Freedom

[tomdemaine]

Freedom to me means freedom of association and everything else comes out in the wash. Once I can associate with who I want when I want about what I want (assuming of course that others are free not to associate with me if they wish) everything else will flow from that.

Of course complete freedom of association is an ideal that is difficult if not impossible to reach. I didn't want to associate with the mugger who robbed me a few weeks ago but he didn't give me much of a choice. The closer we get to true free association the better off we all will be.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, your body and mind count as property, so you can't really not have property.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is all property equal? Is freedom to do what you wish with your body and mind more important than freedom to do what you wish with your landscaping?

[/ QUOTE ]
Subjective.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Freedom in it's purest form to me would mean the freedom to do whatever you want with your property as long as you don't infringe on anyone elses rights to the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

a) Define property (and what if you don't have it)?

b) What if you and someone else have competing desires: only one of you can do what you want?

[/ QUOTE ]

If a) is done well, b) gets solved for free.

[Dane S]

[ QUOTE ]

a) Define property (and what if you don't have it)?


[/ QUOTE ]

How does the state define property? Note: I'm not baiting but asking genuinely. I have no idea how our state defines property.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

a) Define property (and what if you don't have it)?


[/ QUOTE ]

How does the state define property? Note: I'm not baiting but asking genuinely. I have no idea how our state defines property.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll need to either be more specific, or read a couple thousand pages on property law to sort that one out. Property is basically certain legal rights over the use of something. Those legal rights vary based on the nature of the property.

[Dane S]

Figures. Well, in that case, I wonder if AC wouldn't have a big advantage in being able to piggyback on those thousands of pages, sifting through all the state-serving stuff for usable knowledge of course, and then go from there. If it takes our state thousands and thousands of pages to define property, it probably won't be any simpler in AC-land. It will have to be deliberated upon extensively and also decided on a case by case basis. Not surprising then is it xorbie, that no one can answer your question satisfactorily in a message board post?

[hmkpoker]

I really, really dislike the word "freedom." I'd actually like for people to just stop using it altogether. It has a range of definitions that are so wide and contradictory that ultimately all it does is act as a euphemism for whatever social norms the speaker is advocating.

Total freedom is not possible. No social system can exist that allows anyone to do anything and have everything with no repurcussions.

Some popular uses of freedom include:

- Capitalistic property rights ("negative" freedom)

- State-sponsored welfare ("positive" freedom)

- The American status quo (I can only guess that this is what Bush means when he talks about "defending freedom")

What ultimately happens is that people abuse the word (since you can win more people over with euphemistic rhetoric than actual logic, hence why ACists prefer to use terms like "liberty" and "freedom" to more specific terms like "capitalism" and "natural selection"), and then their opponents decry their claims by claiming the ACists' system to be insufficient for providing freedom by redefining the word. "How will there be freedom for the poor in AC land? Working all day long to struggle to pay high rent and health insurance and starving to death if they can't hack it? Boy, that doesn't sound like freedom to me!"

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

Total freedom is not possible. No social system can exist that allows anyone to do anything and have everything with no repurcussions.


[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly wouldn't define freedom as being able to do and have whatever you like with no repercussion, but I agree that no social system is likely to allow total freedom for all.

[Poofler]

I hate the word also. It is defined differently by everyone who uses it. Your life is always in part determined by the decisions of others, total freedom is impossible. The AC distinction with "freedom" is that you are not compelled to do anything, but what some might consider a lack of "freedom" is that you are compelled to not do certain things.

[Shadowrun]

[ QUOTE ]
I hear a lot of talk about it, particularly as it relates to AC/communism, but there isn't really much of a discussion about freedom itself. I don't want to set up any straw men, so I'd like to hear some of the main proponents of AC give a defintion.

[/ QUOTE ]

to me being is free is not to be forced to do anything.
however, humans decided that civilization is better than total freedom and thus we gave away some of our "Freedom" to have civilization.

According to Locke (a famous philosopher)

Freedom is having a right to EVERYTHING (even bad stuff)and, that is why humans in their natural state according to him live in anarchy, where everyone is in civil war with everyone.

Locke goes on to say that humans have made a convenant to give up some of our freedom in return for securoy (at the time he we reffering to legitmize monarchy)

P.S. If you are interested you should read one of his books called Leviathan.