What does freedom mean to you?

[PunkMaister]

Given the differences we have here I think is pertinent to make a thread like this. I will start by quoting from the U.S declaration of independence that stated

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

I start with it because what an awesome statement that is, especially when one considers that those who wrote it did not entirely obviously believe nor understood the meaning, weight or impact of those words. I mean Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and he penned that statement himself!


To me freedom means to have the liberty to pursue one's own happiness and to try to excel as human beings to the best of our abilities as opposed to have overseers dictating what you can accomplish or not instead of in your own terms. Some people might think that bashing at a piano senselessly is freedom. But is it? There are those that believe that the choices we human beings make are irrelevant and that there is absolutely no difference in someone killing himself slowly with drugs in a street corner and a Carnegie hall orchestra director or a scientist finding a cure for an up to now fatal disease.

So this is in a nutshell what freedom means to me, what does it mean to you?

[Narsil]

People should be free to do whatever they want as long as no one else is harmed by such actions; freedom of expression but with the exceptions of snuff films or pornography involving children, freedom of sex and marriage between consenting adults, freedom of thought and opinion but also the inclusion of a proper secular education system, freedom of a democratic process but with a series of checks and balances to make sure that no minorities are harmed, freedom of religious views and religious practices except where this would infringe upon the freedoms of another, and also the right to a form of universal health care.

Important notes; freedom of choice for mothers wishing to have abortions but only prior to the point where the child is developed enough to survive outside the womb and displays brain activity.

[PunkMaister]

Umm.. Snuff films Narsil? Do you realize that they are basically an urban legend?

The only arguably real snuff films would be the recorded murder/decapitations of westerners such as Daniel Pearl

freedom of religious views and religious practices except where this would infringe upon the freedoms of another,

Since this comes conjoined with this

freedom of sex and marriage between consenting adults,

which is OK as long as is their business alone in my opinion but say what if a Gay couple decide that despite what Christians might believe they want to be wed in a church. Where does their rights end and those of the Churchgoers begin then? If you force the church and the churchgoers to do such a wedding would it not be infringing upon their rights to express their religion freely in their place of worship as they choose?

We have literally gone to blows (well not physical but still) when it comes to health care. Mainly because your definition of such care means letting Bureaucrats make your medical decisions for you. I believe personally that those that are poor should indeed have access to medical care but it should be of their choosing and not chosen by a damn bureaucrat in some desk miles away, from where the patient is. The case I presented you from Canada is a perfect example of what happens in a bureaucratized socialized medicine system. I will never agree that a sex change operation can possibly ever take precedence over someone's life saving surgery or that psychological traumas equal actual physical deformities and trauma.

[ILikeDeathNote]

freedom of sex and marriage between consenting adults,

What about freedom of sex and marriage between consenting children?

Not that I'm advocating pedophilia, just want to throw a monkey wrench into this debate :)

[Cocytus]

With regards to the issue of bureacrats deciding healthcare, there are unfortunately times when the bureacrats do indeed know better than the patients:

http://www.bnd.com/167/story/775640.html

This is an extreme case, and is clearly a violation on the part of the mother of the child's right to life. He will die without proper treatment, and whatever "natural remedies" her cult sanctions are NOT it.

As for gay marriage, the Supreme Court ruled in the landmark Loving Vs. Virginia that preventing people from marrying was an infringment on their right to pursue happiness. That case invalidated all remaining miscegenation statutes on the books. Preventing gays from marrying is just as discriminatory, and just as in need of being eliminated. That said, the establishment clause would seem to preclude a state or federal law from requiring that all churches perform gay marriage ceremonies. But there are plenty of progressive churches willing to perform them. It's a thorny issue to be sure. But at this point, I'd just be happy with a SCOTUS decision to legalize gay marriage. Per the Establishment Clause, the law wouldn't affect churches. Gays could still seek out churches which would consent to the procedure if their own parish wouldn't. Preventing gays from marrying through state and federal law is unconstitutional. Preventing them from marrying through religious institutions may be hateful, spiteful and bigoted, but we can't throw people in jail just for being bigots (or we'd all go. I don't care how enlightened you think you are.)

As for the language of the Declaration, I like a little Asimov in the mix:

Law One: All people have an inalienable right to life.

Law Two: All people have an inalienable right to liberty, except where such liberty would conflict with the first law.

Law Three: All people have an inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, expect where such pursuit would conflict with the first or second laws.

What about freedom of sex and marriage between consenting children?"

Children, by law, cannot consent to sex or marriage in this country, nor can animals.

[PunkMaister]

What about freedom of sex and marriage between consenting children?

Not that I'm advocating pedophilia, just want to throw a monkey wrench into this debate :)

OK first of all you would have to proof that kids can make such kinds of decisions on their own. So far science tells us that kids simply do not have such as capacity as off yet, which explains why they still needs their parents and immediate family and so on. Since they are not capable according to science (and notice I'm only applying cold hard logic to this and not raising moral issues which clearly contravene this idea as well...) to make such decisions on their own such a thing cannot be viewed under any circumstances as freedom, it can be called quite a number of other things but not freedom. How doing something that is essentially inhumane be a freedom?


So that aside what does freedom mean to you in particular ILikeDeathNote?

As for gay marriage, the Supreme Court ruled in the landmark Loving Vs. Virginia that preventing people from marrying was an infringment on their right to pursue happiness. That case invalidated all remaining miscegenation statutes on the books. Preventing gays from marrying is just as discriminatory, and just as in need of being eliminated. That said, the establishment clause would seem to preclude a state or federal law from requiring that all churches perform gay marriage ceremonies. But there are plenty of progressive churches willing to perform them. It's a thorny issue to be sure. But at this point, I'd just be happy with a SCOTUS decision to legalize gay marriage. Per the Establishment Clause, the law wouldn't affect churches. Gays could still seek out churches which would consent to the procedure if their own parish wouldn't. Preventing gays from marrying through state and federal law is unconstitutional. Preventing them from marrying through religious institutions may be hateful, spiteful and bigoted, but we can't throw people in jail just for being bigots (or we'd all go. I don't care how enlightened you think you are.)

As for the language of the Declaration, I like a little Asimov in the mix:

Law One: All people have an inalienable right to life.

Law Two: All people have an inalienable right to liberty, except where such liberty would conflict with the first law.

Law Three: All people have an inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, expect where such pursuit would conflict with the first or second laws.

1. That really does not answer the question I poised.
2. How can liberty conflict with life? Unless you consider something inhumane to be a liberty which is not...

[Jedi Master Spock]

I like Cocytus's formulation, but "liberty" is still a little nebulous.

PunkMaister, I'm pretty sure Jefferson thought slavery was wrong. He was what we might call a deeply conflicted man - or, if we are less charitable, a hypocrite. His critics accused him of talking out of both sides of his mouth at once, if I recall my history correctly.

If I do recall my history, life, liberty and property was nearly the phrasing. I think people do have a right to life, and to do whatever they like so long as it doesn't cause harm. When harm is caused, we need a good reason for it...

[Praeothmin]

In all these "Freedom" talks, there's one thing that should always be remembered:
Your Freedom stops where the next guy's Freedom starts.
By this I mean that you are free to do as you wish, when it only concerns you.
As soon as what you want to do concerns another, you must make sure that it doesn't inpinge on his freedom to either participate, or to refuse to participate in what you do.

So no matter how you look at it, you can never have total freedom...

[GStone]

One person's happiness comes at the expense of someone else. You can't really get around 'do no harm' to do what you want. You want to enjoy your hard earned money by eating good food, but you aren't serving yourself or going out and getting it yourself from nature.

The only way to be free is if you are your own little country, unless you're gonna apply animal and vegetation rights. Then, you're fucked.

Preventing them from marrying through religious institutions may be hateful, spiteful and bigoted, but we can't throw people in jail just for being bigots (or we'd all go. I don't care how enlightened you think you are.)

I'm enlightened and the people I hate are stupid people.


....................Damn it! The only place I can go is the arctic! ;-)

Children, by law, cannot consent to sex or marriage in this country, nor can animals.

I saw a guy on the news marry a horse or a pony. It slept in his bed, too. It wasn't legal, but they still went through with the ceremony. Sick, creepy, but it's got emotions and I sware, it was acting like it was in love with the guy.

OK first of all you would have to proof that kids can make such kinds of decisions on their own. So far science tells us that kids simply do not have such as capacity as off yet, which explains why they still needs their parents and immediate family and so on.

To play devil's advocate, we expect them to make decisions on eating, cleanliness, dress themselves, who to socialize with, to follow the law, do math problems and work on logic in school, to not run into oncoming traffic, to drive...but we can't expect them to make a competent decision on sex?

Many adults make just as bad decisions with sex.

[PunkMaister]

One person's happiness comes at the expense of someone else. You can't really get around 'do no harm' to do what you want. You want to enjoy your hard earned money by eating good food, but you aren't serving yourself or going out and getting it yourself from nature.

May I ask why would you need to harm anyone to get what you want unless what you want involves something Inhumane in which case it is not freedom...

The only way to be free is if you are your own little country, unless you're gonna apply animal and vegetation rights. Then, you're fucked.

You cannot possibly apply the same human rights to Animals or plants. Animals and even plants could get at best some minimal rights to be protected from abuse, unlawwful cutting of forests etc. that sort of thing but there is no way to rationally apply human rights to either. Anyone that even proposes such a thing is a Nutjob in my opinion.

I'm enlightened and the people I hate are stupid people.


....................Damn it! The only place I can go is the arctic! ;-)

Well as they say then "You are in deep shit!" :o

I saw a guy on the news marry a horse or a pony. It slept in his bed, too. It wasn't legal, but they still went through with the ceremony. Sick, creepy, but it's got emotions and I sware, it was acting like it was in love with the guy.

Animals are not sentient, they think but they cannot rationalize and are not self aware as we are so for anyone to marry animals that just plain dumb and it should never be a right because is basically Animal abuse.

To play devil's advocate, we expect them to make decisions on eating, cleanliness, dress themselves, who to socialize with, to follow the law, do math problems and work on logic in school, to not run into oncoming traffic, to drive...but we can't expect them to make a competent decision on sex?

Many adults make just as bad decisions with sex.

With all due respect, there is a huge difference between crossing a street and clean yourself than to have sex with a grown man or woman. And off course we expect kids to obey the law as is just one more part of obey the rules. Liberty does not equal no rules whatsoever as that is Anarchy and Chaos which are not the same. You need rules to have a free and civilized society.

[Jedi Master Spock]

I would say that by the time you're trusting kids to drive, they're old enough to start making decisions about sex.

[PunkMaister]

I would say that by the time you're trusting kids to drive, they're old enough to start making decisions about sex.

You mean the so called age of consent it is arguable but you are right, after someone turns about 16-17 they are for the most part capable of making such a decision on their own. I said most because not everybody matures at the same rate, some people take more time than others, you know instead of an age of consent there should be a test to see if a person has reached the level of maturity to make those kinds of decisions for themselves and I'm not just talking about sex...

[GStone]

May I ask why would you need to harm anyone to get what you want unless what you want involves something Inhumane in which case it is not freedom...

For instance, someone has to work an underpaying, overworking job to both cook and serve me 'nice food' when I want to enjoy myself at a nice restaurant.

You cannot possibly apply the same human rights to Animals or plants. Animals and even plants could get at best some minimal rights to be protected from abuse, unlawwful cutting of forests etc. that sort of thing but there is no way to rationally apply human rights to either. Anyone that even proposes such a thing is a Nutjob in my opinion.

I'm not, but if you want to get technical, you are killing something, plant or animal. It's all convenient for animal right activists to talk about not killing when they'e there, munching on a salad. The only difference between a plant and an animal is a brain. Plants just don't go anywhere.

Animals are not sentient, they think but they cannot rationalize and are not self aware as we are so for anyone to marry animals that just plain dumb and it should never be a right because is basically Animal abuse.

Many animals have emotions and make decisions and distinctions socially.

With all due respect, there is a huge difference between crossing a street and clean yourself than to have sex with a grown man or woman. And off course we expect kids to obey the law as is just one more part of obey the rules. Liberty does not equal no rules whatsoever as that is Anarchy and Chaos which are not the same. You need rules to have a free and civilized society.

Of the things I mentioned, thery're complex, if not constant attention activities. Far more so than decisions on sex. If we go by the capacity to do something, sex is not high on the complicated list.

[Cocytus]

How can liberty conflict with life. Unless you consider something inhumane to be a liberty which it is not.

Abortion is plenty inhumane, yet it is still a liberty.

I would have thought you, as a conservative, would have loved my formulation.

[PunkMaister]

For instance, someone has to work an underpaying, overworking job to both cook and serve me 'nice food' when I want to enjoy myself at a nice restaurant.

What makes you think that chefs are lowly paid employees at restaurants? And even those that assist the chef are there because they need the job, would you rather have them unemployed taking welfare?

I'm not, but if you want to get technical, you are killing something, plant or animal. It's all convenient for animal right activists to talk about not killing when they'e there, munching on a salad. The only difference between a plant and an animal is a brain. Plants just don't go anywhere.

To be fair not all animal rights activists are this way, only the most extreme ones! Believe me because I'm a bit of an activist myself and have rescued quite a few stray animals from the jaws of starvation and death, in fact you could say I'm an unregistered ASPCA member.:D

Many animals have emotions and make decisions and distinctions socially.

Is not the same thing! Animals don't write poetry, they never ask their place in the universe, only we do that.

Of the things I mentioned, thery're complex, if not constant attention activities. Far more so than decisions on sex. If we go by the capacity to do something, sex is not high on the complicated list.

OK just STOP there, I mean where are you going with this? Are you seriously gonna suggest that a 4 year old boy or girl can make a rational, intelligent decision on his or her own about sex? You cannot be seriously considering such a thing!

Heck even a 7 year old boy or girl would still be playing with toys, sex does not come into play in their minds until they reach age 11 to 12. That's when the hormones really begin to kick in into prepubescence if you want to get technical and even then they are still in phase of becoming teenagers so that means they are certainly not ready. Their bodies surely are not...

How can liberty conflict with life. Unless you consider something inhumane to be a liberty which it is not.

Abortion is plenty inhumane, yet it is still a liberty.

I would have thought you, as a conservative, would have loved my formulation.

No it is not liberty at all. It is sanctioned murderjust like capital punishment only on this case of those that have committed no crime of their own whatsoever. But when it comes to abortion I can understand why for example a woman who has been raped and got pregnant as a result would want to carry that pregnancy to terms. Hopefully science can come up with more humane ways to deal with this issue that would not involve sanctioned murder but would allow women to still have their choice.