Freedom, what it is.
The Basic Freedom, to do as you desire
The Basic Freedom is to do as you desire. But how does that fit in with society? There are rules and regulations and there is a right to privacy. How do you resolve the conflict between your desires and the desires of others. Is there a way to be truly free without being hampered by rules and regulations?
What is Freedom, and why should we have it?
Freedom. What it is
"the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc in a community or the like" websters new universal dictionary.
There is an idea of not being restricted, and being able to do as you like.
So how free is free? If you do anything you want at the expense of another, you might be free, but the other is not. But why are you impacting the freedom of another ? If he was free to impact your existence, would you want him to? Of course not. So how do we resolve this as this is a curb on your freedom.I want to be able to walk on someone's property, but they send dogs to see me off. Hmmm. I am not free to wander his land. But then he is not free to wander my land. OK, so we have a proviso that freedom applies to your actions in your own sphere of influence. So, if you want to wander your property with no clothes on, you should be able to as long as nobody can easily see you. And surely in a land of the free, a person would not complain if he saw another wandering naked on their own property. It is not the on-lookers area of influence. But if the naked wanderer decided to wander over the boundary into his neighbors cabbage patch to help himself to a cabbage, then the rightful owner is in his right to get the interloper to leave, but without impacting that person's right to life and liberty, even though he has been impolite in crossing the boundary. The aggrieved party should be recompensed in some way by an apology, or the offer of assistance in a project. Amends should be made so that the infraction is countered by a balancing act of contrition.
What a person does in his own home should not be governed by any ruling authority. However, Human rights would be upheld as even in your own home, you may not molest a child, or commit murder (unless the victim was a trespasser who was a threat and refused to leave). Human rights are the fundamental agreement, a common decency that all people share, which preserve the dignity of the individual. Only where your actions impinge on another individual can the authorities intervene. But action in a public place would be under the laws of the country/city.
Say I want to swear. I can do so with impunity in my home. But in the street I can be asked to be silent, then ushered elsewhere, then imprisoned as a gradient increase in severity of action against me to preserve the public moral code. And then assigned a project of contrition to make up for my misdeed as a condition of me being allowed to travel the streets again without escort perhaps?
Say I want to smoke on your property. If you object, I would have to put out my cigarette. After all, it is your property and I am a guest. The host could indulge my habit, but must specifically say so as his or her word is the rule of law in their domain.
This is but an idea, but can it be made to work?
I think it can, as it is how the West was before the rapacious business man arrived to cheat the native American Indian of his property. (I have done insufficient research into this and am willing to be corrected) Trust broke down amongst the people and military force moved the Indian away to the reservation. The land should have been bought from the Indians, fairly. However, someone saw fit to use deadly force to remove the weaker party to another, less fertile, area. Clearly there was a violation of Human Rights in this case. There was also a violation of rule of law. The perpetrators should have been brought to justice. It is too long ago to put it to rights now, but guard against it in the future! This piece of history on a grand scale can yet be played out on a smaller more personal level under the cloak of "eminent domain", and who knows what other strategems to deprive one of their property.
Another point. What is the code of people living together. At one end you have a ship's captain who has full law over the crew. At the other you have the hippy commune where someone was in charge only because he or she was permitted to by the rest. But the basic human rights were upheld.. It seems to be a common point for human society. Even the sea captain would agree that each crew member had a right to life and the right to do his job. My earlier example of the naked owner might not fit in the case of the ship or the commune as it is usually not an agreed mode of conduct. So the naked owner might declare his right is being infringed upon.
Think on it. I will. And come back with more.
Books on the Constitution from Amazon - The basis in Law of freedoms
Is absolute freedom possible in any society?
An attempt to answer a question on absolutes
What would absolute freedom be? Would it be the right to do whatever one pleases no matter the consequences? That would be an absolute for a single individual and potentially could wreak havoc in an orderly society. So perhaps the wrong question is being asked? It was interesting to see in "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels", the fate of all the criminals as fate dealt the ultimate "no" to their activities. This was a movie, but it does indicate that you can end up with the result you deserve if you cheat and swindle your fellows. Society works in that direction through the courts and police, but an individual in a way calls down his own admonishment. How much easier to live an honest life with a consideration for others. But that is not really being free is it? You apply your own restrictions. But then, you choose to do so. So if you knowingly decide to not break the speed limit, or to take that candy which you do not have the permission to take, then you have absolute freedom as any restrictions are self imposed rather than imposed by another. Which seems to be the crux of the matter. Freedom is about making your own choice. you choose. No-one else does.
So, how close to absolute freedom can a society approach?
Basic to this question is the morality of the citizen. If he or she delights in imposing on others then it will not work. If he or she has wasteful ways such as using huge amounts of energy or water or food, then are we restricting their freedom by making them use lesser amounts? Do they have a right to use excessive amounts?
The answer lies in the productivity of the person. If they create more than they consume, then you would be less in your right to reproach them. If they produce nothing, then the amount you allow them to use must be charity.Life would then be a series of negotiations with others. The rules would have to come from somewhere would they not? Again, we encounter the idea that a person is self regulating when they come across a barrier. The barrier is an imposition on your freedom. So what do you do if you disagree?
Freedom can not imply a right to everything. A right is something that is earned because by your endeavours you earn the right to something. That something would have to be on the lines common to that society. You could say you have a right to a job. Why? What authority dictates that you get and hold a job? This should be rephrased to something like you have a right to apply for a job and if you are the best candidate you have a right to have that job no matter your age, sex, race etc. Is this more workable? Does it follow the idea of freedom?.
Some people thing they have a right to food and water. It is politically correct to agree this way, but in fact the question needs to be asked, "does the person deserve to be given access to food and water?" have they contributed in some way to society that others who do the work can agree that their contribution warrants food and water. For example, a drug pusher is not contributing to society. They in fact are making society weaker by finding victims for the drugs he or she peddles. This weakens society. Why provide food to this person so they can survive to do more harm.
How about the person who delights in driving gas guzzlers with no emission control? They are putting noxious fumes into the air. They are entitled to do so as they are paying for the fuel and the vehicle. So we should insist that the user pays for cleaning up his mess.
Market forces can be used to get the person to come into line. Expensive energy makes them inclined to conserve rather than waste. Pollution fines can make them contemplate the worth while-ness of their excursions. And education in the scarcity of the energy might also work.as well as a lecture on noxious gas fumes show them the error of their ways. Market forces can be determined by the market place, but as it is a political bandwagon, it is more likely a politician will enact a law that enforces bigger taxes, or higher expenses on one of the sides in the transaction. If there is agreement that the tax or fee is fair, then OK. But the moment it cuts across the transaction, because the price is too much, then we have an interference and the market freezes.
... to be continued
Taxes and voting.:
To be elligible to vote, you need to be a tax-payer....
This could be controversial!
But give it a look.
I put a lot of thought and effort into getting my business to make a profit. My employees gain benefit from my leadership and they may even go the extra mile and put some of their own intellectual capital into the equation. My business gets taxed and I get taxed. So I want to have a say in where my tax money goes. I would want it to be invested somewhere that will allow my business to operate without hinderance.
There are people who turn up to their job and just do the bare minimum. They grumble about the hardship. So when it comes to vote, they chooses the one who promises food and circuses. Not the one who invests in infrastructure, or demands results for the money invested in health, education, policing, transport etc.
The vote of the person who wants bread and circuses negates the vote of the hard working shop owner. The elections resolve on the education of the voter in detecting the lies from the candidate.
But this is not democratic! Indeed. It is something else that is different. It is those who are paying for it, determining the use of their taxes. So is it fair that those who escape paying taxes not get a vote? What about those in menial jobs who put in hours of community work, do Jury Service and the like? Shouldn't they get a vote too? I think so.
The criminal in gaol is not allowed to vote. So the lesser criminal, the person on welfare should be dis-allowed from voting too as they are not contributing to the society.
I need to ponder this some more.
MP3's from Amazon - Speeches extoling liberty
There are many speeches that have been recorded that essentially are about liberty. Here is a selection which is avalable at Amazon
Anyone interested in preserving rights by educating people on what their rights are!