Systematic failure of identifying freedoms

Civic freedom has been given to me from within a controlled system of coded possibilities. If my freedom was truely mine exclusively, noone would know how to exchange it or measure it beyond myself.

( Opinions welcomed.)

What kind of freedom are we talking about here? Freedom to act on any whim you choose? Or freedom from forces of nature beyond the control of any individual?

By civic freedom I assume you mean what society sees as acceptable? (Forgive me, I’m a young man, and you guys do use lots of complex phrases).

Without the system how could your freedom in regards to others be guaranteed? Your freedoms would be at the whims of others concerned with their own freedoms, not an [ideally] impartial system to adjudicate the greatest possible common freedom.

I completely agree… freedom, from a personal standpoint, requires two separate and completely defined subjects. “IN SUCH CASE THAT” there is no God and no destiny, I believe is completely absurd to talk about free will. If there is only one country, one state, I believe is absurd to talk about a free state.

Freedom to act on any whim I choose.

Freedom from the forces of nature or the external reality that comprises existance is virtually impossible.

Pretty much. ( Societal gestures of measuring freedom.)

My claim is that freedom within society doesn’t exist however beyond society freedom can.

Explain that further so I can understand you better.

Freedom within a societal civic standpoint is pretty much a oxy moron.

Only when one has complete control to act on every whim like a momentary creature is there freedom and once we restrict forms of freedom we really can’t call it freedom at all.

You grow grapes. I consider it within my personal freedoms the freedom to eat grapes. You consider it within your freedoms to decide who gets your grapes. A conflict arises when our two assumed freedoms cannot reconcile eachother.

The system seems necessary to sort out these conflicts and to decide whose freedom is either more justified (yours in an impartial situation) or necessary (perhaps mine if I am starving to death). While some freedoms may be universal (arguable at best) there are certain freedoms based in nothing but expectation. The system is necessary to sort out and ensure freedoms as it deems fit, usually through direct representation of the people who possess said freedoms within the system.

You argued that freedom can only be a personal contruct, I argued that within any social setting freedom must become a social responsability.

If you wanna talk about govt liberty vs. individual liberty there’s a good article by a guy named Berlin called “two concepts of liberty” or two types of liberty" that’s pretty nice.

So we’re assuming, just for the sake of your argument, that one’s whims don’t conflict with the laws of nature.

After all, “freedom” pertains to one’s ability to act how they choose in the context of a particular environment–for you to think freedom can exist within the limitations of natural law, you’re at least limiting “freedom” to what can is (currently) incapable of altering, right?

However, can’t you act any way you want within a society as you can outside a society (minus certain exceptions related to one’s attempt to live outside that society when (a) “user(s)” of that society can lessen your ability or prevent you from doing do so; in this case the reality of the society still applies) ? Sure, there are consequences (ranging from imprisonment to realizing your looking glass self reflects all kinds of negative labels), but it is still possible to perform the act.

Or do you mean “Freedom to act without negative consequences”?

Any other kind of imagined act (which you would like to commit but feel you cannot, although doing so wouldn’t pose nay consequences) which (the workings of) a particular society prevents you from performing is an act that can only be performed within the “laws” of that society. For example, say you want to be able to have a certain job that requies a degree and lots of relevant experience; this reality, and the freedom to obtain it, is impossible outside the environment created by that society.

Society does limit your ability to act without consequences. There are official laws that protect people… don’t kill, steal, etc… and then there are norms which, if you don’t follow, can lower your chances to “succeed” according to the guides of how one should/should not act.

I think some laws are important (don’t kill other people), and some are bullshit (illegalization and/or restrictions/limitations on purchasing weed, for example), just as I think certain norms are important (don’t intend to act in ways that make a person feel physically threatened, for example) and some are bullshit, simply because they are different, and thus questionable, and make others uncomfortable (think of nonverbal communication for groups of animals… if one animal is acting noticably, yet ambiguously, other animals won’t know what they are supposed to do. Now make the animals self conscious and insecure, and you can see why norms of behavior are so tightly held).

There will always be restrictions on “freedom” in society, as there should be, in my opinion. Of course, hopefully there will be a future where most everyone is physically and psychologically secure, and the idea of freedom and personal choice is so highly valued that anyone can do just about anything in public and, as long as it doesn’t immediately cause any danger to others, each action will be seen, first and foremost, as an expression of the person’s individuality–the way that particular system outputs the input of its environment.

Few wants/needs + the golden rule is key for this possiblity.

Precisely because such a conflict is societal.

Amongst nature the grapes grow wild and I could admire grapes without having to grow them since the need to grow them would cease while you at the same time would eat them without conflict from me as I no longer posit the need to do any planting.

The system creates more conflicts than it reduces. One could say the system thrives on conflicts.

Metaphysical judgement.

Responsibility is a moral civic connotation.

Do you know the first and last name?

I don’t have a personal computer presently as I am surrounded by a bunch of strangers right now utilizing public library owned computers presently so luckily enough for me I’m surrounded by books to check into your suggestion.

As to quote one unknown philosopher- “Everything that exists is exactly the way it should be.”

I believe there is a natural telos of all creation and nature that is not a god but a energy deriving from the movement that comprises the cosmos or big bang. Such a thing isn’t religious at all as I am a atheist but rather is a enviromental presence that creates functional secondary creations of itself under the applications,functions,intentions and goals it formulates into such secondary existances of it’s primary reality.

Such a teleology creates functions,goals and intentions all throughout creation or what we call evolution. Ones whims is nothing more than the necessary fulfillments of those functions,goals and intentions imbedded into our being by such a energy or sequence of the cosmos.

I think all laws are wild willy nilly constructions that are theatrical manipulative forms of subjugation that counts for nothing.

I also have no problem with murder as the tiger has no problem with murder everyday to survive.

Why should there be any restrictions and how does humanity come to the judgement that there should be?

Isaiah Berlin.

Great guy.

The preservation of life in the form of individual humans has evolved into societies; the purpose of society is to sustain life (even if it often has negative effects).

The tiger does not have the degree of introspection that has enabled man to secure food with agriculture and other means of production, the tiger doesn’t “murder”, it kills in order to keep itself alive.

Humans surpass this. I don’t see why our ability to create ethical systems would cause us to not use them. Our killing another person when it does not contribute to our own physical survival isn’t equal to the actions of a tiger.

There is no straight line or right way of evolution.

Humans kill for survival too and it is usually a rarity that someone is murdered beyond necessity.

Obviously this is based on your standpoint. For Joker, who seemingly believes existence to be meaningless and without any ultimate goal, then according to that idea, we are all free to do exactly as we want. For any law that is made by a meaningless being is equally as meaningless. Widespread atheism, if it’s thought through logically, would essentially lead to total anarchy.
A truly Christian society would also be a form of anarchy, for the sermon on the mount infers that one should not take any form of revenge, whether personally or through a court system. Because a court system is essentially just asking someone else to get revenge for you.
I myself believe it is infinitely more logical to explain to someone why what they’re doing is wrong, rather than punishing them. If you can’t explain why it’s wrong, you shouldn’t uphold it as a law! I suspect some would say to that, “But explaining to someone why what they’re doing is wrong is not going to stop them doing it.” I’d say it’s about as likely, if not more so, than punishing them, which only says, “Don’t do it because we don’t want you to and we’ll make you suffer if you do.”

Regarding two previous comments:
With regards to the legalisation of drugs - the law is there to protect ignorant people, in my opinion. If you legalised all drugs today, as some people believe should be done, then people would be able to sell heroine door to door, etc, and your children might end up becoming heroine addicts. In a perfect society, all children would be educated on the damage drugs do, and given sufficient impetus not to indulge. Well, actually, in a perfect society, people would suffer very little from the pain of existence and would feel it unnecessary to take drugs. But if we look at it from the nihilist perspective again, there is no justification for laws against drugs, for there is no purpose in life except the ones a man creates for himself, and if that is to be constantly stoned and to die in a pool of his own vomit, he has every right to do so.
With regards to men killing only for survival - if a drugs baron kills his drug dealer for taking a small amount of produce (staying on the drug theme :stuck_out_tongue:), is that necessary, for he will not die because of it? You’ll have to give examples if you want me to believe that people kill out of necessity for survival. Wars are usually completely unnecessary. I assume you’d say that a war is started for the survival of a state, or a faction. But, in my opinion, every logical man knows that the problems behind wars could be sorted out without us killing each other, and that wars just create more problems for all involved. Starting a war is a choice.

Incorrect. You are still free to exit the society you’re in, or simply ignore it.

Futher, prominent modern (and many historic) societies are developed specifically to maximize individual freedoms in a social environment. If you track back your understanding of freedoms and ethics and such, reasonably you should arrive at the same conclusions.

Reality has placed you in a society, it’s as natural as anything else in the universe. The dillema is always that if two people have competing whims, they are resolved in one of these ways:

one or both forgoing their whim

one or both competitng for their whim

the unvierse solves the dillema (one dies, the whim is take by a storm, etc.)

Some sort of mutually agreed upon compromise.

Yes, none of us like compromise more than having our whim, but reality has other plans, namely that our whims our not the only whims in existence. Fight, die, or compromise. Always has been, probably always will be (With homo sapiens anyway)

*TIP - Compete mercilessly in business to scratch that itch, and make a ton of money in the process, which gives you more access to whims.

  • most modern competition takes place here, but not everyone has access to it right out of school, and some never do. Take up your battle standard and arms, and go to war…for money…and the casualties are only time and ego.

*TIP2 - play online fighting games to scratch the fight itch if you want more killing/minute ;0