't want to be.

With that definition, I can justify censorship unfortunately.

in a way they they don't want to be

I don't like when people make fun of me b/c of my French origin for example. I'm sick and tired of hearing about it b/c I want to be seen as an American. So should I limit their freedom of speech?