View Full Version : Freedom! Or?
I came across a nice article from the BBC this morning, some of y'all might enjoy it, here's a wee snippet from the middle of the piece, but the whole thing is worth a read:
...
We believe that freedom and democracy are inseparable, so that when a dictator is toppled the result is not only a more accountable type of government but also greater liberty throughout society.
This belief forms the justification of the repeated attempts by Western governments to export their own political model to countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. In this simple and seemingly compelling story, freedom and democracy are a package that can be delivered anywhere in the world.
An older generation of thinkers recognised that freedom and democracy don't always go hand in hand. The 19th Century liberal John Stuart Mill was a life-long campaigner for greater democracy, but he also worried that personal liberty would shrink once governments could claim to express the will of the majority.
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19372177
I think freedom has to come from a process of social evolution that can take many generations to develop the generally shared assumptions about individual rights and obligations that make it practical. That’s why you can’t simply march into a country, toss out the local despot, distribute a few ballot boxes and a new constitution, and assume you’ve created a free people. Edmund Burke understood that in observing the French Revolution, but some of our modern social engineers haven’t figured it out yet. Law isn’t culture and government isn’t community.
What kind of a society would it be if everyone's opinion held just as much weight as everyone else's? Wouldn't there be a constant stalemate? What I mean is, doesn't there need to be a majority, in order for anything to ever get done? Seems like if you're going to give everyone the same freedom (within a group), then you'd better have a system for making any kind of head-way with anything. Am I making sense?
ApatheticNoMore
8-27-12, 5:09pm
What kind of a society would it be if everyone's opinion held just as much weight as everyone else's? Wouldn't there be a constant stalemate? What I mean is, doesn't there need to be a majority, in order for anything to ever get done? Seems like if you're going to give everyone the same freedom (within a group), then you'd better have a system for making any kind of head-way with anything. Am I making sense?
You can try for *cooperative* decision making and this is fine for a small group but it seems to have real problems scaling well (I am tempted to cynically say that half the times it leads to chaos within a small group but it really does mean well there). Hard to imagine it on a large scale.
So yea democracy. If some are arguing democracy takes cultural prerequisites to work well (doesn't everything?), I don't in the slightest disagree and in fact was never taught otherwise, not even in school (I just wonder sometimes if we have them!).
In election years I'm always reminded of Gore Vidal's sentiment; "Democracy is supposed to give you the feeling of choice, like Painkiller X and Painkiller Y. But they're both just aspirin." Freedom is an altogether different matter.
All governments evolve (devolve?) into oligarchies (although most already are at their inception). And all oligarchies increasingly take away the freedom of others while increasing their own - the only exception being when the oligarchy (or a faction within the oligarchy) gives a portion of its power to the masses as a means for it's continued survival.
Freedom is largely illusory - we're free to do whatever they allow us to do. Although they are free to change their minds whenever they so decide to.
ApatheticNoMore
8-27-12, 7:12pm
Freedom is largely illusory - we're free to do whatever they allow us to do
From an existential perspective you are free to do anything. From a political perspective: but it often comes with severe consequences.
From an existential perspective you are free to do anything. From a political perspective: but it often comes with severe consequences.
That's because if you are free to do anything, so are they - but they have a heck of a lot more firepower.
That's because if you are free to do anything, so are they - but they have a heck of a lot more firepower.
Or money, in our case. Money is speech, even our supreme court has said so. so, the the golden rule is, he who has the gold, rules. Frankly, even though our system goes too far in some cases, IMO, we still seem to be marching in the direction of the people. The vote for women, vote for blacks, women's' personal rights (abortion rights) Same sex marriage (it will happen in all states, it's just taking time). I am cheered by this. I think the republicans, and not all, just the far far right who seem to control the message right now, want to stop this freedom for everyone progress, but I don't think they will succeed. Oh they may make a few inroads, even get their puppet (Romney) elected, but even he isn't a hard line Taliban type. He is a moderate dressed as a hard line cause that's what he thinks will get him elected now. I still believe in this country, and the wonderful promise it holds for everyone.
What kind of a society would it be if everyone's opinion held just as much weight as everyone else's? Wouldn't there be a constant stalemate? What I mean is, doesn't there need to be a majority, in order for anything to ever get done? Seems like if you're going to give everyone the same freedom (within a group), then you'd better have a system for making any kind of head-way with anything. Am I making sense?
I think you're right, Cathy. And truthfully, I think a lot more stalemate would not necessarily be a bad thing. George W Bush commented that it'd be a lot easier to be dictator (or something to that effect). And a dictator could certainly get things done much more easily than happens in a democracy. But personally I'd rather have the democracy even if it slows the whole process down. Oftentimes it seems that the process in the US doesn't seem to get slowed down enough so we end up with crap like the Patriot Act, which no one bothered to read before they voted for it, or the bank bailout of 2008 that got jammed through congress under threat of an economic zombie apocalypse if it didn't happen.
On a completely different level, I think a discussion about freedom should probably include people's thoughts on what exactly we mean by freedom. For me freedom means that I'm free to do what I will as long as I don't infringe on another person's freedom and government shouldn't be involved in restricting freedom beyond protecting everyone's right to act freely and in protecting property rights, since without that no one has freedom.
But it gets complicated. Should the government be able to dictate what color I paint my house because an ugly (in someone's opinion) color impinges on my neighbor's property rights? Or does my front yard vegetable garden (if I had one...) really infringe on anyone else on my block's right to enjoy their yard? What about if I have a yard full of junked cars and dead appliances? Am I harming my neighbors and their property rights now? Or what if I start a leather tanning business in my garage and the unpleasant/potentially harmful fumes waft over to my neighbors? At some point on that continuum I probably am infringing on my neighbors' property rights, but we'd probably all have different opinions on where that point was reached.
Good points jp1.
I think in the U.S., we're struggling with what freedoms we're all supposed to have. Maybe when some people have so many freedoms, they start thinking they should have ALL freedoms? .........and anything less is an infringement on their "rights"? Seems like democracy and freedom aren't that simple to make work perfectly. The more freedoms everyone in a democracy has, the more likely there will be alot of disagreements. It can be a slippery slope.
Should the government be able to dictate what color I paint my house because an ugly (in someone's opinion) color impinges on my neighbor's property rights?
The problem is that there are too many options. Soon enough our benevolent government will supply you with an aesthetically pleasing selection of beiges designed to promote unity and conformity from which you will be free to choose any one for your house. If you're feeling particularly bold you will still be able to paint your front door to match your scarlet sash. Yellow will, of course, be banned.
True that , Cathy. Freedom doesn't mean no rules, cause if there are no rules, then you have chaos. A free for all isn't freedom! I think most adult people understand that. So, if you buy a house in jp1's hypothetical neighborhood, you have accepted that society's rules. No junk cars, front yard gardens or pink polka dots.
This is what civilization looks like. Each society has it's rules in order to remain civilized, whether on a world scale, or a micro scale (neighborhood). If you choose to belong to that society you choose to abide by their rules. You can't move into that neighborhood, with it's set of rules, and declare you won't live by them. I think this is also understood by most.
So, if you accept that you need rules in order to keep order, then it's an easy step to, how do we decide on these rules? Well, the obvious method is majority vote. In a small village, or neighborhood, everyone has their say and maybe a vote is taken. On a grander scale, we elect representatives to give our voice and vote, so to speak. Theoretically, if we disagree with them, we vote them out and vote in someone who we think will do the job. (which is the real danger with injecting large amounts of money into the process cause you or I will never be able to 'shout' over a big corporation and it's mega bucks) Then it becomes, as James Bovard said, two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.;)
Whatever, there will always be those who don't agree with the rules. Always. But these are usually the first people to scream and holler when things don't go THEIR way. They certainly want rules for others!
This is what civilization looks like. Each society has it's rules in order to remain civilized, whether on a world scale, or a micro scale (neighborhood). If you choose to belong to that society you choose to abide by their rules. You can't move into that neighborhood, with it's set of rules, and declare you won't live by them. I think this is also understood by most.
But that gets back to the question of the point at which personal freedoms impinge on others' freedoms. Fifty years ago, the "rules" in many neighborhoods went beyond disallowing junked cars and front-yard gardens to disallowing homeowners of color or Jews. Should minorities simply have abided by those rules? Perhaps there is a more semantic distinction between "rules" and "laws", but word choices are important, as we're seeing in the discussion about gay "marriage".
Then it becomes, as James Bovard said, two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.;)
I know the oft quoted follow up to that line is a fake, but I still like it. Something like, "and liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote". Maybe its time to do that.
Seems to me that the more freedoms we have, the more rules are needed. Then people start getting irritated with the government, who have given the freedoms and then have to make the rules to keep everyone happy. (and to keep people from over-stepping their supposed freedoms). Socialism and democracy.......seems to be the pendulum that swings back and forth, by the very nature of the two.
(I keep accidentally typing "democrazy"). haha
ToomuchStuff
8-28-12, 11:02am
Our system of government was brought to us, BY us. We chose it for ourselves by fighting for it. Thankfully, smarter people believed self sacrifice and public service for the greater good, was in the interests of us all. They modeled it after things they knew about, like the Magna Carta and the Greeks and Romans. (trying to chose the best bits)
Unfortunately things like civil service as a public service, seems to have fallen out of favor (or belief system) and it has become "what can they do for me, or can I get for me or my group". This goes for people in public office as well as even the military (not all but there have been cases that make the news, about joining for the school benefit, then not wanting to go where told they are needed). Also, too many people believe falsely, that we are a democracy. We are a Republic, and while we may elect local governments, we do NOT elect our federal government and those that do, are not bound in all states by law, and the constitution to vote, via the results of their states. If we did and more of the voting population turned out, do you really think it would be better? (think of all our education problems, people who don't think for themselves and believe commercials and live through sound bites and talking points, popularity contests, etc. etc.)
Our system was setup so that those smarter then us, would end up in control. Well, they have, only now public service is not the greater good, the buck is.
Do they even still have civil service degrees, like they did in my grandparents day?
But that gets back to the question of the point at which personal freedoms impinge on others' freedoms. Fifty years ago, the "rules" in many neighborhoods went beyond disallowing junked cars and front-yard gardens to disallowing homeowners of color or Jews. Should minorities simply have abided by those rules? Perhaps there is a more semantic distinction between "rules" and "laws", but word choices are important, as we're seeing in the discussion about gay "marriage".
Well, I suppose they did 'live' by those rules, by default. Some neighborhoods still have those 'rules', although unspoken. But that was a different time, and a different set of rules. Women were also not allowed to vote, or wear pants (they were thought a trollop if they did) or own property. But thankfully we have moved on beyond those rules.
We can only make rules for the times we live in. We can't look back and kick ourselves for not knowing, although we must look back to prevent ourselves from making the same mistakes. Our beliefs, our culture, our traditions dictate so many of these rules, like the anti-gay marriage crowd, although you are correct in that this isn't just a societal rule but a law. But here is where that 'looking back' does come in handy. We tried outlawing marriage for a group, mix couples, and it didn't work. Wasn't right, so we moved on from that. But here we are again, trying to do this to gay people. How many years down the line before we look back and want to kick ourselves, again, while trying very hard to deny someone else some right we demand for ourselves. There will be no freedom until the powers that be grant everyone the rights they expect for themselves.
Sure we have laws, and rules, to dictate our conduct day to day in order to prevent free-for-all chaos. The planet is really pretty crowded, as it turns out, and we do need each other, so we need to get along with each other. I follow the rules of 'living in a civilized society' and I expect everyone else to follow them as well. But I also expect EVERY RIGHT granted to me by that civilized society, is granted to all people in that society. Gays, blacks, Muslims, republicans,;) everyone!
I think this discussion actually goes more in the abortion rights area than gay rights, although there is some overlap. But I'm thinking about this Personhood bill that Paul Ryan sponsored (and Mitt goes along with) that would give full rights to a fertilized egg. Now here is really a case of where does one rights end and an other's begins! The fact that my body would be essentially hi-jacked for 9 months for another person's 'rights' against my will, well, how can Paul Ryan be for freedom, or say he is, and completely ignore the slave who involuntarily must turn over their very life and body for another 'person'. I'm guessing if you wee to say to Ryan 'you are the only one who can donate a kidney to this other person so you must, by law, give him your kidney and a 9 month blood transfusion, he would be a little more than outraged! The disconnect is a gulf. But I digress....
flowerseverywhere
9-11-12, 11:05pm
I think this discussion actually goes more in the abortion rights area than gay rights, although there is some overlap. But I'm thinking about this Personhood bill that Paul Ryan sponsored (and Mitt goes along with) that would give full rights to a fertilized egg. Now here is really a case of where does one rights end and an other's begins! The fact that my body would be essentially hi-jacked for 9 months for another person's 'rights' against my will, well, how can Paul Ryan be for freedom, or say he is, and completely ignore the slave who involuntarily must turn over their very life and body for another 'person'. I'm guessing if you wee to say to Ryan 'you are the only one who can donate a kidney to this other person so you must, by law, give him your kidney and a 9 month blood transfusion, he would be a little more than outraged! The disconnect is a gulf. But I digress....
even if your body is hijacked for nine months your mind is hijacked forever. If a woman is forced to bring an unwanted child to term she either has to raise the child or give it to someone who wants to raise it. In the former, if she is single she will be branded by society as a loose woman and become a second class citizen, and in the second scenario she will forever wonder if she did the right thing.
Women earn less money than men despite the same credentials. More women than men are in poverty. If a women is raped she is not a victim in our society, she probably asked for it.
There are many men who run this country who won't be happy unless women are in the kitchen cooking, in the bathroom cleaning and keeping their mouths shut while they smile broad smiles for their successful husbands while at any moment they could be traded for a trophy wife who is skinnier, cuter, blonder or more subservient.
I am one of the lucky women in this country. Not only can I support myself, I have a husband who respects me and my choices. Unfortunately I think I am a dying breed.
i don't think anything like freedom or democracy is thought out as much as this article claims it has been thought out.
oil is the answer here. any words longer than O I L, are just thrown in as after thoughts.
no one actually thinks about what freedom means when they go about trying to spread it.
I agree with one of the people who commented on that article:
I would propose another principle: that freedoms flourish in social environments where power is spread most widely and equally.
This summer I read "Why Nations Fail" and that in a nutshell is the thesis of that well-researched book... all extractive societies wind up failing.
But I think freedom is going to be pretty much guaranteed by the extent to which its citizens live out the following principle:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
If we look after each others' unalienable rights with the conviction that all men are created equal and we act on that conviction by the way we participate in our lives and in our government, we're ALL going to be free, more or less.
I think freedom has to come from a process of social evolution that can take many generations to develop the generally shared assumptions about individual rights and obligations that make it practical. That’s why you can’t simply march into a country, toss out the local despot, distribute a few ballot boxes and a new constitution, and assume you’ve created a free people. Edmund Burke understood that in observing the French Revolution, but some of our modern social engineers haven’t figured it out yet. Law isn’t culture and government isn’t community.
+1
I agree with one of the people who commented on that article:
This summer I read "Why Nations Fail" and that in a nutshell is the thesis of that well-researched book... all extractive societies wind up failing.
But I think freedom is going to be pretty much guaranteed by the extent to which its citizens live out the following principle:
If we look after each others' unalienable rights with the conviction that all men are created equal and we act on that conviction by the way we participate in our lives and in our government, we're ALL going to be free, more or less.
I absolutely agree with this and I will never vote for, and will work to toss out, any person/party who blah blah blah about freedom...except for this group over here, and that person over there. Which is also why I agree with LDAHL. We can't march into another country, or our own neighborhoods, and toss about platitudes and bumper stickers about freedom, then clearly try to deny certain people freedoms we expect/demand for ourselves.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.