[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your definition of freedom doesn't gel very well with the conception anyone else has.

[/ QUOTE ]
If "anyone else" means you and Quadsoverquads then I agree. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Although mine is pretty much standard in libertarian circles.
[ QUOTE ]
Particularly problematic is that it seems that freedom is some sort of legal construct that applies only in certain types of societies and is open to some sort of argument about reasonableness of certain complaints.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you talking about mine? Legal constructs certainly don't apply to my defintion, in fact I can't stand them. Here's a little bit of explanation behind mine.

Now we could say it's total freedom to do what you want. But that's oxymoronic. If I have the freedom to kill you, you no longer have any freedom. If you have the freedom to coerce me or violate me in any way, shape, or form, that's restricting MY freedom. The only reasonable compromise seems to be that I can do whatever I want as long as I don't restrict your ability to do the same.

I am admently against legal constructs of freedom. Legally, I have no right to smoke weed. Morally, I do. In early American history legally, slaves had no rights. Morally, they do.

I'd be interested in hearing how any part of what I said is open to argument though.

edit: By legal constructs of freedom, I mean involuntary ones, such as by a monopoly of force or legality. Contracting, or voluntary constructs of freedom are certainly OK.