Freedom

[milamber25]

Freedom is another method of state control. (state as in country, not federal thingy by the way - yes, I'm English!)

 

The government tells you "Hey guys, our country is great, you're free!"

Most people say "oh cool, this is true, I can choose what colour car I drive, or where I work, or where I live etc etc"

 

I say different.

 

By saying you're free, the government is trying to make you happy. Happy people don't start revolutions! (an extreme example I know, but happy don't vote for someone else isn't quite as snappy)

 

But this doesn't address the issue of whether you're atually free. The government could (shock horror) be telling the truth. So what constitutes freedom?

 

A lot of people would say freedom of speech - fair enough. But we don't have it. You can't run down the street calling people racist names, or being generally abusive. Therefore there is not true freedom of speech. This would seem to me to be a good thing - I can't invisage the world being a better place if people were allowed to do this. Does this mean that actually, freedom is a bad thing?

 

This would lead on to further arguments - are people essentially good, moral people and therefore, if given freedom, could they be trusted not to abuse it?

Or are people actually born good or bad, in which case freedom of everything wouldn't be a good thing, as the bad people could do what they wanted.. In which case we could limit freedom to the good people? Oh, wait, that's not freedom..that's persecution

 

If we allow everyone total freedom, does this mean anarchy? Because as soon as you start adding laws, then people are no longer free..

 

Freedom is a good abstract concept, but unless humans were definitely not going to abuse it, it seems to me to actually be a danger..

 

That may be a complete ramble =D

[delphinus]

"Freedom" is a weird word here in Italy. I'd need an entire thread to explain what's happening here, but i'll try to be schematic.

 

The actual majority on the government is called "Popolo delle libertà" (People of fredom) led by Asphalt Head Silvio Berlusconi and it's on the right. The opposition is... oh, uhmm... well... There's NO opposition! except for the only honest politician in italy, Antonio di Pietro and his "Italia dei Valori" party. (5% of voters, and i'm with them)

 

What's happening here? Left and right are allied against true journalists, bloggers, writers. The "official" information is led by parties, who drop their own men into the tv to tell lies and hiding the truth about corruption, organized criminality into the politics; We have something like 70 politicians in parliament who have problems with justice, some of them are condemned already.

 

What people know about this subject is almost nothing. Real journalists cannot speak in tv, only through the web, and the tv-addicted people are so addicted that they agree with the attacks against real information, and they really think that our premier is an honest and nice person. (he's the most troubled with the law) They are not used to be informed, they have molten brains by watching reality shows, talk shows, dancing girls and false information on tv.

 

There are honest people and real journalists of course, but as i said, they are banned from tv. Two great journalists like Enzo Biagi and Indro Montanelli (Biagi gave the announcement of liberation from nazifascism on the radio in 1943) were banned from tv some years ago, and they died almost alone, forgotten. More writers and journalists have a strong action through the web, but it's still David against Goliah.

 

We are a "Sweet dictatorship"

[Lisnpuppy]

Though I admit that things can always be better...when I see information like what Delphinus states I am reminded again that in America it is much better...at least from the freedom of speech and press...etc.

 

Also to clarify and earlier post (directed to MarxistBastard) I believe that if the American people wanted to be completely (well almost) safe then it could be done....at the great expense of personal liberty. Very much like 1984

 

I personally would not want this. I would think this is exactly what a terrorist of any kind would wish to happen. For Americans to be so scared that they would give up their civil liberties.

 

 

 

It has been very easy of late to let these civil liberties go by the wayside in order to as the government (especially extreme right) would say protect the population. Some things seem so minor and insignificant (and may be in truth) that most people are willing to let them slide. The we have the extreme left (like the ACLU) which sometimes fights things that many people feel are silly or insignificant. Personally I belive that not one single freedom, right and liberty should be given in exchange for ANYTHING including safety. It is that one small, seemingly insignificant step that starts the slippery slide downward to oppression. Who is to judge what rights, liberties and freedoms are able to be given justifiably away in the name of another thing? Every one of us (obviously) would say different.

 

Yet as bad as it may be at times (and some of your post sadden me in their cynicism-though I admit to being an idealist at times) we (in the US) are the most free in the concept of civil liberty and the ideas set forth in the BIll of Rights. Simply look at China or what Delfinus say sof his country Italy. WE have rights to say what we wish no matter how stupid it may be.

 

And someone commented that people are not allowed to run down the street saying racist things. I disagree. Maybe in the "political correctness" sense or on moral grounds it would be ostrisized. But I live in West VIrginia. There is still a great deal of prejudice here. And the Klan and Neo-Nazis are alive and well and are free (and have been) to take to the streets spew what vile they may.

 

As was once said, I may disagree with what you are saying but I will defend to the death the right for you to say it. We have these rights that are inalienable. I say it can be better and I say that if the population is educated and active that a true and good balance of freedom can be achieved. But it can not be done without the citizens. Civil disobediance if needed. But to simply say that we do not have freedom, that it is a construct to control the masses is a waste of time. Is it easy to protect freedom and libery=ty? Is it easy to gain freedom and liberty? No and it should not be. But it can be done.

 

 

(please excuse spelling errors--it is late!)

[nosisab]

Total freedom will never be possible when more than one is involved being aways a goodness.

Where a society is on account it will be the interval between the things we can do against the others we must do.

 

In a ideal world that should be enough, but as the things are, the laws will address the "can not"s and "must not"s and with this will be repressive instead orienting. As for me I'll judge the things by what they are, not just and ever because of an human law, for it's interpretation of rights isn't aways the justice.

 

PS: Is true the government is the predominant factor at judging a people freedom, as it is articulated and organized. And breaking the status quo is never a trivial thing. By the other side if the people don't get a way to make it's voice be heard, there are little hopes they will be helped by others.

[milamber25]

As was once said, I may disagree with what you are saying but I will defend to the death the right for you to say it. We have these rights that are inalienable. I say it can be better and I say that if the population is educated and active that a true and good balance of freedom can be achieved.

 

Good old Voltaire :biggrin:

 

I totally agree - an educated, respectful populace would mean greater freedom is possible. I also agree with what you said about terrorists et al, the worst thing they can take away is your freedom - and for governemnts to try and combat this by...yes that's right, taking away your freedom seems somewhat ironic?

 

I don't know what it's like in the US, but I can't imagine it's much better than in Britain - it's illegal for a group of more than 3 people to meet up after half seven in the evening, unless they have permission from the Police. The Police can enter your house, arrest you, hold you for 36 hours, interview you, deny you a lawyer and even deny you a phone call on the suspicion you may have done something wrong. They don't have to have proof. The laws enabling this were passed without a referendum and without advertisment to the population.

 

This seems to me to be a complete travesty of what my grandfather died in the second world war for, and frankly it makes me sick to think about this, and the apathy with which it's accepted.

 

This was done so we can 'maintain our freedom', presumably from terrorists etc. What can we do to maintain our freedom from the government? It looks to me as if all the extremists should pack their bags and go home - they've brought down the freedom we used to enjoy in the west.

 

And don't get me started on the fact that the government doesn't even have a majority :verymad:

[Marxist ßastard]

I believe that if the American people wanted to be completely safe then it could be done, at the great expense of personal liberty. Very much like 1984.

I would suggest that you read that book. It's very different from what you apparently think it is.

 

Besides, you haven't responded to my point in an way. All you've delivered is dull, pointless rhetoric. Freedom and safety aren't mutually exclusive concepts. If you take away enough of a man's freedoms, you eventually take away his ability to defend himself. Give him more freedoms than those who intend to assault him, and those assaults will be only minor annoyances. Prove this wrong, or admit that you only believe in the "balance in freedom and safety of the whole" because it's been shouted in your face since birth.

[Lisnpuppy]

First of all, I have read 1984 many times.

Do NOT patronize me.

 

If you find my postings dull and pointless than I would suggest that you simply skip reading them. I donot post them for your individual enjoyment.

 

In 1984 the populace is monitored constantly. This is to what I am referring.

 

And to prove you wrong is a bit difficult when we are debating (and I use this term loosely in your case as you seem to wish only to antagonize and not engage in constructive and informative debate--I believe you called me a coward already) an abstract concept. Freedom probably means something different to all of us.

 

And since you do not know me I doubt you know what has been "shouted in my face" since birth.

 

Can you be free if you are not safe? No you probably can't because fear itself provides its own prison. And if you are safe because your freedoms are taken away then

 

However when you use things like the Patriot Act which takes away the civil liberties and freedom of the individula and uses it to "protect" the populace is no less of a prison. You can not single out specific people to protect one from and as such must infringe upon all persons. I personally see no other way to prevent the misuse of such things than to stand firm and keep safe the civil liberties.

 

I realize that practically all freedoms will at some time be restricted for the good of the whole (as I believe I stated) and sometime I agree and sometimes I do not. However I belive that attempting this balance is the best way to keep freedom and still have society protected. When I do not agree I take action and protest, vote, etc as is my right. For example...having child molesters report their presence in a community. Some say that this restricts personal liberty and freedom. The right to privacy is violated (murderers do not have to do this) said person has served their time, etc. The law restricts the freedom as it sees tha danger the individual presents as greater than the loss of a personal freedom. Some may agree some may not. I see this as a way the balance of the system works. Alternately the law allows freedom of speech and in my very own State it is not unheard for the KKK or other groups to march or speek. Many people would like to not allow these groups to have their free speech. To infringe on the right to say the thigns they do. Bu tthe Constitution protects this right as the danger to society is not seen to outweigh the right of free speech.

 

 

However I stand by my opinion that if Americans wished to be safe from the "threats" to which the current administration has been addressing then it can be done if everyone is monitored, watched, freedoms set forth in the Bill of Rights are abolished and so forth.

 

I do not believe that carrying a bigger stick would solve the issue. Each freedom that is given one will infringe upon another. I do not beleive in vigilatism.

[buddah]

Let's try to keep the attacks on the topic and not individuals responses, everyone has a point of view that has merit and adds to the discussion. Pointed attacks are counter productive to the discussion and will result in the topic being closed.

 

Review your posts and see if this applies to you.

 

I would not like to have to give warnings or worse over a topic that is interesting and thought provoking in nature.

 

Buddah

[delphinus]

Though I admit that things can always be better...when I see information like what Delphinus states I am reminded again that in America it is much better...at least from the freedom of speech and press...etc.

 

Just what i wanted to say... Even if i am strongly against certain american politics, involving the world in useless wars, wasting the natural resources without a reasonable limit etc. I must bow down in front of american journalism and information. The best service i have ever seen about what i said earlier is made by an american tv program called Wide Angle (the service is "who is Silvio Berlusconi") and the best article on real situation of italians was made a few months ago by the New York Times.

 

Information is the base of freedom in modern countries; today, if you wanna rule a country as a dictator you don't need tanks and an army at your service... the TV do the work better, and in a more subtle and clean way.

 

 

Can you be free if you are not safe? No you probably can't because fear itself provides its own prison. And if you are safe because your freedoms are taken away then

 

Yet another good point. I agree that the safety of a country is essential for liberty, but i also never forget that an unsafe situation could be planned by a government, in order to keep liberty under strict control, and this will probably work, giving the government a strong support from the population. Collective fear against a public enemy is a good chance for a "Sweet dictatorship". In italy happened several times, and i'm sure many of you american friends had the same suspect about some facts happened in the last few years...

[Marxist ßastard]

I have read 1984.

In that case, you should be well aware that in the setting of that book, the classes of society which enjoy the fewest freedoms are also the least safe, and the classes which have the most freedoms practically have an entire society engineered to protect them. I don't see any person in the novel who is "completely safe... at the great expense of personal liberty."

 

And if you are safe because your freedoms are taken away then

I just love how you couldn't complete that thought. Is it because there is no situation where you're safe because your freedoms have been taken away?