4 ms·

I don't understand. What's "Freedom" and how do I, as a US citizen, actually have it? "Freedom" and "Liberty" are all great, noble words that make for great ta

• didibus 7y ago
  These are the more abstract philosophical meanings of freedom and liberty: > the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views > the absence of arbitrary restraints, taking into account the rights of all involved > to be free is to be self-determining, autonomous And the more concrete applicability is that of: > "giving oneself their own laws", and with having rights and the civil liberties with which to exercise them without undue interference by the state Fundamentally, it is the idea of rights. Things that you are allowed, and that no one can take away from you, even if democratically ruled against by the majority. Such as: the freedom of conscience, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the right to security and liberty, freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment under the law and due process, the right to a fair trial, and the right to life. Democracy in that system isn't supposed to supersede liberty and freedom. What happens is that free people can come together, and if they agree, they can be governed by the rule of law, laws which must be clearly laid out, which can not take away fundamental rights, and which are enacted fairly and with due process. If the individual does not agree to this, they should be free to branch out and have different laws to be governed under. That last part is the idea of the states retaining power over themselves, with the possibility to even decide to remove themselves from the US if they so wish. All this is very much possible. Though some people argue it necessitates a virtuous culture as a prerequisite. In the sense that it requires people to be reasonable, rationale and of the same belief that freedom and liberty matters most.
  • moate 7y ago
    There are exceptions put in place by the state against literally every right you listed (except maybe "conscience" since IDK what specifically you're getting at there, but it's not really important). Democracy has to, by it's nature as a collective institution, impede the freedom of individuals to do what they themselves want for the social good. If it's a scale, and democracy is "more free" anarchy would be "most free" (not a concept I believe in, again I'm posing that freedom is a binary concept, not a scale itself). My point is that when it comes to the governing of large groups, you cannot have a free society. You cannot have freedom, and also have private ownership and capitalism and all the things we currently have. You can pay service to "liberty" all you want, but I can't "give myself my own laws" that allow me to go against the state. The state will always serve as an impediment against freedom and true self determination. And I don't think that's a bad thing (To be clear, I'm a socialist not an anarchist, which is also why I think societal requirements are more important than individual liberty).
    • didibus 7y ago
      There are fundamental rights, and they have to be black/white, because they protect the minority against the majority. For everything else, it is decided on by elected representatives. If you operate in a political system where democracy can overrule all rights, it is not a liberal democracy. The US is a liberal democracy, and that is why the judge ruled that it was not constitutional, even though the democratically elected representatives put in place the watch-list. So here is a great example of liberty at play, even though the majority ruled to have a watch-list, it was ruled out because it went against the fundamental rights of a minority. > You can pay service to "liberty" all you want, but I can't "give myself my own laws" that allow me to go against the state. You can! You can freely renounce your citizenship and freely move elsewhere. The state is not allowed to hold you back from doing that. Now, when it comes to secession, it gets more complicated. Some people argue it is a fundamental right, as per the constitution, that said, the wording is very vague and unclear about it. So we could say the constitution doesn't really guarantee that you are free to secede. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be a guaranteed right though! Some people think it should, and if it isn't there in the constitution, maybe it should be added. > The state will always serve as an impediment against freedom and true self determination That's the thing though. The state are just the powers that be. The idea of liberty and freedom are moral, which is why it requires a culture of it. While democracy is a system, not a moral. People who believe in liberty fight for it. That's fundamental to preserve freedom. The freedom to "give myself my own laws" should exist. Any person should be allowed to take their private property and secede from the US, and make it a new self-ruled region. If California wants out for example, they should be allowed to leave the union. Such would dictate the idea of liberty. But, it would work similar to copy-left open source licenses. In their new found independence, they need to continue to uphold liberty. If they do not, then it is a fundamental right that the newly governed should similarly fight for it until they have it. So you see, it is much more an ideology. People should not be allowed to restrain your freedoms, unless what you are doing is forcing theirs to be restrained. And this can work quite easily within a democracy. Basically, people assemble for all kind of matters, and decisions and rules are put in place in agreement with the majority, with the idea that it will benefit most. Once in a while though, it affects an individual negatively. It is that person's right to come forward and say that their liberty is being restrained from the ruling of the majority. If true, then the ruling should be abolished, even though it was beneficial to most people.