What Do You Mean by the Word "Free" ( or Freedom )

Post Reply New Topic

As viciously brutal as police may at times behave I have never heard of a cop shooting a driver because he/she had no driving license.

As I get older, the idea of freedom has less political, social, or economic relevance for me and becomes more of a spiritual idea. Although political, economic, and social freedom are important they are not sufficient nor necessary for me to be free. Like the stoics and the cynics and the mystics I strive to find my freedom in an inner quiet that is not disturbed by what others individually or collectively choose to do or not do.

The ancient word (pri-) which became "free" in the English language originally meant "to love." That is why the words "free" and "friend" look and sound so much alike. I conclude that if I grow in love and lovability, I was also become more free.

Being shot is not the sentence prescribed for not having a license to drive. The gun is there as intimidation to be sure a driver stops when the cop flashes his or her lights.



That sounds to me like some liberation going on!

I personally don't think there will ever be true "freedom". Even in the U.S. which is supposdly a free country, you still have a government that decides the fate of all it's people. I agree with the one person who said the US uses the word "freedom" as a way to keep it's people loyal to them, but a lot of people are starting to realize that the US is not the greatest country in the world. I mean you have issues such as the rich being able to get away with crimes and being more influental then the poor, you have thousands of homeless people dying on the streets without anybody caring, and for a country that is all about "equality", you still have descrimination against homosexuals, elderly people, women, people with mental disabilities (like Aspergers), and various races such as Latinos (appearantly a lot of people in my town seem to think all Latinos are in this country illegally and need to be shipped back home).

I personally see the government using the word "freedom" the way advertising companies use the word "natural". It doesn't really have a relevant meaning, it's just used to make things sound better.

I see it as more of a non measurable point, like perfection. You can fight toward it, you can enjoy or dislike your closeness or distance from it, but as people have some control over themselves, no one person can have it.

For a libertarian, freedom means the ability to possess and dispose of chattels in any way desired; a person's rights over private property are considered inviolable, and this includes their earnings such that they see taxes as theft. A libertarian believes it is better that someone die than a helping hand be lent.

The last statement isn't exactly true. There have been some major libertarian intellectuals who have supported minor amounts of government welfare such as with Milton Friedman's proposed negative income tax, Friedrich Hayek's support of things such as government support for feeding the poor, and even in the modern age we have Will Wilkinson who has openly stated a support for minor welfare taking up the mantle of Friedman and Hayek.

Not only that, but the only libertarians that oppose charitable giving are Objectivists, so even then it seems hard to say that all non-Objectivist libertarians, regardless of whether they support the governmental welfare programs, oppose private charity to help people out and honestly I think that most of them would regard efforts to help the poor as morally right and tend to be cynical of government efforts and authority to do so.

I dunno, I mean really NeantHumain, would you enjoy it if a poster occasionally posted things like "A liberal believes freedom is the right to a more productive person's paycheck" or some other thing like that?