Freedom

[newsocialism]

Some people think that freedom is above everything. Well, I am going to criticize this statement with my philosophy. I don't believe that freedom is important if you have little to choose. If you ask me, even a slave is free. He is free to choose; to serve, to be beaten, or to be killed. As you see, a slave is a free person. However, slave is in a lower statement in comparison with his master. It's not just because slave is not free to choose, but a slave has little choices to choose which are given to him. The conclusion is that one is free as much as he, or she has choices. After all, some might think that, at least there is no slavery anymore, and everyone has the same so called 'freedom'. However, this is not the case. Everybody is free. I ask you how many people can buy, consume as much as a rich capitalist? How many people can do whatever they want to do or go where ever they want to go? Can do the poor become rich? The answer is no. And there must be someone to do all the work and live significantly lower life than life of a person in the capitalist class. It seems like there is some kind of slavery is still alive in modern times.:thumbdown: Freedom is nothing, if there is no equal opportunities and no economic equality among individuals.

[Dean]

Some people think that freedom is above everything. Well, I am going to criticize this statement with my philosophy. I don't believe that freedom is important if you have little to choose. If you ask me, even a slave is free. He is free to choose; to serve, to be beaten, or to be killed. As you see, a slave is a free person. However, slave is in a lower statement in comparison with his master. It's not just because slave is not free to choose, but a slave has little choices to choose which are given to him. The conclusion is that one is free as much as he, or she has choices. After all, some might think that, at least there is no slavery anymore, and everyone has the same freedom. However, this is not the case. I ask you how many people can buy, consume as much as a rich capitalist? How many people can do whatever they want to do or go where ever they want to go? Can do the poor become rich? The answer is no. And there must be someone to do all the work and live significantly lower life than life of a person in the capitalist class. It seems like there is some kind of slavery is still alive in modern times.:thumbdown:

I think you have a false premise here - namely, that we are somehow "free" within a capitalist paradigm. If you give up that premise, it is quite easy not only to come up with a rational concept of "freedom" but also a reasonable understanding of why freedom is a critical goal, that is not achied in contemporary society.

[newsocialism]

I think you have a false premise here - namely, that we are somehow "free" within a capitalist paradigm. If you give up that premise, it is quite easy not only to come up with a rational concept of "freedom" but also a reasonable understanding of why freedom is a critical goal, that is not achied in contemporary society.
I think I explained my thoughts quite clearly. Everyone is free, but choices are limited. I think the freedom which people imagine is different than what freedom is. The so called freedom depends on the choices which are given to people. If you can choose something, you are free. It's different than 'equality' or 'justice'.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You need to understand that there exists two freedoms: the 'freedom to do', and the 'freedom from.' Naturally, freedom as a lone entity encompasses both of these. As Socialists, we argue mainly that Capitalism fails to secure the latter phrase, 'freedom from'. Freedom from poverty and its assorted accompaniment of ills. Freedom from exploitation. Of course, we recognise the importance of establishing both types of freedom in order to have a truly free society. However, it is clear that all over the world, people do not have the 'freedom from' many things. From arbitrary detention, from being stopped and searched on grounds of race/religion/other appearance features. Most importantly, freedom from exploitation. These are things that workers all over the world are not free from, even if first world workers have the freedom to do many things. However, it is surely contradictory that I, as a first world worker, am free to purchase all manner of food, clothing and other items, of the very top quality, yet am not wholly free to protest my political views without fear of inhumane police treatment, ranging from kettling tactics to death, in the case of the late Ian Tomlinson.

[Ovi]

It seems like there is some kind of slavery is still alive in modern times.:thumbdown:
Yes, it's called wage slavery, your freedom being that to choose your masters.

[newsocialism]

and the 'freedom from.'
Well, it's a good statement. But, be careful, I think we talk about the same things.
Another thing is that a slave has a lot of freedom(freedom from). One of them is freedom from living without a master.;)
When it comes to us, freedom from living as luxurious and wealthy as our capitalist masters.

[punisa]

The conclusion is that one is free as much as he, or she has choices.

Hmm, funny how that is exactly what a capitalist would say :laugh:
Ask any good cappie - Why is capitalism so good? You have a freedom of choice.
Indeed you do, if you put it that way. You certainly have much more freedom of choices in US then in North Korea or Cuba.
But your chances are rather slim.

This reminds me of watching people on the streets of Moscow just as USSR was falling down. They all chanted "we want freedom of choice", now 20 years later when many of them ended much worse then they were before they chant "please take our freedom away, we don't want it !"

[danny bohy]

Anarchists value freedom above all else.
And the lower class dont have freedom. we can choose our crappy job and what to buy but we still have to slave for the ruling class to survive. You can choose your own path but their all the same and they all end in the same place.

[NecroCommie]

Freedom is a relative consept, and you have yet to realize that. Blank freedom does not exist, for it is an oxymoron. Whenever speaking of freedom, one must specify which freedom is he/she talking about. Freedom from jail? Freedom to go to jail? Freedom from parents, or freedom to live with parents? Freedom to individual exploits? Or am I free to serve my government?

Some of my examples might seem daft but I will quarantee that there exists a person for each example who desires such "freedom". I always go frustrated when politicians talk about some vague freedom. WHAT THE HECK DO THEY MEAN?!?! This is not actually even a philosophical question, but a grammatical fact. Blank freedom does not have a definition, and thus is not an actual word.

[Hexen]

Another problem I usually run with is that many USians tend to think that "Freedom of Speech" is exclusive to their country (which they'll say things like "In the US You get to say what you want" or "Your entitled to your opinion because you live in the US" or some shit like that).

[NecroCommie]

Another problem I usually run with is that many USians think that "Freedom of Speech" is exclusive their country (which they'll say like "In the US You get to say what you want" or "Your entitled to your opinion because US is a free country" or some shit like that).
Exactly. Besides, I have yet to know a country in which you can say whatever you want. Every single country prohibits some talk, which in many cases is actually a good thing. I am now ofcourse referring to bans of glorifying murders, theft, fascism and such.

[ZeroNowhere]

Freedom is a relative consept, and you have yet to realize that. Blank freedom does not exist, for it is an oxymoron. Whenever speaking of freedom, one must specify which freedom is he/she talking about. Freedom from jail? Freedom to go to jail? Freedom from parents, or freedom to live with parents? Freedom to individual exploits? Or am I free to serve my government?

Some of my examples might seem daft but I will quarantee that there exists a person for each example who desires such "freedom". I always go frustrated when politicians talk about some vague freedom. WHAT THE HECK DO THEY MEAN?!?! This is not actually even a philosophical question, but a grammatical fact. Blank freedom does not have a definition, and thus is not an actual word.To be fair, sometimes one can use the word 'free' or 'freedom' on its own and it will be clear what is meant in certain contexts, for example in a demonstration against censorship, talking about slavery, and so on. Though that doesn't really affect your point, mainly since it can be used because the freedom(s) being referred to are quite clear from the context. If one wishes to deny that the slaves were freed, then this makes sense if one wishes to deny the contents of this liberation (for example, pointing out sharecropping and such), but if one is saying that it's untrue because in actuality they were always free to die or somesuch, one is simply being inane. If somebody says that they value 'freedom' then, to be fair to them, they can probably easily give concrete examples to show what they mean, and if fault is to be found, it is to be found in, for example, one of their examples actually illustrating bondage, a lack of freedom, and so on.

[NecroCommie]

You are ofcourse correct, but it still helps if you understand the grammatical necessity of elaborating on what freedom are you talking about. I've known some instances when people are practically fighting about what supports freedom and what does not, and neither realized that the entire quarrel could have been avoided by understanding that each participant were talking about a different freedom.

Whenever confronted with freedom arguments, it helps to be very concrete.