FREEDOM

1. 59

   victor67posted 20 months ago

   Freedom is the state of being able to act and think independently, without being constrained or limited by external forces. It is a concept that is central to many political, social, and philosophical discussions, and can refer to a wide range of issues, including political rights and civil liberties, economic freedom, and personal autonomy. The precise meaning and scope of the concept of freedom can vary depending on the context and the individuals or groups discussing it.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Castlepalomaposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      So true, it seems more recent times,  there is a lack of freedom than any other time I can remember.

      replyreport
   2. 81

      peterstreepposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Freedom is linked to responsibility.
      Let's say you live in a country where you have the freedom to do whatever you like. In other words a land without laws.
      But it does not exist. Even the animal republic has laws. The law of the most adapted to the situation. Animals work together in groups to survive etc.
      So you need rules to organize groups. Even a family has rules.
      So the question is the balance between rules and the freedom to act.
      Some countries give you very limited space to act and some more.
      Most people would find it difficult to live without rules. Rules at work, rules by religious texts, rules by traffic, rules by the government...
      Most people are not trained to think independently and out of the box (system). As they are trained from baby onwards to fit into the system. (high school uniforms, army uniforms, fashion uniforms (jeans, certain brand sneakers) etc. People are molded to walk in line and we all do it except for 0.0.01% and most of them don't walk in line on purpose!
      That's why a dictatorship is attacking first the intelligence and artists when in power, as they are the ones who are a threat as they do not always walk in line and could spread "dangerous" ideas (ideas not in line with the people in power)). They have learned to think and act outside the box.
      But most of us are happy with a structured life and don't want to make a fuss. Screaming that we want freedom but we don't want to actually use it.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Castlepalomaposted 20 months agoin reply to this

         Freedom with responsibility is the only kind that works
         
         +++

         replyreport
         1. 81

            peterstreepposted 20 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, if you think that you have the freedom to act according to your own rules and you don't take responsibility for your own actions, the freedom you took is short-lived and damaging a lot in the short time it existed.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Castlepalomaposted 20 months agoin reply to this

               Peter
               
               Screaming that we want freedom but we don't want to actually use it.
               
               This happens very often and when you have freedom and happiness many can get jealous or envious
               
               You wrot anther line I relate to. was they the artist  are the ones who are a threat as they do not always walk in line and could spread "dangerous" ideas (ideas not in line with the people in power)). They have learned to think and act outside the box.
               
               
               Psychologist Stanley Milgram found that 80% of people do not have the psychological and moral resources to defy an authority's order, no matter how legitimate the order is. Only 20% have critical capacity.

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  peterstreepposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes, to think free and out of the box you have to train that way of thinking. It does not come overnight or is like a characteristic. It is a skill.
                  Thinking differently is not easy and you have to keep it in shape constantly. (and that's your job as an artist. 24h/d) As it is bombarded with a common way of thinking.
                  Companies pay huge amounts of money to people who think differently. (Apple...) 
                  
                  Yes, artist (authors, directors, musicians, etc) can be dangerous, although not all artists are a "threat", most artists make art that is not controversial and is nicely accepted. Like painting an impressionistic painting. All beautiful but not a threat to the consensus of society. (like the impressionists were a 100 years ago)..
                  
                  And yes, to defy authority is not easy, I find it difficult myself as well in situations. I guess it's a classic human trade.
                  
                  Speaking of freedom. I hope that the situation in Iran regarding women's rights will bare fruit. The women there are amazing, defying male religious authorities. So typical that the western news is not writing about it anymore. It's replaced by the next thing.

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     Castlepalomaposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                     With all the millions of  middle east refugees forced to excape all over the world, due to 9/11 and a plan attack across the middle east. Canada took in more immigrates per capita than anyone and has said to treat women the best in the world. After tasting that kind of freedom.  It will probably change the middle eastern women and their constitutional Muslim stronghold to a greater change than anywhere on the Globe.
                     There is alway a silver lining to everything and Karma can be a bi_ch for the G7.

                     replyreport
                     1. 81

                        peterstreepposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                        I hope so, but it's difficult to tell. The climate crisis will put the world more and more on an edge. With higher prices for energy resources, refugees fleeing disaster zones, etc.
                        Like a cat in the corner, you don't know how people with power will react. Probably with force and mandate....Coming back to the freedom thread. Freedom of speech and movement could well be restricted for one reason or other. (The UK passport has dropped in value enormously after Brexit, an European one opens more doors...)
                        
                        Karma is a weird thing yes, and people who still believe climate change is just a bit of change in the weather shouldn't complain when there is suddenly a flood.
                        But that said, as usual, it's the poor people that suffer the most during a crisis. And the rich get fatter profiting from disasters, cashing in on government funds, insurance, and buying up property for cheap prices afterward..

                        replyreport
                        1. 78

                           Castlepalomaposted 20 months agoin reply to this

                           I'm strong into holistic and environmental lifestyle.  Don't trust these greenpassports in the future. As the money keeps going to the government and wealthy and trickle down as the continuous struggle repents itself. I'm only  a believer into the collective consciousness of the people that reach 80% Then that changes it all for the positive.

                           replyreport
2. 82

   Stephen Tomkinsonposted 20 months ago

   Yes, but there are two very different types of freedom. "Freedom from" and "freedom to". It seems to me that we have never resolved the clashes that occur between the two.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Correct, and doubly so in the matter of religion.  Somehow, most religions (including Christianity and Islam) find it necessary, as an edict from God, to control what other people do and how they live.

      replyreport
   2. 70

      Jay Warcampposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Equal Access.  People suppose that "freedom to" should be the right to do whatever is open to them.  It was the predominant attitude of whites during reconstruction.  It was Republicans who saw the need to have Freedom from suppression of equal access.  After Barry Goldwater (literally a libertarian) opposed Civil Rights laws that would restore equal access, caused the members of the Dixiecrat Party (opposed to Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey) to move to the Republican party under the guise that the rights of people were being diminished by government actions.  Certainly, if a person were used to having first place in line because of they were white, blacks who lacked access would not be able to compete.  The main problem with the whole discussion is that Freedom is not a zero-sum score.  Equal access for all, enlarges freedom for all.

      replyreport
   3. 82

      GA Andersonposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      I think there is only one freedom—with an infinite number of degrees, not types. The descriptions of "to" or "from" are simply points on the scale of freedom. Locke's description works for me.
      
      The resolution of the "clashes" can only be perfection; the balance point of freedom's scale. Utopia. Since that balance point is different for each of us, from the singular to the group, it isn't likely that we ever will resolve them until we evolve beyond being human.
      
      So, ♫ nah nah na nah nah♫  your freedom from something is my freedom to something.
      
      GA ;-)

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Jay Warcampposted 20 months agoin reply to this

         I take it that you don't agree with "Equal access for all, enlarges freedom for all".  In England in the 1700's people were separated by class.  The American colonists prospered because there were no limits on what they were allowed to do in the economy.  Consequently, middle class Americans were twice as wealthy as the middle class in England

         replyreport
         1. 82

            GA Andersonposted 20 months agoin reply to this

            If I take your "equal access" to be 'equal opportunity', you would be wrong, I do believe in equal opportunity.
            
            I don't think your 'England in the 1700s' analogy argues the point, I think it confirms it. There were limits on what the colonists could do, they simply weren't legal limits. Your example is one of the changes in balance on the scale of freedom.
            
            Before societal legal limits, there were nature's power limits, as in 'might makes right.'  My point isn't about right or wrong. It is about there only being one freedom and it is one measured on a scale, not a determination of 'is or isn't'.
            
            GA

            replyreport