How real is freedom

[midcan5]

What does freedom mean

Four woman live in two different countries, one country is a democracy and the second totalitarian. All the woman believe that they live in complete individual freedom. That value is written into the governing documents of each country. One day the two woman from the democracy decide to go on vacation. One woman buys her ticket and gets on a plane to Bermuda. The other woman has limited resources and when she gets to the airport is told she cannot board the plane without a ticket. Finally after much dispute she is arrested and thrown into a state jail.

One day the two woman in the totalitarian state decide to travel abroad. One works in government and gains permission to go to Bermuda. The other woman checks with her local commissar and is told she cannot travel to Bermuda. Travel to Bermuda is not allowed. She disputes the decision and is soon thrown into a state jail. Two woman exercised their freedom two couldn't, yet each held the same value.

If our original premise is they all have equal freedom, why are the results within these two distinct states similar? While the answer is obvious can we then say a person with limited resources is free?

with apologies to Adam Swift



"Where freedom is real, equality is the passion of the masses. Where equality is real, freedom is the passion of a small minority." Eric Hoffer

"The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do." Eric Hoffer

[Yurt]

can i freely steal from you?

[Said1]

What does freedom mean

Four woman live in two different countries, one country is a democracy and the second totalitarian. All the woman believe that they live in complete individual freedom. That value is written into the governing documents of each country. One day the two woman from the democracy decide to go on vacation. One woman buys her ticket and gets on a plane to Bermuda. The other woman has limited resources and when she gets to the airport is told she cannot board the plane without a ticket. Finally after much dispute she is arrested and thrown into a state jail.

One day the two woman in the totalitarian state decide to travel abroad. One works in government and gains permission to go to Bermuda. The other woman checks with her local commissar and is told she cannot travel to Bermuda. Travel to Bermuda is not allowed. She disputes the decision and is soon thrown into a state jail. Two woman exercised their freedom two couldn't, yet each held the same value.

If our original premise is they all have equal freedom, why are the results within these two distinct states similar? While the answer is obvious can we then say a person with limited resources is free?

with apologies to Adam Swift



"Where freedom is real, equality is the passion of the masses. Where equality is real, freedom is the passion of a small minority." Eric Hoffer

"The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do." Eric Hoffer

Who's Adam Swift and why are you sorry?

[diuretic]

And so we can begin to understand the meaning of "freedom" a little better than the use of slogans would allow.

[Hobbit]

That's a load of crap. The difference is that in the free country, the woman who cannot travel is in that position because of her own choices. She CHOSE not to work hard enough or get educated enough to afford a trip to Bermuda. She CHOSE to show up to the airport and attempt to board a plane without paying the provider for the service, rather than trying to save up enough to pay for it legitimately. She CHOSE to get snippy because the airline refused to give her something she did not earn.

In the totalitarian country, the woman may or may not have had the resources and economic value for the trip and may have planned ahead (though poorly if her government had to provide permission and she didn't gain it before showing up); the statement doesn't say. In any case, it is irrelevant because the fact that she couldn't go was decided not by her, but by her government.

Oh, and whoever this Hoffer guy is, either you're misquoting him or he's a tool. Equality is what a free society strives for in that nobody has their fate decided by birth, skin color, or some other arbitrary, unchangeable factor, but rather, their fate is the fruit of their choices. What you're talking about is sameness, and sameness cannot be the goal of a free society, as the first step toward sameness is to take from those who have earned and give to those who haven't, and THAT is the very essence of tyranny.

[DragonStryk72]

What does freedom mean

Four woman live in two different countries, one country is a democracy and the second totalitarian. All the woman believe that they live in complete individual freedom. That value is written into the governing documents of each country. One day the two woman from the democracy decide to go on vacation. One woman buys her ticket and gets on a plane to Bermuda. The other woman has limited resources and when she gets to the airport is told she cannot board the plane without a ticket. Finally after much dispute she is arrested and thrown into a state jail.

One day the two woman in the totalitarian state decide to travel abroad. One works in government and gains permission to go to Bermuda. The other woman checks with her local commissar and is told she cannot travel to Bermuda. Travel to Bermuda is not allowed. She disputes the decision and is soon thrown into a state jail. Two woman exercised their freedom two couldn't, yet each held the same value.

If our original premise is they all have equal freedom, why are the results within these two distinct states similar? While the answer is obvious can we then say a person with limited resources is free?

with apologies to Adam Swift



"Where freedom is real, equality is the passion of the masses. Where equality is real, freedom is the passion of a small minority." Eric Hoffer

"The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do." Eric Hoffer

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness."

Ever notice happiness was never guaranteed in the constitution? that's because it cannot be guaranteed, only to be given the chance to pursue that happiness.

Freedom does not mean the same as anarchy, it means being free to pursue that which you wish to pursue, as long as that does not infringe upon the liberty of others (such as trying to gate jump an airplane, thus depriving the airline of their right to own and operate a business).

[avatar4321]

Because we live in a (relatively) free government, does not mean we are free. It just means the government is set up in a way that we can be free if we so choose to be.

There are thousands, maybe even millions, of people in bondage in this country. Because they choose to do so with their actions. For some reason, not everyone understands that every action we take has consequences. Some have major consequences, some have minor consequences. Some consequences are immediate. Some may not occur till years down the line.

I am going to use smoking as an example. There are a lot of people that are in complete bondage to their nicotine addiction. The government didnt force them to start smoking, but now they face both long term and short term consequences of their actions. And they have to fight for their freedom from their addiction.

They in a sense, became enslaved to smoking after choosing to smoke a certain number of times. Now some people might not care. They might like smoking alot. Others may hate it but not have the ability to stop without help. A person who chose not to start smoking would be free of the consequences of smoking. That person would still be free. Nothing is keeping that person from smoking if they choose, but by choosing not to they are free from the cravings and others negative side effects in life, some of which they might not see for decades.

And that's what freedom is about, making choices and living with the consequences. It's about taking responsibility for ourselves and self government. That is exactly why modern liberalism is so dangerous to our freedom. Because it's designed to convince people that they need to rely on government instead of taking responsibility of their own lives. "Its the fast food moguls that make you and your children fat, its not your fault." or "Those conservatives who think you should work for your needs and wants are mean." or "You should have a right to 'free' healthcare".

The more you convince individuals that they should rely on government for their needs rather than themselves you are robbing them of their freedom. Freedom comes from the ability to govern ourselves. And that comes from learning what choices are good and which are bad and making the right ones. As Christ said, "The Truth shall set you free."

This is why the first amendment is so vital. Because if you can't learn the truth, you can't be free. And you can't learn the truth, if the government can keep it from you. And I can guarentee you that when people try to stifle the debate by telling you you cant question them or treating like you are stupid for bringing a subject up. you can be assured that they probably arent trying to push the truth on you.

[diuretic]

That's a load of crap. The difference is that in the free country, the woman who cannot travel is in that position because of her own choices. She CHOSE not to work hard enough or get educated enough to afford a trip to Bermuda. She CHOSE to show up to the airport and attempt to board a plane without paying the provider for the service, rather than trying to save up enough to pay for it legitimately. She CHOSE to get snippy because the airline refused to give her something she did not earn.

In the totalitarian country, the woman may or may not have had the resources and economic value for the trip and may have planned ahead (though poorly if her government had to provide permission and she didn't gain it before showing up); the statement doesn't say. In any case, it is irrelevant because the fact that she couldn't go was decided not by her, but by her government.

Oh, and whoever this Hoffer guy is, either you're misquoting him or he's a tool. Equality is what a free society strives for in that nobody has their fate decided by birth, skin color, or some other arbitrary, unchangeable factor, but rather, their fate is the fruit of their choices. What you're talking about is sameness, and sameness cannot be the goal of a free society, as the first step toward sameness is to take from those who have earned and give to those who haven't, and THAT is the very essence of tyranny.

Nobody has their fate decided by birth. First you have to believe in fate and I don't but anyway, I predict that you're better off being born to rich parents than to poor parents. Nothing like a rich mum and dad to give you a nice little kick along in life.

The point is, the more rich you are, the more free you are because you have more choices.

[diuretic]

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness."

Ever notice happiness was never guaranteed in the constitution? that's because it cannot be guaranteed, only to be given the chance to pursue that happiness.

Freedom does not mean the same as anarchy, it means being free to pursue that which you wish to pursue, as long as that does not infringe upon the liberty of others (such as trying to gate jump an airplane, thus depriving the airline of their right to own and operate a business).

Happiness wasn't mentioned in the first post - well I didn't see it anyway.

And freedom is relative, it's not an absolute. As I've indicated, the rich have more freedom than the poor. That's a fact Jack.

[diuretic]

Because we live in a (relatively) free government, does not mean we are free. It just means the government is set up in a way that we can be free if we so choose to be.

There are thousands, maybe even millions, of people in bondage in this country. Because they choose to do so with their actions. For some reason, not everyone understands that every action we take has consequences. Some have major consequences, some have minor consequences. Some consequences are immediate. Some may not occur till years down the line.

I am going to use smoking as an example. There are a lot of people that are in complete bondage to their nicotine addiction. The government didnt force them to start smoking, but now they face both long term and short term consequences of their actions. And they have to fight for their freedom from their addiction.

They in a sense, became enslaved to smoking after choosing to smoke a certain number of times. Now some people might not care. They might like smoking alot. Others may hate it but not have the ability to stop without help. A person who chose not to start smoking would be free of the consequences of smoking. That person would still be free. Nothing is keeping that person from smoking if they choose, but by choosing not to they are free from the cravings and others negative side effects in life, some of which they might not see for decades.

And that's what freedom is about, making choices and living with the consequences. It's about taking responsibility for ourselves and self government. That is exactly why modern liberalism is so dangerous to our freedom. Because it's designed to convince people that they need to rely on government instead of taking responsibility of their own lives. "Its the fast food moguls that make you and your children fat, its not your fault." or "Those conservatives who think you should work for your needs and wants are mean." or "You should have a right to 'free' healthcare".

The more you convince individuals that they should rely on government for their needs rather than themselves you are robbing them of their freedom. Freedom comes from the ability to govern ourselves. And that comes from learning what choices are good and which are bad and making the right ones. As Christ said, "The Truth shall set you free."

This is why the first amendment is so vital. Because if you can't learn the truth, you can't be free. And you can't learn the truth, if the government can keep it from you. And I can guarentee you that when people try to stifle the debate by telling you you cant question them or treating like you are stupid for bringing a subject up. you can be assured that they probably arent trying to push the truth on you.

You missed the point. The richer someone is, the more choices they have. The more poor, the less choices.

And that's why I made the point about getting past slogans.

[Kathianne]

You missed the point. The richer someone is, the more choices they have. The more poor, the less choices.

And that's why I made the point about getting past slogans.

How do you figure? I'm assuming you are addressing such issues of whether or not to become educated? Not what brand of handbag or wallet one buys.

[diuretic]

How do you figure? I'm assuming you are addressing such issues of whether or not to become educated? Not what brand of handbag or wallet one buys.

You're right, they can learn about Prada later.

[Kathianne]

You're right, they can learn about Prada later.

So how do the rich have 'more freedoms'?

[diuretic]

So how do the rich have 'more freedoms'?

They can choose to buy Prada or they can choose to buy K-Mart. They can choose to go to Paris or they can choose to go to Cincinatti*

*Not knocking Cincinatti, never been there, I would have used a town here but you'd all be ?????-ing me so I played to the home crowd :D

[Kathianne]

They can choose to buy Prada or they can choose to buy K-Mart. They can choose to go to Paris or they can choose to go to Cincinatti*

*Not knocking Cincinatti, never been there, I would have used a town here but you'd all be ?????-ing me so I played to the home crowd :D

So you were talking about only material decisions. That's not freedom, but options based on income.

The rich do not have more rights/freedoms, I would agree though that if they choose to infringe on others; they have the ability to hire attorneys that may result in their being granted extra privilege.

[avatar4321]

You missed the point. The richer someone is, the more choices they have. The more poor, the less choices.

And that's why I made the point about getting past slogans.

no they dont. They just have to make different choices.

[avatar4321]

They can choose to buy Prada or they can choose to buy K-Mart. They can choose to go to Paris or they can choose to go to Cincinatti*

*Not knocking Cincinatti, never been there, I would have used a town here but you'd all be ?????-ing me so I played to the home crowd :D

I know quite a number of poor people who have prada products. They saved and sacrificed and shopped around to purchase the products. There are lots of poor people who have not only gone to Paris, but backpacked through Europe. It just takes planning and hard work. Sure they dont just roll out of bed, buy tickets and go. But they still can if they work hard and sacrifice.

[Dilloduck]

no they dont. They just have to make different choices.

Generally , if you don't choose to pursue capital you're choices will be limited by default. You simply cannot afford to choose a better home, a better lawyer, a better health plan, etc. In a capitalistic society, the amount of capital you have determines the amount realistic choices you have.

[diuretic]

So you were talking about only material decisions. That's not freedom, but options based on income.

The rich do not have more rights/freedoms, I would agree though that if they choose to infringe on others; they have the ability to hire attorneys that may result in their being granted extra privilege.

What then is "freedom"?

[Classact]

F
What does freedom mean

Four woman live in two different countries, one country is a democracy and the second totalitarian. All the woman believe that they live in complete individual freedom. That value is written into the governing documents of each country. One day the two woman from the democracy decide to go on vacation. One woman buys her ticket and gets on a plane to Bermuda. The other woman has limited resources and when she gets to the airport is told she cannot board the plane without a ticket. Finally after much dispute she is arrested and thrown into a state jail.

One day the two woman in the totalitarian state decide to travel abroad. One works in government and gains permission to go to Bermuda. The other woman checks with her local commissar and is told she cannot travel to Bermuda. Travel to Bermuda is not allowed. She disputes the decision and is soon thrown into a state jail. Two woman exercised their freedom two couldn't, yet each held the same value.

If our original premise is they all have equal freedom, why are the results within these two distinct states similar? While the answer is obvious can we then say a person with limited resources is free?

with apologies to Adam Swift



"Where freedom is real, equality is the passion of the masses. Where equality is real, freedom is the passion of a small minority." Eric Hoffer

"The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do." Eric HofferFreedom is:

Being wild as in nature, a bird flies to territory of choice, a carnivirous beast allows the dominate male to conquer territory. In the nature of man in nature we dominate territory and live in large tribes that share similar expected norms. We are combative but have ability of reason and logic that cause us to create governments that establish laws to protect our "expected norms".

Governments vary to extremes but governments that rule closer to the meaning of the wild are the freest form of life. In the nature of man exist the love of art, the belief in spirits or god(s), the need for other people and power over other people. When government offer people more than the expected norm they remove power, allow me to explain:

A wild monkey has his freedom and territory in the jungle but a government desires to remove his freedom by placing a treat inside of a cage, the monkey cherishes the treat and places his hand through a small opening and fills his hand but can't remove his hand from the cage to escape to freedom he once had, the government strolls up and captures him under government control, monkey loses his freedom.

Read the lyrics of this song: http://www.lyrics007.com/print.php?id=TWpjd01qQTE they are contrary to mans nature and paint him as a bird. Man is combative and freest in a democratic republic that least impacts his freedom. Classical America as it was founded is that freedom.

[diuretic]

no they dont. They just have to make different choices.

Of course they have to make different choices, it's self-evident.

The rich can choose between Prada and K-Mart.

The non-rich can choose betweeen JC Penney (are they still trading?) and K-Mart.

The rich can choose between Air France First Class and Greyhound.

The non-rich can choose between Amtrak and Greyhound.

[diuretic]

I know quite a number of poor people who have prada products. They saved and sacrificed and shopped around to purchase the products. There are lots of poor people who have not only gone to Paris, but backpacked through Europe. It just takes planning and hard work. Sure they dont just roll out of bed, buy tickets and go. But they still can if they work hard and sacrifice.

How they sacrifice and how long isn't the point. The point is immediacy. If a non-rich person chooses to go to Paris they can work towards it. But they're immediately limited in exercising a choice because of lack on income. That isn't the case for the rich, if they want to go to Paris this weekend then they can.

Do you get it?

[glockmail]

What then is "freedom"? Post 6 line 1. Being an Aussie I don't expect you to understand that simple phrase, but in essence, its what freedom is all about.

[Nukeman]

How they sacrifice and how long isn't the point. The point is immediacy. If a non-rich person chooses to go to Paris they can work towards it. But they're immediately limited in exercising a choice because of lack on income. That isn't the case for the rich, if they want to go to Paris this weekend then they can.

Do you get it?but freedom is not based upon our "choice" of what we will spend our money on. We have the freedom to MAKE a choice not have it made for us (get it). the whole monetary issue is moot. even the rich can not afford all they want.

What is the cost of a trip to space??? If memory serves me it is tens of millions of dollars for a private citizen to do this. So the point is we all have limitations on what we choose to WANT but we dont have limitations on what we NEED.

This is the problem with some who believe that everyone is "entitled" to what others have! That just isn't the case. Freedom is having the choice in ourselves to do good or bad for ourselves not be forced to conform to a specific way of life, religion, or job.

So I think that what your saying is that people in a communist or socialist country would have by far the most "freedom" due to the fact that they would all enjoy the same choices??? Yes??? Even though the government and "the people" decide what is best for the community!!

[diuretic]

Post 6 line 1. Being an Aussie I don't expect you to understand that simple phrase, but in essence, its what freedom is all about.

Fair enough, I don't expect anything constructive from an ignorant prick like you. If you could come up with a half intelligent answer to anything I'd be stunned.

[diuretic]

but freedom is not based upon our "choice" of what we will spend our money on. We have the freedom to MAKE a choice not have it made for us (get it). the whole monetary issue is moot. even the rich can not afford all they want.

What is the cost of a trip to space??? If memory serves me it is tens of millions of dollars for a private citizen to do this. So the point is we all have limitations on what we choose to WANT but we dont have limitations on what we NEED.

This is the problem with some who believe that everyone is "entitled" to what others have! That just isn't the case. Freedom is having the choice in ourselves to do good or bad for ourselves not be forced to conform to a specific way of life, religion, or job.


So I think that what your saying is that people in a communist or socialist country would have by far the most "freedom" due to the fact that they would all enjoy the same choices??? Yes??? Even though the government and "the people" decide what is best for the community!!


That has made the point of the thread. A poor person has the choice to spend their money on a hot dog or a hamburger. They don't have the choice to go to Maxim's in Paris for a ten course meal. Yes they have freedom of choice but it's limited by their income.

I'm not saying that people in a socialist or communist society would have more freedom of itself. Rich people in a capitalist society have far more freedom than poor people in that society or most people (except for apparatchiks) in a socialist or communist society. The first point is to understand that "freedom" is a shibboleth statement that means nothing. It's a word thrown around by the privileged to quieten the non-privileged. It's a bit like "equality". We're all "equal". Heck if you believe that then I have this funny looking bridge in Sydney I'd like you to take a look at.

It's about fairness. Is it fair that some people can shoot off to Maxim's for dinner on Saturday night and some people can't feed their children? It's all very well saying, "oh but we're free" when your child is hungry, but to your child it doesn't stop the gnawing pains.

[Kathianne]

Diuretic, it's not about stuff. Stuff, money itself can be limited or lost, regardless of how much or little one has.

One's right to speak, regardless of controversy, we all have. Same with religion, the press-and access to it, trial by jury, the right to pursue whatever our abilities allow for, not limited to these, but hope that help 'defines' the idea.

We are not all born with the same opportunities, but we all have the right to use those available or that we create to pursue success or failure.

[Nukeman]

That has made the point of the thread. A poor person has the choice to spend their money on a hot dog or a hamburger. They don't have the choice to go to Maxim's in Paris for a ten course meal. Yes they have freedom of choice but it's limited by their income.

I'm not saying that people in a socialist or communist society would have more freedom of itself. Rich people in a capitalist society have far more freedom than poor people in that society or most people (except for apparatchiks) in a socialist or communist society. The first point is to understand that "freedom" is a shibboleth statement that means nothing. It's a word thrown around by the privileged to quieten the non-privileged. It's a bit like "equality". We're all "equal". Heck if you believe that then I have this funny looking bridge in Sydney I'd like you to take a look at.

It's about fairness. Is it fair that some people can shoot off to Maxim's for dinner on Saturday night and some people can't feed their children? It's all very well saying, "oh but we're free" when your child is hungry, but to your child it doesn't stop the gnawing pains.Freedom is not about "fairness" it is about the ability to CHOOSE to walk down the street without being impeded, it is about CHOOSING to walk outside and look at the sky by yourself or with someone who wants to be there as well.

You are looking at freedom as the collection of material things, that my friend has NOTHING to do with true freedom.

freedom has NOTHING to do with material goods or wealth.

[diuretic]

Diuretic, it's not about stuff. Stuff, money itself can be limited or lost, regardless of how much or little one has.

One's right to speak, regardless of controversy, we all have. Same with religion, the press-and access to it, trial by jury, the right to pursue whatever our abilities allow for, not limited to these, but hope that help 'defines' the idea.

We are not all born with the same opportunities, but we all have the right to use those available or that we create to pursue success or failure.

It's not about "stuff" Kathianne, it's about money. Money is stored potential. The more you have, the more potential you have. If you have no money then your potential is limited.

The other things are "stuff". It might seem heretical to say it but freedom of speech should be available to rich or poor alike. But freedom of speech never fed a hungry child.

[diuretic]

Freedom is not about "fairness" it is about the ability to CHOOSE to walk down the street without being impeded, it is about CHOOSING to walk outside and look at the sky by yourself or with someone who wants to be there as well.

You are looking at freedom as the collection of material things, that my friend has NOTHING to do with true freedom.

freedom has NOTHING to do with material goods or wealth.

Of course it does. I'm looking at freedom as something that can be exercised and not as an abstract notion. It's fine telling me I'm free to go to Mars but it means nothing. It's fine telling a poor person they're free to go to university or Paris but if they don't have the money then that freedom is nominal.

Again, that was the point of the original poster (I think) and I happen to agree with it

"Freedom" isn't an abstract notion, it exists and it has limits.

[Nukeman]

Of course it does. I'm looking at freedom as something that can be exercised and not as an abstract notion. It's fine telling me I'm free to go to Mars but it means nothing. It's fine telling a poor person they're free to go to university or Paris but if they don't have the money then that freedom is nominal.

Again, that was the point of the original poster (I think) and I happen to agree with it

"Freedom" isn't an abstract notion, it exists and it has limits.OK lets play..

2 people have exactly equal amounts of money say 1 million dollars.

person number 1 decides to spend his on dinner flights to Paris and lavish vacations after 2 years he is broke and destitute.

Person number 2 saves his money and invests it. After 2 years he has 3 million dollars and has the ablilty to go where ever he wants yet he still chooses to be frugal and invest wisely.

Your saying person number 2 has more freedom than person number 1, yet they had the EXACT same opportunities they just made different choices. they both however had the exact same freedom to make those choices.

What I see is someone made good choices and someone made bad choices but they both had the freedom to make those choices as they saw fit.

Money and tangible goods do not impart freedom they are "STUFF" that can be lost as quickly as it is gained.

Freedom on the other hand can only be taken away be someone else or by your own poor choices in life.....

[Trigg]

I'm looking at freedom as something that can be exercised and not as an abstract notion. It's fine telling me I'm free to go to Mars but it means nothing. It's fine telling a poor person they're free to go to university or Paris but if they don't have the money then that freedom is nominal.

Again, that was the point of the original poster (I think) and I happen to agree with it

"Freedom" isn't an abstract notion, it exists and it has limits.


I usually like your posts, but here it seems you are arguing for the sake of arguing, hanging around truthmatters to much or what???

People will never be completely equal, monitarily, the communist countries tried it and their economies went to shit.

Poor people however are FREE to move up in the world, by going to college, by starting there own business or the old stand by-marrying money. Oprah started out dirt poor, and is now the richest woman in America. She had the FREEDOM to attend college and improve her situation.

[mundame]

People will never be completely equal, monitarily, the communist countries tried it and their economies went to shit.

Poor people however are FREE to move up in the world, by going to college, by starting there own business or the old stand by-marrying money. Oprah started out dirt poor, and is now the richest woman in America. She had the FREEDOM to attend college and improve her situation.


You are making a common but erroneous assumption, Trigg. You are assuming that everyone has the same lucky attributes. A lot of people cannot move up in the world because they are dumb as posts: they have low intelligence. They aren't educable, they can hardly read at all and certainly couldn't function in college.

It's the same with physical handicaps. Someone who is a dwarf will have a different life. Someone stuck in a wheelchair, the same. There is no use saying EVERYONE has equal opportunity to prosper, because they don't.

I'm no fan of communism, but Marx at least understood that issue when he said "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." He was recognizing that some are born producers and some ---- they aren't going to do as well. There was no fairness in his formulation and also it's simply not how the human race works, so communism came to nothing.

It seems to me the question is, which do we want more of in our society, smart people or dumb people? If we want more smart people, turn them loose to prosper, because cream rises to the top. If we want more stupid people, force smart people to give them their money so stupid people have more children (what the welfare system did before 1992).

A society could do a LOT more with dumb people than we are doing: discipline in schools that actually taught people to read and do arithmetic, for instance, and rewarded achievement. But to suppose that everyone has equal opportunity to be a brain surgeon when some of them haven't got much brains themselves, I think that's a mistake.

[glockmail]

Fair enough, I don't expect anything constructive from an ignorant prick like you. If you could come up with a half intelligent answer to anything I'd be stunned.
:lol: How quickly you lose the debate!

[Nukeman]

You are making a common but erroneous assumption, Trigg. You are assuming that everyone has the same lucky attributes. A lot of people cannot move up in the world because they are dumb as posts: they have low intelligence. They aren't educable, they can hardly read at all and certainly couldn't function in college.

It's the same with physical handicaps. Someone who is a dwarf will have a different life. Someone stuck in a wheelchair, the same. There is no use saying EVERYONE has equal opportunity to prosper, because they don't.

I'm no fan of communism, but Marx at least understood that issue when he said "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." He was recognizing that some are born producers and some ---- they aren't going to do as well. There was no fairness in his formulation and also it's simply not how the human race works, so communism came to nothing.

It seems to me the question is, which do we want more of in our society, smart people or dumb people? If we want more smart people, turn them loose to prosper, because cream rises to the top. If we want more stupid people, force smart people to give them their money so stupid people have more children (what the welfare system did before 1992).

A society could do a LOT more with dumb people than we are doing: discipline in schools that actually taught people to read and do arithmetic, for instance, and rewarded achievement. But to suppose that everyone has equal opportunity to be a brain surgeon when some of them haven't got much brains themselves, I think that's a mistake.Now your talkng about OPPORTUNITY not FREEDOM. there is a big difference. We have the "freedom" to be a dumb-as-a-post if we want, we also have the "freedom" to be as inteligent as we can be..

I think I undersstand where your coming from but lets not confuse opportunity, obligation, need, and want with FREEDOM. I am always free to look for a better way for my life I may not have the opportunity today or even tomorrow but some day I will. The opportunity does not take away from the freedom to look and dream and hope and to eventualy succede.

You seem to be saying that we can not hope to move above our selves that we will always be what we are and will never amount to more than what others think we should be.

[mundame]

You seem to be saying that we can not hope to move above our selves that we will always be what we are and will never amount to more than what others think we should be.


No, I am rebelling against the conservative tendency to assume everyone has equal opportunity to be rich, if they only applied themselves and had some self-discipline. You see men saying this often.

I don't think it's quite that simple.

[Nukeman]

No, I am rebelling against the conservative tendency to assume everyone has equal opportunity to be rich, if they only applied themselves and had some self-discipline. You see men saying this often.

I don't think it's quite that simple.
I think for the majority of us this is true. the truely illiterate and mentally retarded are not what we are talking about here. What we are looking at is your typical person. there will always be exception to the rule, always!

To get ahead for most of us it is a matter of priorities and self discipline. this however has nothing to do with true freedom. this is only in the accumulation of "stuff". One does not need to able to travel or have expensive things in order to be free.

[mundame]

I think for the majority of us this is true. the truely illiterate and mentally retarded are not what we are talking about here. What we are looking at is your typical person. there will always be exception to the rule, always!

To get ahead for most of us it is a matter of priorities and self discipline. this however has nothing to do with true freedom. this is only in the accumulation of "stuff". One does not need to able to travel or have expensive things in order to be free.


Okay, I see your point, that freedom is not at all the same as prosperous.

[Hobbit]

Nobody has their fate decided by birth. First you have to believe in fate and I don't but anyway, I predict that you're better off being born to rich parents than to poor parents. Nothing like a rich mum and dad to give you a nice little kick along in life.

The point is, the more rich you are, the more free you are because you have more choices.

I'm referring note to the cosmic definition of fate, but a more general term. For example, under feudalism, if you're born a serf, then you're a serf for your whole life, and only an extreme act of bravery in service to the king (knighthood) can change that. For the most part, you're born a serf and you die a serf. Conversely, if you're born into nobility, you are a pampered noble your whole life and you stay that way unless you betray your liege or an enemy power deposes you. In many now extinct cultures (and a few current ones) those born to slaves were always slaves. In India, those born to dhalits (untouchables) are thought to be in that condition due to bad karma, so they have to stay dhalits, and are thought of as less than human for their entire lives, and nothing can change that.

However, America is a free society in which a poor tailor who arrives from Mexico (legally) with less than $20 can go on to own a profitable business that designs and sells clothes worth thousands to big name celebrities. In America, a country boy from Arkansas can set up a five and dime (discount store, sort of like a dollar store now) and turn it into the largest single business on the face of the Earth. That's economic freedom. The consequence you refer to of people being born into money or poverty is a direct result of that freedom, and must be maintained, as the freedom to do what you will with your resources must include the freedom to give them to your children.

And that's just economic freedom. In America, a radio talk show host can express a desire to see the President assassinated without fear of government reprisal (however, due to economic freedom, the station may choose to 'cut back on personnel'). In America, anybody can spout laundry lists of things they think are wrong with the government and not get hauled away. We may practice any religion we want and criticize any other religion we want without getting beheaded. We are free to arm ourselves against both criminals and tyrants. We are guaranteed safety from the prying eyes of government in our own homes (though that's being eroded). I could go on, but asking how real freedom is simply because some people can't afford to do whatever they want on a whim is still the height of idiocy.

[Nukeman]

Okay, I see your point, that freedom is not at all the same as prosperous.
Precisely, "One mans junk is another mans treasure". This saying is true on sop many levels.

We all have different perceptions of what we feel is properous. One may feel that having lobster every day is living the high life where another it may be bologna sandwiches. It is all how you percieve things.

[midcan5]

I am amazed a poster above was not familiar with Eric Hoffer, I just pulled his "The True Believer" down from the shelf. Not a good sign when our youth are not familiar with one of the classics of mass movement thinking.

Much of the argument above would make sense if we all arrived on a level field and had similar opportunities. Just ain't so, so we do the best we can and sometimes we help those in need even. The question could then be, do we as a society have any responsibility to others or do we live like animals. One person mentioned animal freedom, a strange freedom to any reasoning person.

Diuretic, excellent posts.

[Said1]

Diuretic is attempting to discuss posititive and negative freedom (liberty). Simply put, having the right to pursue something and being able to do it without constraints - money being a big one.

[Said1]

I am amazed a poster above was not familiar with Eric Hoffer, I just pulled his "The True Believer" down from the shelf. Not a good sign when our youth are not familiar with one of the classics of mass movement thinking.

Much of the argument above would make sense if we all arrived on a level field and had similar opportunities. Just ain't so, so we do the best we can and sometimes we help those in need even. The question could then be, do we as a society have any responsibility to others or do we live like animals. One person mentioned animal freedom, a strange freedom to any reasoning person.

Diuretic, excellent posts.


You didn't answer my question!

[midcan5]

You didn't answer my question!

Adam Swift is a political philosopher, his 'Introduction to political philosophy,' mentions an example similar to the one I used, so attribution is required.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=3367

ps another interesting avatar.

[Yurt]

I am amazed a poster above was not familiar with Eric Hoffer, I just pulled his "The True Believer" down from the shelf. Not a good sign when our youth are not familiar with one of the classics of mass movement thinking.

Much of the argument above would make sense if we all arrived on a level field and had similar opportunities. Just ain't so, so we do the best we can and sometimes we help those in need even. The question could then be, do we as a society have any responsibility to others or do we live like animals. One person mentioned animal freedom, a strange freedom to any reasoning person.

Diuretic, excellent posts.

so, can i steal from you?

also, lets say this utopia of your socialist fantasies exists, we all arrive on a level field and have similar opportunities:

1. "similar" so you admit we all cannot be equal

2. in your society, is basketball allowed? any sports?

[Said1]

Adam Swift is a political philosopher, his 'Introduction to political philosophy,' mentions an example similar to the one I used, so attribution is required.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=3367

ps another interesting avatar.

Based on the illustration you posted, what kind of freedom are we supposed to be discussing - you weren't clear given that several examples of freedom and constraint were given. What is Swift's definition?

[diuretic]

OK lets play..

2 people have exactly equal amounts of money say 1 million dollars.

person number 1 decides to spend his on dinner flights to Paris and lavish vacations after 2 years he is broke and destitute.

Person number 2 saves his money and invests it. After 2 years he has 3 million dollars and has the ablilty to go where ever he wants yet he still chooses to be frugal and invest wisely.

Your saying person number 2 has more freedom than person number 1, yet they had the EXACT same opportunities they just made different choices. they both however had the exact same freedom to make those choices.

What I see is someone made good choices and someone made bad choices but they both had the freedom to make those choices as they saw fit.

Money and tangible goods do not impart freedom they are "STUFF" that can be lost as quickly as it is gained.

Freedom on the other hand can only be taken away be someone else or by your own poor choices in life.....

Don’t confuse free will with freedom. In your example both people exercised their free will, one wisely the other not wisely. The one who invested has increased his or her freedom, the one who pissed it all away has limited his or her freedom.

[diuretic]

I usually like your posts, but here it seems you are arguing for the sake of arguing, hanging around truthmatters to much or what???

People will never be completely equal, monitarily, the communist countries tried it and their economies went to shit.

Poor people however are FREE to move up in the world, by going to college, by starting there own business or the old stand by-marrying money. Oprah started out dirt poor, and is now the richest woman in America. She had the FREEDOM to attend college and improve her situation.

Again, there could be a confusion of terms. “Opportunity” can be created or it can just fall in your lap. But it’s not “freedom”.

And I can’t see where I argued for income equality.

And let's not forget the USSR went from revolution in 1917 to putting the first man in space in 1961 and fought the Great Patriotic War in between. No mean effort. That it went down the tubes is true but not related to the discussion here I feel.

[diuretic]

:lol: How quickly you lose the debate!

The only thing I lost was my temper. Anyway keep yelling from the sidelines, it encourages the real players.

[diuretic]

Now your talkng about OPPORTUNITY not FREEDOM. there is a big difference. We have the "freedom" to be a dumb-as-a-post if we want, we also have the "freedom" to be as inteligent as we can be..

I think I undersstand where your coming from but lets not confuse opportunity, obligation, need, and want with FREEDOM. I am always free to look for a better way for my life I may not have the opportunity today or even tomorrow but some day I will. The opportunity does not take away from the freedom to look and dream and hope and to eventualy succede.

You seem to be saying that we can not hope to move above our selves that we will always be what we are and will never amount to more than what others think we should be.

You're free to stare at the stars too but you won't get there.

All of us are limited not just by internal matters such as our intelligence or lack of it, but we're also affected by other circumstances. As I said, a kid born to rich parents is going to have more of everything while a kid born to poor parents is going to be behind the eight-ball from day one.

[diuretic]

I'm referring note to the cosmic definition of fate, but a more general term. For example, under feudalism, if you're born a serf, then you're a serf for your whole life, and only an extreme act of bravery in service to the king (knighthood) can change that. For the most part, you're born a serf and you die a serf. Conversely, if you're born into nobility, you are a pampered noble your whole life and you stay that way unless you betray your liege or an enemy power deposes you. In many now extinct cultures (and a few current ones) those born to slaves were always slaves. In India, those born to dhalits (untouchables) are thought to be in that condition due to bad karma, so they have to stay dhalits, and are thought of as less than human for their entire lives, and nothing can change that.

.......


Opportunity isn’t freedom. And you described opportunity. You made a good point about feudalism and its tendency to lock people in. That was busted wide open by mercantilism and later by capitalism although ironically enough capitalism with its social stratification has seen a return to a general locking in of people, except for the occasional rags to riches story.

But it still doesn’t attack the idea that the more wealth a person has then the more freedom they have.

[Sitarro]

No, I am rebelling against the conservative tendency to assume everyone has equal opportunity to be rich, if they only applied themselves and had some self-discipline. You see men saying this often.

I don't think it's quite that simple.

I work with African immigrants that came to this country with nothing but desire. They work at a job that doesn't make much on an hourly basis but because they work as many as 2 full shifts a day 6 to 7 days a week, they are taking in up to 100,000 a year and they are doing it with a smile on their tired faces.

Our poorest poor have color TVs, DVD players and cell phones. It is truly all about attitude whether a person advances in our society. We can pretend that everyone should be equal monetarily but that isn't what it is about, some are born into money and drink their life away like Ted Kennedy, accomplishing nothing of note except getting away with killing a young woman. Some are born into military families with little money but work very hard on talent they were blessed with and end up being the most well known face in sports and worth close to a billion dollars....... Tiger Woods.
We have free public education and an individual has a choice to take advantage of it or not...... many don't and try to blame everyone but themselves. The fact is, there are many that come to this country with nothing and do extremely well through hard work and the knowledge that they aren't going to be given anything in life.

[mundame]

We can pretend that everyone should be equal monetarily but that isn't what it is about, some are born into money and drink their life away like Ted Kennedy, accomplishing nothing of note except getting away with killing a young woman.


Well, I don't know about not accomplishing anything.........he IS a highly influential Democratic senator!! You may not like what he has accomplished, but then, he probably doesn't expect you to like it.



The fact is, there are many that come to this country with nothing and do extremely well through hard work and the knowledge that they aren't going to be given anything in life.

Our bordering oceans have long been a sieve that only the most gifted and energetic and flexible and creative can get past. That is ending with the too-easy Mexican invasion, but still people from overseas have to have a lot of moxie to get here at all. Brain drain is a great deal of what has made this country so strong. That's what the people you are talking about have got --------- brains.

[Hobbit]

Opportunity isn’t freedom. And you described opportunity. You made a good point about feudalism and its tendency to lock people in. That was busted wide open by mercantilism and later by capitalism although ironically enough capitalism with its social stratification has seen a return to a general locking in of people, except for the occasional rags to riches story.

But it still doesn’t attack the idea that the more wealth a person has then the more freedom they have.

That's a myth. The United States, as well as most other economically free nations, has incredibly high income mobility. Most people in the top or bottom quintiles don't stay there for more than a few years, and a significant portion of them have crossed entirely into the opposite quintile (though it's, I think, twice as likely to go from the bottom to the top than it is to go from the top to the bottom).

[Sitarro]

Well, I don't know about not accomplishing anything.........he IS a highly influential Democratic senator!! You may not like what he has accomplished, but then, he probably doesn't expect you to like it.

OK, he hasn't accomplished anything worth noting. I know he has blocked the installation of wind turbines off of the Mass. coast. The idea that he has any power at all would point to the stupidity of voters in that state that keep electing this disgusting, alcoholic murderer.



Our bordering oceans have long been a sieve that only the most gifted and energetic and flexible and creative can get past. That is ending with the too-easy Mexican invasion, but still people from overseas have to have a lot of moxie to get here at all. Brain drain is a great deal of what has made this country so strong. That's what the people you are talking about have got --------- brains.

This doesn't have anything to do with today, 2008. I have a friend who came here from Vietnam in the 70s, nothing but the shirt on his back and a few dollars. He was lucky enough to get to watch his parents slaughtered by the cuddly Vietcong so he made his way here and did numerous odd jobs while studying art, mostly self taught from observation of others. He became very successful and brought the rest of his siblings here. Nothing was handed to him except some help with the trip here. He worked extremely hard to get where he is today..... one of the best still life and portrait painters I have ever seen. There are Chinese and Vietnamese fishermen that settled in Louisiana. Did they sit on their porches waiting for a government handout? No, they have worked their ass off dealing with prejudice and hatred and most have succeeded very well. One interesting note, most that I have met vote conservative once they get their citizenship.

[mundame]

This doesn't have anything to do with today, 2008. I have a friend who came here from Vietnam in the 70s, nothing but the shirt on his back and a few dollars. He was lucky enough to get to watch his parents slaughtered by the cuddly Vietcong so he made his way here and did numerous odd jobs while studying art, mostly self taught from observation of others. He became very successful and brought the rest of his siblings here. Nothing was handed to him except some help with the trip here. He worked extremely hard to get where he is today..... one of the best still life and portrait painters I have ever seen. There are Chinese and Vietnamese fishermen that settled in Louisiana. Did they sit on their porches waiting for a government handout? No, they have worked their ass off dealing with prejudice and hatred and most have succeeded very well. One interesting note, most that I have met vote conservative once they get their citizenship.


That this sort of person comes here is the source of much of our strength, I think.

[Hagbard Celine]

I think diuretic is correct here honestly. The more money a person has, the more means they have to make choices of all kinds, not just materialistic ones. Money=Power and power definately gives a person more freedom.
If you simply view freedom as "good" or "part of being American," or if you view it simply as part of what "your team" believes in and you don't ever actually consider what freedom is then of course you won't get this concept. We've all been conditioned to think of freedom as this abstract notion that goes along with visions of soaring eagles and flags and we equate that notion with the other "all-American" notion of equality. But if we're going to be truthful I think we need to acknowledge that the more money a person has, the more freedom that person has. And I think we can all agree that all Americans aren't monetarily equal.
All people have the theoretical freedom to work hard, sacrifice, make something of themselves, etc., but the rich have the freedom to do everything they want whenever they want and they don't have to sacrifice anything. They don't have to save. They can do anything on a whim and that certainly makes them freer than me and most other people.
I think there's a difference between theoretical freedom and actual freedom. The difference is means.

[Sitarro]

I think diuretic is correct here honestly. The more money a person has, the more means they have to make choices of all kinds, not just materialistic ones. Money=Power and power definately gives a person more freedom.
If you simply view freedom as "good" or "part of being American," or if you view it simply as part of what "your team" believes in and you don't ever actually consider what freedom is then of course you won't get this concept. We've all been conditioned to think of freedom as this abstract notion that goes along with visions of soaring eagles and flags and we equate that notion with the other "all-American" notion of equality. But if we're going to be truthful I think we need to acknowledge that the more money a person has, the more freedom that person has. And I think we can all agree that all Americans aren't monetarily equal.
All people have the theoretical freedom to work hard, sacrifice, make something of themselves, etc., but the rich have the freedom to do everything they want whenever they want and they don't have to sacrifice anything. They don't have to save. They can do anything on a whim and that certainly makes them freer than me and most other people.
I think there's a difference between theoretical freedom and actual freedom. The difference is means.

You could look at it in a completely different way. You could say that the porch monkey is freer than the guy who is driven to excel and has to go to work. Is Bill Gates free because he is formerly the richest man on earth? Or is he imprisoned by his own ambition? Donald Trump couldn't just sit on a porch all day watching the traffic go by, it would literally kill him.

The happiest people I have ever known were the poorest people I had ever met. They didn't have any money but in turn, they didn't have any responsibilities either. Money doesn't always equate to more freedom, I have seen it in my own family. I have a cousin who makes a great deal of money. As a senior airline Captain, he makes around 200,000 a year..... that's not enough. He has a couple of other businesses that bring him double that, is he happy? Free? No, in fact he is obsessed in keeping as much as possible. He owns a very expensive sports car that sits in his garage never driven, doesn't want to put the milage on it, the resale value will go down. He can't hang around his old friends that don't make as much, they may want some of his. So he hangs around people that make more than he does which makes him feel a need to make even more, he can't relax, can't truly enjoy all of that money. He is trapped by his own ambition.

Now someone like Teddy Boy Kennedy, born into enormous wealth, he should be very happy go lucky, no needs whatsoever...... doesn't work that way. He has to live with the guilt of having so much more than everyone for doing nothing, a real burden that can make you an alcoholic. He was so unhappy he felt he had to use young women to take his mind off of his guilt, that worked for a while until he killed one in a drunken stupor. He now has to live with that burden the rest of his life even though his money and influence helped him get away with it and kept him out of physical prison. Here is a guy with everything handed to him for nothing and yet he is trapped and imprisoned in his own mind, is he freer than the porch monkey? I don't think so.

[Hagbard Celine]

You could look at it in a completely different way. You could say that the porch monkey is freer than the guy who is driven to excel and has to go to work. Is Bill Gates free because he is formerly the richest man on earth? Or is he imprisoned by his own ambition? Donald Trump couldn't just sit on a porch all day watching the traffic go by, it would literally kill him.

The happiest people I have ever known were the poorest people I had ever met. They didn't have any money but in turn, they didn't have any responsibilities either. Money doesn't always equate to more freedom, I have seen it in my own family. I have a cousin who makes a great deal of money. As a senior airline Captain, he makes around 200,000 a year..... that's not enough. He has a couple of other businesses that bring him double that, is he happy? Free? No, in fact he is obsessed in keeping as much as possible. He owns a very expensive sports car that sits in his garage never driven, doesn't want to put the milage on it, the resale value will go down. He can't hang around his old friends that don't make as much, they may want some of his. So he hangs around people that make more than he does which makes him feel a need to make even more, he can't relax, can't truly enjoy all of that money.

Now someone like Teddy Boy Kennedy, born into enormous wealth, he should be very happy go lucky, no needs whatsoever...... doesn't work that way. He has to live with the guilt of having so much more than everyone for doing nothing, a real burden that can make you an alcoholic. He was so unhappy he felt he had to use young women to take his mind off of his guilt, that worked for a while until he killed one in a drunken stupor. He now has to live with that burden the rest of his life even though his money and influence helped him get away with it and kept him out of physical prison. Here is a guy with everything handed to him for nothing and yet he is trapped and imprisoned in his own mind, is he freer than the porch monkey? I don't think so.

You make an excellent point, but we're not talking about happiness, we're talking about freedom. I think the two normally go or would be found together, but they can be mutually exclusive. If Ted Kennedy so chose, he could drop everything he's doing and use his money to do something else that suited his fancy--so while he may be currently "imprisoned" by his current situation, he does have the freedom provided by his money to change that at any given time--unlike your "porch monkey."

[Sitarro]

You make an excellent point, but we're not talking about happiness, we're talking about freedom. I think the two normally go or would be found together, but they can be mutually exclusive. If Ted Kennedy so chose, he could drop everything he's doing and use his money to do something else that suited his fancy--so while he may be currently "imprisoned" by his current situation, he does have the freedom provided by his money to change that at any given time--unlike your "porch monkey."

Physical freedom is not the same as mental freedom. The person that is driven to make as much money as possible has a hard time just relaxing. It may appear that they have the freedom to jump on a plane and fly to London to see a play but are they actually enjoying that freedom. Typically their mind is working around the clock, never truly shutting down. They are at the play that everyone wants to see but doesn't hear a line.

Is Tiger Woods free? He is now worth close to a billion dollars and yet he can't go anywhere unless he jumps in a jet and flies to another country. He can't go out to a club, a restaurant or even to a grocery store.

How about Britney Spears? Her fame and money has imprisoned her and worse, driven her crazy.

[midcan5]

Based on the illustration you posted, what kind of freedom are we supposed to be discussing - you weren't clear given that several examples of freedom and constraint were given. What is Swift's definition?

Not kinds but the concept of freedom as it is usually bantered about. Is freedom real if your life holds no promise? Is freedom more real if you have the ability to do all you want? What does freedom mean if certain laws constrict me or certain obligations force me to consider another. Can freedom exist in a group? A kind of thinking through ideas we throw around but hardly consider sometimes. The debate is interesting.

[Yurt]

Not kinds but the concept of freedom as it is usually bantered about. Is freedom real if your life holds no promise? Is freedom more real if you have the ability to do all you want? What does freedom mean if certain laws constrict me or certain obligations force me to consider another. Can freedom exist in a group? A kind of thinking through ideas we throw around but hardly consider sometimes. The debate is interesting.

why is it you ignore my question (2X) about whether i can freely steal from you? probably because you it destroys major points you tried to make in the OP...

[Said1]

Not kinds but the concept of freedom as it is usually bantered about. Is freedom real if your life holds no promise? Is freedom more real if you have the ability to do all you want? What does freedom mean if certain laws constrict me or certain obligations force me to consider another. Can freedom exist in a group? A kind of thinking through ideas we throw around but hardly consider sometimes. The debate is interesting.

Kinds, definition, concepts - le meme chose, IMHO.

Anyway, I'm of the belief that money provides freedom. At least in my part of the world, money provides freedom to do what you really want to do - that's all money really is, aside from being able to buy material things. Oh and buying the nessesities of life, very important! I guess I should say surplus income instead of money, right? In any case, in other parts of the world, money can mean escape, depending on how bad you want i (according to me of course)t. That realization and deciding how much money is enough is not so easy, either. For some, anyway.

[Kathianne]

It's not about "stuff" Kathianne, it's about money. Money is stored potential. The more you have, the more potential you have. If you have no money then your potential is limited.

The other things are "stuff". It might seem heretical to say it but freedom of speech should be available to rich or poor alike. But freedom of speech never fed a hungry child.

As I said originally, money can be gone, 'poof', in a heartbeat. Look at any crash, but the most monumental remains in '29. Thousands lost everything, some jumped out of windows, others saw an opportunity. Countless others, previously havenots, saw the opportunities and made hay.

I seriously wonder at the possibilities of a 22 year old today, looking at the economy, the wars, the dark side of the world's alliances and conflicts, and wonder what are the really motivated thinking? About alternative fuels? About cashing in on the opportunities of markets gone mad?

[DragonStryk72]

No, I am rebelling against the conservative tendency to assume everyone has equal opportunity to be rich, if they only applied themselves and had some self-discipline. You see men saying this often.

I don't think it's quite that simple.

Nothing is, but really, what is the government going to do? Do you really want the people who've handle the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina, Walter Reed, and EnRon trying to help get people out of that?

It sucks, I know that it does, but really, the best we can do is to apply ourselves as best we can, exercise as much discipline as we can while still enjoying life, and hope for the best. Einstein was a patent clerk, and Benjamin Franklin was both broke, and had no college education, yet both managed to do great things.

Anything is possible if you want it badly enough.

[midcan5]

so, can i steal from you?

also, lets say this utopia of your socialist fantasies exists, we all arrive on a level field and have similar opportunities:

1. "similar" so you admit we all cannot be equal

2. in your society, is basketball allowed? any sports?

Yurt, sorry missed the question. But again you are assuming things. The example is a parable and meant to foster thinking and not assume some fantasy world. I've been alive too long to assume that world exists. So no, you cannot steal from me as the golden rule is a pretty good rule for behavior. 1, agree. 2. of course.

[Yurt]

Yurt, sorry missed the question. But again you are assuming things. The example is a parable and meant to foster thinking and not assume some fantasy world. I've been alive too long to assume that world exists. So no, you cannot steal from me as the golden rule is a pretty good rule for behavior. 1, agree. 2. of course.

so then your parable is flawed? notwithstanding the flaws, you use it only to foster discussion....

as you missed my post, i too seem to have missed this connection you tried to make. no worries.

so you want only to have a discussion on "freedom" literally, proverbially, metaphysically, whatnot?

[midcan5]

Yes.

[Yurt]

Yes.

cool.

like many things, freedom is in the eye of the beholder. your freedom is most likely not my freedom. true freedom would require true utopia. a world where people are not selfish. a world without sin. if you don't believe in sin, a world where people are not selfish would be akin.

how can we truly have entire freedom without letting go of self?

[diuretic]

Question - and I don't think I'm going off topic - is "freedom" a means to something else, an end in itself, or both?

[Kathianne]

Question - and I don't think I'm going off topic - is "freedom" a means to something else, an end in itself, or both?

Freedom seems to me to be an absence of restraints that allow one to pursue the goals or interests one has for oneself.

For instance, the US from the inception purposely refused to set up a state church, unheard of at that time. That one decision has allowed all that have since come here to practice whatever religion they wished or none at all. Not only can one practice a religion or not, one can criticize any or all as much as they wish. While allowing for 'art' such as Piss Christ, which offended many; we also are the most religious of developed nations, which also offends many. Freedom allows both to offend and be offended. ;)

Freedom or absence of restraints also allows one born into the best or worst conditions to reverse course based on their own actions, limitations, and abilities. This is the reason that I earlier said that the rich do not have more freedom than the poor; while money certainly provides a greater range of choices, the lack of it doesn't limit one from choices.

In any case, I agree that a minimum of wealth is necessary for freedom to exist, if one must spend their resources in securing food, safety, and shelter, there isn't time to pursue anything else. I'm not saying that such couldn't happen here, it certainly did following the Depression, but it's not the case today.