Freedom and rights: some thoughts

[B_M_W]

The Good Reverend Roger has talked quite a bit about this in the past. Appologies to him if I infringe upon his material.

It seems to me that free will is an entirely useless concept. It assumes that freedom is something granted, by deity, creator, or whatever supernatural force you believe in. But if freedom can be granted, it can be taken away. If freedom can be taken from you, are you truly free? Freedom granted is not freedom at all.

Real freedom, if it exists, must come from oneself. It originates in our own action, and specifically, our choice of action. Its not a part of a society, an abstract principle. The American Declaration of Independance speaks of the inalienable liberty, something that can not be taken away, even if one tries. This liberty is inherent in every person, and it exists as choice. Not the ability to choose, but the choices made themselves. Ask yourself, do these choices follow my own path, my own values, or do they follow those of someone else? Its not important if your choices coincide with other peoples, or do not. Freedom is having the choice be your own, considering and deciding for oneself, not letting you be blindly dictated, or not. Self responsibility nicely follows. "I take this road. It is my decision, and mine alone, and thus the concequences of that action I take upon myself."

The possession of that choice is where the freedom lies. You may be taken to jail for an action you are responsible for, yet your freedom is not hindered. In actuallity, you may have excersiced more freedom than the guards who block your exit. This is because freedom is not the opportunities that life presents, but what you choose to do with them.

The same can be said of rights. If they are truely unalienable, they are not granted by someone else, they are part of oneself. A constitution is just a piece of paper with some scribbles. The freedom of speech is truly free not because its an amendment. Besides, many say that the US Constitution is dead from injury to its precepts.

I continue on with these as a part of myself. No deity grants me freedom, no document grants me rights. These are things I take for myself now and will continue to. I choose myself. That is freedom.

Ramblings, yes. I had to say it though.

[Random Probability]

Well said, BMW.

I was thinking pretty much the same thing (though not quite so eloquent.... or even coherent...) when that "freewill vs determinism" BS started flowing.

I've noticed an alarming (to me) tendancy among some people to equate irresponsibility with "freedom".  They also have strange notions on what "rights" are.  Maybe they'll read this....

How does that saying go: "You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think."

Even so, thanks all the same.

[Sir Perineal]

"Therefore the Master concerns himself
with the depths and not the surface,
with the fruit and not the flower.
He has no will of his own.
He dwells in reality,
and lets all illusions go."

[The Good Reverend Roger]

BMW,

[Triple Zero]

well said! truly some good words to live by (not intended as "to blindly follow"--hope you get what i mean)

the "free will BS/discussion" doesn't really have much to do with this, IMO, is more a theoretical/philosophical discussion point for me. simply because if it takes so long to realize/come to conclusion, it's not much use for everyday-use anyway.

[Thurnez Isa]

I like it alot
easy to understand
we have to find a good use for this

[B_M_W]

Thanks y'all. 

I've noticed an alarming (to me) tendency among some people to equate irresponsibility with "freedom".  They also have strange notions on what "rights" are.  Maybe they'll read this...

Society seems to have strange ideas of these concepts. Maybe because society, like religion, want control of the populous. You don't keep control by reminding people what real freedom is, you keep it by twisting the meaning, making freedom something abstract, when it is actually quite concrete.

[That One Guy]

Very good stuff.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Too idealistic to be useful, IMO.



Freedom ≠ choice.



Incarceration is a real limit on your freedom.

Severe illness is a real limit on your freedom.

Ignorance is a real limit on your freedom.

The possession of that choice is where the freedom lies. You may be taken to jail for an action you are responsible for, yet your freedom is not hindered. In actuallity, you may have excersiced more freedom than the guards who block your exit. This is because freedom is not the opportunities that life presents, but what you choose to do with them.

Come on.  That's laughable.  And it's highly abstract, not concrete as you claim.

Freedom only has meaning in the context of particular situations,Äîthat's how you make it concrete.  Once you remove it from the horrors of empirical judgement, you can add glitter and all sorts of froof to your generalities. 



Yes, freedom involves choice, but it IS NOT the mere ability to make choices.  It's also about being able to act on your choices and having a reasonable understanding of the consequences for those actions. 


The idea that you can make decisions without any outside influence is not real freedom.  It's a solipsistic liability and the epitome of hubris.

[B_M_W]

I would begin my rebuttal by saying that this was more or less a rant, and as a rant it is less an arguement and more an expression of emotional draw than a philosophical work. Still I will respond to all your arguements in turn.

The whole of the piece sits on the idea that freedom is a quality that cannot be taken from a person. The only thing that could not be presently taken from a person is their choices. If that is not freedom, then freedom is not something belonging to yourself, it is something given to you and thus can be taken away. It either exists as choice or it does not exist at all.

Illness, incarceration, and ignorance are a limit on the options you have when making a decision, but freedom is not options. Having a bunch of options doesn't mean you excersized freedom. You could be in good health, unincarcerated, and relatively uneducated, and still excersise freedom.

If freedom is some abstract principle, I would say that it doesn't really exist. However, as choice, freedom is concrete. Its a verb, not a noun.

Freedom only has meaning in the context of particular situations,Äîthat's how you make it concrete.  Once you remove it from the horrors of empirical judgement, you can add glitter and all sorts of froof to your generalities. 

Context matters in the sense of making a decision. I would like you to show me where I said that consideration was not important. The example of incarceration that I gave was illuding to the case of MLKJR, where he would protest, and go willingly to jail. He could have run, he could have fought it. He considered his actions, made the choice and took responsibility. That was freedom right there.

Please point out to me where I said that "ability" had to do with freedom. As I remember it, I said that it was not ability to choose, but the choice itself, that was where freedom was.

The idea that you can make decisions without any outside influence is not real freedom.  It's a solipsistic liability and the epitome of hubris.

Again, I never made any claim that decisions are shallow or narrow in their reach. But I do believe that freedom lies on oneself, and not any other person or document, or societal ideal. To believe otherwise would be to yeild freedom altogether. There would be no such thing. You call that solipsistic, but I call it realism.

Too idealistic to be useful, IMO.



Freedom ≠ choice.



Incarceration is a real limit on your freedom.

Severe illness is a real limit on your freedom.

Ignorance is a real limit on your freedom.

The possession of that choice is where the freedom lies. You may be taken to jail for an action you are responsible for, yet your freedom is not hindered. In actuallity, you may have excersiced more freedom than the guards who block your exit. This is because freedom is not the opportunities that life presents, but what you choose to do with them.

Come on.  That's laughable.  And it's highly abstract, not concrete as you claim.

Freedom only has meaning in the context of particular situations,Äîthat's how you make it concrete.  Once you remove it from the horrors of empirical judgement, you can add glitter and all sorts of froof to your generalities. 



Yes, freedom involves choice, but it IS NOT the mere ability to make choices.  It's also about being able to act on your choices and having a reasonable understanding of the consequences for those actions. 


The idea that you can make decisions without any outside influence is not real freedom.  It's a solipsistic liability and the epitome of hubris.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I would begin my rebuttal by saying that this was more or less a rant, and as a rant it is less an arguement and more an expression of emotional draw than a philosophical work.

I don't think they need to be mutually exclusive.


When people are denied education they are denied choices they didn't know they had.  That's an infringement on their freedom by your own definition.

But freedom is more than choice.

Mentally ill people can choose between killing the insects under their elbow skin or the arachnids under their nipples, but when we know these are hallucinations, we don't call this freedom.

But perhaps you do.

But I do believe that freedom lies on oneself, and not any other person or document, or societal ideal. To believe otherwise would be to yeild freedom altogether. There would be no such thing. You call that solipsistic, but I call it realism.

You didn't address my point about freedom having to do with BOTH choice and action.   

If you don't have the ability to carry out choices, then what good are they? 

If your choices are based on false ideas, what good are they?

If your brain is comatose, how do you make choices in the first place?

[B_M_W]

I would begin my rebuttal by saying that this was more or less a rant, and as a rant it is less an arguement and more an expression of emotional draw than a philosophical work.

I don't think they need to be mutually exclusive.

When people are denied education they are denied choices they didn't know they had.  That's an infringement on their freedom by your own definition.

I don't think you understand. When I say choice I mean the choice they make, not the options they have. The two are not the same. Its not an inpingment upon freedom. It is however, very fucktardly.

But freedom is more than choice.

Again, I think you are equating choice with options.

Mentally ill people can choose between killing the insects under their elbow skin or the arachnids under their nipples, but when we know these are hallucinations, we don't call this freedom.

Or they could choose to ignore the hallucinations, etc. Those are options. The options are not the freedom, the making of the decision is.

But perhaps you do.

But I do believe that freedom lies on oneself, and not any other person or document, or societal ideal. To believe otherwise would be to yeild freedom altogether. There would be no such thing. You call that solipsistic, but I call it realism.

You didn't address my point about freedom having to do with BOTH choice and action.

I DID adress it. Choice when I say it means the decided action. Thus the decision leads into the action.

If you don't have the ability to carry out choices, then what good are they?

What I think you mean is "if you don't have the abillity to carry out options, then what good are they?" And the answer is, they aren't any good at all, and they shouldn't be considered in your choice, your decision. 

If your choices are based on false ideas, what good are they?

If your options are based upon false understanding, they are pretty crappy options, but you don't know that. You have to make choices based upon what you know, or your abilities, etc. There are no other options than that.

If your brain is comatose, how do you make choices in the first place?

If you are in a coma and there is no mind going on in there, you can't act. Thus choice is a moot point. If you have a mind though, you can make a decision, even if that decision is indecision, and thus there is choice. I would say thats the majority of people on this forum.

[Michal]

I agree with teh Beemer, freedom is not an object, to be given and taken away, it's something everyone has, even if they have no idea how to use it.

I have the freedom to decide what I want to eat out of the fridge, I have the freedom to decide what occupation I am best suited to, I have the freedom to decide where I live and with whom, or I could decide to stay living with Mom until I get a Klingon costume and go with it. My choices, all. I am free to make all these decisions, and I will, because I can.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I don't think you understand. When I say choice I mean the choice they make, not the options they have. The two are not the same. Its not an inpingment upon freedom. It is however, very fucktardly.

I'm not saying choice and options are the same, I'm saying they're integral. 

So for the record, denying people education is not an infringement on people's freedom?

Mentally ill people can choose between killing the insects under their elbow skin or the arachnids under their nipples, but when we know these are hallucinations, we don't call this freedom.

Or they could choose to ignore the hallucinations, etc. Those are options. The options are not the freedom, the making of the decision is.

I'll tell my schizophrenic friend to stop taking his meds and just ignore his hallucinations.   

What is choice without options? 

I DID adress it. Choice when I say it means the decided action. Thus the decision leads into the action.

Well, I hope you can understand that most people regard choice as a decision that has no necessary connection with action.

When you wrote this:

This liberty is inherent in every person, and it exists as choice. Not the ability to choose, but the choices made themselves.

It sure sounds like you're saying it's all about decisions.

If your options are based upon false understanding, they are pretty crappy options, but you don't know that. You have to make choices based upon what you know, or your abilities, etc. There are no other options than that.

So you can't make choices based upon what other people know?  What?  That doesn't sound like freedom to me.

The main point that you don't seem to want to acknowledge is that other people can limit your ability to carry out your choices and decisions.  They also can keep you ignorant of options that would change your mind if you knew about them.  Disease also can prevent you from carrying out your decisions and choices.  Without the ability to act on choices, choice is nothing.

There is such a thing as infringement on other's freedom.  I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I agree with teh Beemer, freedom is not an object, to be given and taken away, it's something everyone has, even if they have no idea how to use it.

Bullpoopoo.

Freedom is something you sieze.  And you give the people you're siezing it from a fucking rupture.