What is freedom?

freedom and authority cannot exist.
but freedom and intelligence goes together.

freedom in its ultimate sense, is a limitless capacity. So, freedom in its untimate sense is impossible.

if freedom is impossible.
How do you explain JEsus? Julius Caesar? Mohandas Ganhdi?

we can have some freedom, we can’t have “complete freedom”. jesus,ceasor, ghandi all had an incredible strenght of will , but not limitless. the more power/strength/capacity you have the more freedom you seem to have.

does that mean, you have admited that you are limited?
if so, you are limited, therefore, you are not free.

of course i am limited, but i do have freedom. I’m free to sleep in on Fri and Sat, i’m free to go for a walk down to the store. Just because i don’t have complete freedom, doesn’t negate the fact that i have some freedom.

because you have some freedom, you believe freedom is a being, that one is able to choose what he wants to do, therefore he is free.

can you choose not to choose? living in the state of real freedom?

What do you mean, “what is freedom”?

Freedom means having more avaliable choices. If you mean “free will”, then that is a whole different argument.

To describde freedom, I’ll use an example.

Jim is in a steel room with one door. To leave the room, he must only use that one door. He only has one choice, when it comes to leaving the room.

John is in a steel room with two doors. He has more freedom than Jim, when it comes to leaving the room.

These are very simple examples to show what I mean. You could say having more restrictions limits freedom, because they would limit the number of choices one has. Freedom is not the same as free will, the way I see it.

Freedom can only exist and is increased when you have authority over another. The freest man must oppress all those below him in some way, vice versa, the least free man has no authority over anyone. The lowest of the totem poll must have no freedom at all. Think of the Universe, in fact, all abstractions, in finite terms. The freest man takes up the most space of these finite limitations. The least free must take up the most miniscule space, unless some kind of extremist communism took over and everyone was forced to share the same amount of space, which is impossible because some being would have to enforce the space people take, as without an authority to do so; it is human nature to make connections, exclusions etc. in order to make sure they have as much freedom as their will can provide for them.

While power gives one a greater scope of action it also gives one a greater responsibility for that action. Power exerts obligation. One with great power is heavily constrained by its attending obligations.

The most free person is the one with the least power. Having no obligation a person with no power is unconstrained in their actions.

Who has more freedom of action, the emporer or the fool?

Only if the person in power accepts ‘responsibility’ or ‘obligations.’ Someone who achieves their own power has neither. Those who depend on others for their power aka. weak kings or politcians might not have full power because their ‘responsiblities’ hold them back. Responsibilities fundamentally equal less power. The man with no power lives in a prison in solitary confinement; I hardly call that freedom. The poor man lives in a ghetto and can choose to goto mcdonalds, the supermarket, or pick up a prostitute. I hardly call that freedom really. It’s what the person makes of it though. A poor man can overcome his poor place, and a rich man can be a drain and accomplish little.

and more… :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue:
maria-sharapova-sucks-balls.info/sexmpeg/71446
regards, Sterenceup

Freedom is to be free to choose. Freedom is individual freedom. Collective freedom is not true freedom. All liberty is individual liberty.

Freedom is a government that treats all citizens equally. Don’t confuse this with a government that attempts to make its citizens equal. Attempting to make people equal requires robbing others of their freedom. We can only give people equal opportunity, while letting nature be nature otherwise. This requires accepting that natural equality does not exist, and that not everyone will be prosperous, although they are given the equal opportunity to prosper.

True freedom under a government requires equal treatment. Meaning that all individuals are treated equal whether rich or poor. The rich will not pay money to the poor against their will via taxation. And the poor will not be granted special benfits just for being poor. Giving special treatment to the underclass would require someone losing their equal status, and their freedom.

I’m not sure what other type of freedom is being discussed here. Anarchy would be the only true freedom, but that would involve the freedom to kill, pillage, and rape.

Some will argue that having to work and survive undermines the idea of freedom. I ask: what other way is there? We’re all given the opportunity to earn wealth. We can also choose how to earn that wealth. That’s about as close as we’ll get to freedom, unless we plan to halt all production and sit stagnant as a species, with no progress of any kind. Even then, we’d have to hunt and work to survive against the elements.

Freedom can only exist in a stateless society.

“The more you are governed, the less you are free.” - graffiti on a wall in D.C.

Freedom is non-existant in a stateless society. If everyone lives with the possibility of having everyone else at eachother’s throat, there is less freedom. The more safety there is for a person, the more freedom they have. A man that has frail legs is less safe in a real world environment, and therefore, has less freedom. Only the man with domineering power, who can be safe doing the greatest and most horrible things, is free.

I disagree with pretty much everyone on this. Freedom is power of choice among goods. If a society recognises natural law, then men will be free to seek goods. It is the truth that sets free and nothing else.

An autocrat with absolute power has freedom to do good, but if he chooses to do evil he might be seen as a slave to his own will – as will be everyone in the state. I also wonder if being bondservant to a master for whom to work is part of maturing – if so, it must be lonely at the top unless the autocrat finds a cause (God, people) for which to work.

“Oh, great star, where would your happiness be without those you shine upon?”
– Neitzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathrustra

Freedom is the power to do what you want. I used to think there was something rotten at the heart of the word ‘freedom’, but I don’t anymore.

Freedom: Independence - The absence of dependence.

Since everything is dependant on something else, freedom is one of those absolute myths; the unachievable ideal; a projection of man’s desire to flee existence.

Freedom: Omnipotence – The ability to do whatever one wants.
But what would one to do if one is all-powerful?
Action is a result of absence.
Omnipotence would be inert.

^^Lies. Louis XIV was sooo dependent on his subjects, but he balanced out all his dependencies so well, that he achieved absolute power, and nigh absolute freedom. He had incredible instincts, but upsettingly, his intelligence and battle smarts were quite low, so he could not prevail despite his absolute power.

Just because you have dependency on where your power lies, does not mean you are no longer free. If your power breaks down though, you lose your freedom as well.

That is riddled full of assumptions. Omnipotence can do whatever it wants. A wise, prudent omnipotence might fit your definition, but who says wisdom and prudence is the only path to omnipotence?