Export thread

Came across this quote while reading a few backed up issues of an email newsletter that I've subscribed to.

Before the turn of the 19th century, freedom was defined as self-sufficiency, the freedom to own your own land and tools, and eke out a living with your own hands. As consumerism became a dominate force in the culture, freedom was redefined to mean the freedom to choose, to choose between different items and lifestyles, to choose things we believed fit out tastes and personality more than others.

Click to expand...

I just thought it was an interesting observation (or, an interesting opinion, if your opinion differs). Any thoughts?

I honestly don't see that much of a difference, if you have self-sufficiency you can make your own choices, and vice-versa.

Of course, one can argue with how much we actually "choose" in today society.

Green_Lantern said:

I honestly don't see that much of a difference, if you have self-sufficiency you can make your own choices, and vice-versa.

Of course, one can argue with how much we actually "choose" in today society.

Click to expand...

I see a fairly wide difference. It sort of came up in the last gay marriage debate. There was an incident where a church refused to let a lesbian couple get married in their church.

Now, the church didn't infringe on their freedom to get married (which I sort of see as a self-sufficiency issue). The church infringed on their freedom to choose that church.

I don't buy it. It just really seems like whoever wrote that is trying to romanticize the past.

Freedom isn't free. It costs folks like you and me.

Rob King;263667][quote=Green_Lantern said:

I honestly don't see that much of a difference, if you have self-sufficiency you can make your own choices, and vice-versa.

Of course, one can argue with how much we actually "choose" in today society.

Click to expand...

I see a fairly wide difference. It sort of came up in the last gay marriage debate. There was an incident where a church refused to let a lesbian couple get married in their church.

Now, the church didn't infringe on their freedom to get married (which I sort of see as a self-sufficiency issue). The church infringed on their freedom to choose that church.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, indeed, the church was absolutely evil for not accepting they marriage there.

Charlie Dont Surf said:

Freedom isn't free. It costs folks like you and me.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a lyric. Where's it from?

To be quite honest, I really wish I had the freedom to be self sufficient and live by my own rules outside the jurisdiction of ANY government. Grow some crops, live out in the hills by self with a few neighbors and friends.

Grow copious amounts of weed, and sit on my porch and get internet.

Green_Lantern said:

Agreed, indeed, the church was absolutely evil for not accepting they marriage there.

Click to expand...

*takes swing at Green_Lantern*

:tongue:

---------- Post added at 01:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:29 AM ----------

Le Quack said:

To be quite honest, I really wish I had the freedom to be self sufficient and live by my own rules outside the jurisdiction of ANY government. Grow some crops, live out in the hills by self with a few neighbors and friends.

Grow copious amounts of weed, and sit on my porch and get internet.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that second part exactly fits the definition of the 'old' freedom. But it does sound attractive some days.

Of course it's attractive. You could live outside the rules of society. Be truely free?

Le Quack said:

Of course it's attractive. You could live outside the rules of society. Be truely free?

Click to expand...

I don't subscribe to "absence of rules = freedom."

I'm just saying that some rules, laws, governments DO infringe on the kind of freedom that is inherent in the social contract, and some days I'd throw the entire lot out, just to get rid of the offending two or three.

Rob King;263667][quote=Green_Lantern said:

I honestly don't see that much of a difference, if you have self-sufficiency you can make your own choices, and vice-versa.

Of course, one can argue with how much we actually "choose" in today society.

Click to expand...

I see a fairly wide difference. It sort of came up in the last gay marriage debate. There was an incident where a church refused to let a lesbian couple get married in their church.

Now, the church didn't infringe on their freedom to get married (which I sort of see as a self-sufficiency issue). The church infringed on their freedom to choose that church.[/QUOTE]

Actually the basic idea isn't all that different, just the emphasis on certain parts...

That example for example emphasises someone choosing something vs someone choosing to refuse something...

The old definition is also about being able to chose what you're doing (not just being self-sufficient, but also being able to do what you want with the results of your self-sufficiency), but it doesn't emphasise you being able to chose from everything... at least that;s how it sounds.

Amorous Bitch said:

Free is when you don't have to pay for nothing or do nothing

Click to expand...

i has heard shego can helps u with thats....

Rob King;263712][quote=Le Quack said:

Of course it's attractive. You could live outside the rules of society. Be truely free?

Click to expand...

I don't subscribe to "absence of rules = freedom."

I'm just saying that some rules, laws, governments DO infringe on the kind of freedom that is inherent in the social contract, and some days I'd throw the entire lot out, just to get rid of the offending two or three.[/QUOTE]

Well, by basic definitions absence of rules DOES = freedom. Rules put constraints on your life. Whether they are ultimately good or bad, in the end, they still keep you from being free.

I got your freedom right here:

Chazwozel said:

I got your freedom right here:

Click to expand...

YOU A HARLEY MAN, SON?

http://images.google.com/images?q=harley man

-Adam

"Rob King said:

Green_Lantern said:

Agreed, indeed, the church was absolutely evil for not accepting they marriage there.

Click to expand...

*takes swing at Green_Lantern*

Click to expand...

I am not in to swinging. sorry

[

Rob King said:

SIZE=1]---------- Post added at 01:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:29 AM ----------[/SIZE]

[/COLOR]

Le Quack said:

To be quite honest, I really wish I had the freedom to be self sufficient and live by my own rules outside the jurisdiction of ANY government. Grow some crops, live out in the hills by self with a few neighbors and friends.

Grow copious amounts of weed, and sit on my porch and get internet.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that second part exactly fits the definition of the 'old' freedom. But it does sound attractive some days.

Click to expand...

I am noticing a anti-social element on this definition of freedom, yes, have control is good, but the whole "living without government" and "few neighbors" sounds like you just don't like to have people around. Not sure if I am expresssing myself correctly... =p

--------

Another sub-topic:

Freedom, seems to be, at some level, always be about choice, but what is choice?

If you are lied to, manipulated or brainwhased with ideals, morals or values that aren't actually true, can you actually say that you can make any choice when those values come to play? If you aren't informed can you actually choose?

Green_Lantern said:

Freedom, seems to be, at some level, always be about choice, but what is choice?

If you are lied to, manipulated or brainwhased with ideals, morals or values that aren't actually true, can you actually say that you can make any choice when those values come to play? If you aren't informed can you actually choose?

Click to expand...

Choice is ALWAYS limited by available knowledge/experience and the very human ability to run thought experiments and try to determine outcome.

If you take your line of reasoning to the logical extreme, then only an omnipotent being could possibly be considered having 'choice'.

If you accept that one may have choice without all knowledge, then there must be a gradient along that line.

Where 'choice' and 'no choice' occur along that line is very subjective.

Further, it may be tied to specific goals or objectives.

A mouse in a maze leading to cheese has choices to turn left or right at any given juncture. But if the cheese is blocked off (yet it still exists) does that condition remove choice from the mouse, even though the mouse is making left/right decisions, but can never obtain the goal?

-Adam

Le Quack;264507][quote=Rob King;263712][quote=Le Quack said:

Of course it's attractive. You could live outside the rules of society. Be truely free?

Click to expand...

I don't subscribe to "absence of rules = freedom."

I'm just saying that some rules, laws, governments DO infringe on the kind of freedom that is inherent in the social contract, and some days I'd throw the entire lot out, just to get rid of the offending two or three.[/QUOTE]

Well, by basic definitions absence of rules DOES = freedom. Rules put constraints on your life. Whether they are ultimately good or bad, in the end, they still keep you from being free.[/QUOTE]

I suppose as far as the definition of the word goes, you're correct.

But on a philosophical level, without a societal structure of rules, you're not very free. You are not free from murderers. You are not free from having your things taken by anyone who wants it. You are not free from the threat of rape or abuse. You are not free from fear.

The only thing you have freedom to do in that situation, is to react how you'd like. So you can choose to endure it, or to react. And if you react, then the perpetrator also has the freedom to react. Things escalate, and someone ends up maimed or dead, eventually. And if you choose only to endure ... well, then that puts your well being in the hands of someone who clearly does not care about you.

So, maybe you're right. I mean, the absence of rules sounds good. It means I have the freedom to stab anyone I'd like. And all I have to do to receive that freedom, is acknowledge another one of my freedoms: my freedom to get stabbed.

Iaculus;263679][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:

Freedom isn't free. It costs folks like you and me.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a lyric. Where's it from?[/quote]


When I tell you the source, you'll realize that Charlie's post should have been written in sarcasmo-blue*


*if only my idea of tone-of-voice text coloring had taken off*

Team America: World Police said:

What would you do
If you were asked to give up your dreams for freedom
What would you do
If asked to make the ultimate sacrifice

Would you think about all them people
Who gave up everything they had.
Would you think about all them War Vets
And would you start to feel bad

Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill
Freedom isn't free
No, there's a hefty fuckin' fee.
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?

What would you do
If someone told you to fight for freedom.
Would you answer the call
Or run away like a little pussy
'Cause the only reason that you're here.
Is 'cause folks died for you in the past
So maybe now it's your turn
To die kicking some ass

Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill
Freedom isn't free
Now there's a have to hook'in fee
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?

You don't throw in your buck 'o five. Who will?
Oooh buck 'o five
Freedom costs a buck 'o five

Click to expand...