/32/ - Psychopolitics

>>162
1
>The absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
Necessity can come in many forms, such in this case it doesn’t apply to physiological necessities, as every living person has those. The necessities to which the definition refers are pressures imposed over our behavior by external factors, obligations. Those can include promises, contracts, and perhaps even laws. If we follow that rationality, more laws always equal less freedom. Coercion is the imposition of one’s will over another, be it overtly or not. When one thinks of coercion, images of violent threats come to mind, but the term also encompasses subtle manipulation of one’s behavior. As for constraints, we can use the synonym “limitations” to explain it. Constraints are factors determining how far one can go, be it physically, as in the case of a leash, or in other behaviors, such as a sign in a library that forbids the consumption of food.

> Liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another – independence
Slavery is the owning of a human being by another. We could develop on that word, but that would sidetrack us. Being free means not being owned, and not being owned means not being held as property. “Restraints” can be used as a synonym to “constraints”. The liberation from power of another is the tricky part. When does one have power over another? When he can influence what happens to his life and/or his behavior. Power in this sense means control, influence. In order to be free one must not be influenced by others, exactly what was said previously in regards to coercion.

> The quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous
Not having to do something onerous (that is, costly, difficult). If acting in a certain way would certainly cause harm or discomfort, then being able to not act in that way without negative repercussions would mean being free.

2/3

>>163
> Ease, facility
Performing an action with freedom is, in this context, performing it without difficulty. It is noteworthy that such difficulty may come from malpractice (caused by a lack of experience or study), or an external limitation, repeating what was already mentioned about constraints and restraints.

> The quality of being frank, open, or outspoken
That is, not limited by shame, shyness or social norms.

> Improper familiarity
By abandoning restraints in regards to behavior. Example: placing one’s feet over the coffee table at someone else home is acting with freedom.



> Boldness of conception or execution
Not being restricted by fear or second-guessing.

> Unrestricted use
A more specific lack of restrictions.

2
> A political right
Ah, another powerful word, “right”. I think it’s best leaving this one for another thread, but the concept here is that it is something people can claim.

> Franchise, privilege
Both can mean a benefit to an individual or group. In this context, it means having less restrictions than others.

Now, what we should discuss is:
Do you agree with my assessments of the definitions?
What are your personal definitions of freedom?
Considering the answer of the previous question, do you think you are free?
How do people in power use the term, and what do they mean?

No need to address each topic specifically.

I eagerly await your input.

3/3

tl;dr: it refers to self ownership and the ability to do as one likes. the limit on freedom is using your natural ability (right) to impact the freedom of others. the concept is referred to as the Non Aggression Principle but was reflected earlier in the idea of Do Unto Others and other religious equivalents.

the qualities of freedom we call rights. rights are defined as Universal, as in everybody has them (unless they were born without a tongue for example then they were born without the power and right of speech) and are derived from your natural born abilities (hence terms like "that all men are granted certain rights from their /Creator/, notice the word creator, not "God"). as such inflicting restrictions on ones rights constitutes an invasion of ones person. freedom derives from being able to use your rights without any molestation at all

you are not free if you have to ask permission. its this idea that defines all governments as essential slave owners to be contested.

The way I see it, "freedom" is not a "thing"
You can never be free, you can only strive to be as free as possible
Same thing with perfection
Nothing can ever be perfectly perfect, but that doesn't stop anyone from trying

Rights do not come from freedom. Rights are an artificial construct legislated into being by man.

Freedom exists in the absence of all laws. If rights exist, then where do they come from? Who grants them?

In order to foster civilization we accept limitations to our freedoms, such as the limitation upon one's freedom to steal from another, thus property rights; or the freedom of the government to silence dissenting opinion, hence the USA has a free-speech right. We are not born with the inalienable right not to have things stolen, otherwise you'd have a damn hard time explaining taxes esp. ones lack of ability to opt out of them.

Rights typically protect the freedom of the weak/individual by constraining the stronger/group. However, laws can be created that grant any right however impossible or infringing. One could have the right to unlimited cheeseburgers enshrined in a constitution, such entitlement would be disastrous for those tasked with ensuring this right. Problems arise when frivolous laws are created (such as it being illegal to fish from the back of a camel in Texas), or when laws become outdated or impossible to uphold.

Since both laws AND the rights created by them reduce overall freedom we should always seek to have the least number of laws and rights necessary for civilization. This also works to keeping legislation simpler to understand. We must remain ever vigilant in continuing to seek the answer to the question of what laws are required to achieve whichever level of civilization is desired. Keeping in mind that if no civilization is desired, then no laws or the rights they bring are required.

>>763
What `right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not
hearken to his cries. What `right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his
children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of `right'? If two
men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is
`unalienable'? And is it `right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed that great document
pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must
be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so called
`natural human rights' that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be
cheap and is never free of cost.

-Starship Troopers

>>764
>What `right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific?

None. This is why the animal kingdom is the most free of all nations.