#1  
Old 07-19-2004, 11:11 AM
Petra's Avatar
Petra Petra is offline
Love Bomb
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NZ (Aotearoa)
Posts: VMMMCCXXXIX
Images: 215
Mallet Freedom

"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose". Janis Joplin. (I think).

One of America's buzzwords is Freedom. One example of this is at IIDB, where Spleen used it here in relation to public surveillance. Personally, if a street or park that has been the location for muggings and violence was to be cammed up and this curbed the incidence of muggings and violence, then I feel that that has added to my personal freedom as I am now able to safely go there. Others obviously feel that this is an infringement on their freedom.

GuruNet says:

free·dom (frē'dəm)
n.
1. The condition of being free of restraints.
2. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
3.
a. Political independence.
b. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
4. Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.
5. The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.
6. Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom.
7. Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: the new freedom in movies and novels.
8.
a. The right to unrestricted use; full access: was given the freedom of their research facilities.
b. The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or citizenship: the freedom of the city.
9. A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference: “the seductive freedoms and excesses of the picaresque form” (John W. Aldridge).
[Middle English fredom, from Old English frēodōm : frēo, free; see free + -dōm, -dom.]

SYNONYMS freedom, liberty, license. These nouns refer to the power to act, speak, or think without externally imposed restraints. Freedom is the most general term: “In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free” (Abraham Lincoln). Liberty stresses the power of free choice: “liberty, perfect liberty, to think, feel, do just as one pleases” (William Hazlitt). License sometimes denotes deliberate deviation from normally applicable rules or practices to achieve a desired effect: poetic license. Frequently, though, it denotes undue freedom: “the intolerable license with which the newspapers break . . . the rules of decorum” (Edmund Burke).


That seems all pretty straight forward, doesn't it? And in many ways it is. But in many ways it is not, also. My own freedom to crank up my stereo to just below the legal noise polution levels steps seriously on the toes of my neighbours desire to be free from having to listen to The Great Rock'n'Roll Swindle at a loud but legal decibel range while they are trying to read War and Peace. Compromise, in my opinion, is a far more noble thing in many civil situations than mere freedom.


I also believe that the American buzzwording of this precious thing we call freedom has turned it into a shallow political cliche and an excuse for belligerent selfishness.

So, what is freedom to you? How much are willing to compromise? Is community more important to you than personal freedom? (Actually, I'm not entirely sure what I mean by that last question, but I'll let it stand just in case someone can enlighten me as to what I mean exactly. :o)

Whaddaya think?
__________________
“Passion makes the world go round. Love just makes it a safer place.”

~ Ice T ~
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-19-2004, 11:57 AM
Ronin's Avatar
Ronin Ronin is offline
What would Hüsker Dü?
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MDCLII
Images: 127
Default Re: Freedom

I was thinking of this the other day when my Sgt. was listening to Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA".

The lyrics:

"If tomorrow all the things were gone I’d worked for all my life,
And I had to start again with just my children and my wife.
I’d thank my lucky stars to be living here today,
‘Cause the flag still stands for freedom and they can’t take that away.

And I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free.
And I won’t forget the men who died, who gave that right to me.
And I’d gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land God bless the U.S.A."

I find this notion common with, as you say, general American buzzwording and nationalism that can lead to cliche and selfishness.

(Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention at this point that the biography on Greenwood's own official web site mentions that he foresook a college scholarship, a promising baseball career, and even his own high school graduation in the early 1960s to perform as a musician in Nevada casino lounges. He performed by night and dealt blackjack by day before moving to Los Angeles, breaking through with a demo session in Nashville in 1978. This during the vietnam war era.)

After all, other countries are as "free" as the US...but you wouldn't know it if you were consumed with the religion of "America".

I think that there can and should be a balance and compromise regarding certain "free" expression that has to do with diverse community relationships and public health/safety issues.

As for the specific details...well...we'd have to examine the issue on a case by case basis.

btw ~ I'm more inclined to accept the #2 and #3 definitions in the context of your OP...though I do prefer boxers to tighty-whities.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-19-2004, 12:38 PM
Hugo Holbling Hugo Holbling is offline
Warra warra
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: With Bo, Merryn and Charlie
Posts: CXXV
Thumbup Re: Freedom

Hi, Petra. :wave:

Did you read my discussion of political philosophy? If you look there, i tried to explain Isaiah Berlin's two concepts of freedom (positive and negative, as he characterised them), along with Mill's famous Harm Principle according to which we are free to do whatever we like as long as it doesn't harm others. You can easily see an important criticism we could make of that notion with your example: how loud does the music have to go before it becomes harmful to others? What if everyone but me likes loud music? And so on.

Quote:
Compromise, in my opinion, is a far more noble thing in many civil situations than mere freedom.

[...]

Is community more important to you than personal freedom? (Actually, I'm not entirely sure what I mean by that last question, but I'll let it stand just in case someone can enlighten me as to what I mean exactly.)
I think you mean here that adherence to a concept is not as important as shaping the concept to fit and help bring about the society you want to be a part of. (Do i win £5?) As Ronin notes:

Quote:
I think that there can and should be a balance and compromise regarding certain "free" expression that has to do with diverse community relationships and public health/safety issues.
This is much like the European understanding of free speech, for example: you are not allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre (to us a popular example that has been analysed in philosophy) or to incite racial (and soon religious) hatred. If free speech has possible consequences that are not desired by the community then the concept is tempered by a concern that the community is more important than a simplistic application of a principle would allow.

To summarise, i think you're on the money with your remarks. Freedom is a concept that has fascinated people for millenia but it probably makes for a dull (and dangerous) world if we try to fit life to principles instead of the other way around.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-19-2004, 12:55 PM
Petra's Avatar
Petra Petra is offline
Love Bomb
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NZ (Aotearoa)
Posts: VMMMCCXXXIX
Images: 215
Default Re: Freedom

Thank you for your replies, gentlemen. :)

Hugo, I'm printing out your Political Philosophy link now, and shall read it before responding further.

As to what I meant by my rather vaguely expressed question, I can only say "by jove, man, I think you've got it!" :D

For me personal freedom is important, naturally - I believe it is to us all - but, in my opinion, if too many individuals have too much personal freedom then it won't be long before we actually have less personal freedom in real terms. The OP in this IIDB thread is another illustration of what I mean. To me, the freedom of those darned Virginians to pack some serious heat in a family restaurant infringes on my freedom to feel safe and comfortable eating in a family restaurant where the patrons are not ready for a gunfight at the OK Corral.

It's midnight here, so I'll wait till tomorrrow before I continue. You all know what nonsense I can come up with when I've not had enough sleep! :eek:
__________________
“Passion makes the world go round. Love just makes it a safer place.”

~ Ice T ~
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-19-2004, 02:35 PM
HelenM's Avatar
HelenM HelenM is offline
Indecisive - or maybe not
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Illinois
Posts: DCCXXII
Images: 29
Default Re: Freedom

Quote:
Originally Posted by lunachick
Compromise, in my opinion, is a far more noble thing in many civil situations than mere freedom.
Absolutely.

This is a great topic, lunachick!

Quote:
I also believe that the American buzzwording of this precious thing we call freedom has turned it into a shallow political cliche and an excuse for belligerent selfishness.
I would say this varies from one person to another; some will turn it into an excuse but others will realize that compromise can lead to a happier life, overall, than belligerent selfishness and so will temper their own rights/predilections accordingly.

Quote:
So, what is freedom to you? How much are willing to compromise? Is community more important to you than personal freedom? (Actually, I'm not entirely sure what I mean by that last question, but I'll let it stand just in case someone can enlighten me as to what I mean exactly. :o)
I've realized that I am much happier when I'm - to use the psych term 'connected' with people. And I can be more connected when I'm willing to compromise. So I'm for compromise :)

I think that people who become parents are pretty much forced into being less selfish because children need so much looking after. (Those who care at all about their children, that is). That's not to say that people who aren't parents are all selfish; of course, they aren't. But I do think parenthood is rather an eye-opener. I suppose that's true of those who find themselves responsible for looking after any other very needy dependent person too; although that's not an experience I've had personally.

Helen
__________________
www.mildenhall.net
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-20-2004, 02:00 AM
Adora's Avatar
Adora Adora is offline
Raping the Marlboro Man
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MMMLXXXVI
Images: 1
Default Re: Freedom

Quote:
Originally Posted by lunachick
So, what is freedom to you?
Freedom for me will be the day everyone stops using this utterly fucking stupid word the wrong way. For me, it is as annoying as the term "free will". When you have freedom, you have to specify what you have freedom from, otherwise it's an empty term. I say "I believe in freedom" is such an overarching statement that someone could interpret it to mean you supported Lucifer's war in heaven, for freedom from the big fat SkyBrat (in a philosophical sense, of course). You cannot be "free" from nothing.

So yes, on a more practical level, I think definition 2 and 3 are useless these days, thanks to the negative effects of globalisation.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-22-2004, 06:25 PM
seebs seebs is offline
God Made Me A Skeptic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: VMMCMLXVII
Images: 1
Default Re: Freedom

Hmm.

Okay, here's my thinking: Civil liberties are tricky, because the powers you would be willing to give to a trustworthy government, if the government were to turn on you, would be incredibly dangerous.

So... Right now, the camera in the park is making it safer for you to go there, or so we hope.

However... If the government became untrustworthy or hostile, the camera would make it less safe for you to go there.

Essentially, any time you give the government more presumptive rights to information, you make it much easier for a truly draconian police state to suddenly appear, because all the tools it needs are in place.

On the other hand... Some of those tools are genuinely useful.

My inclination is to accept the acknowledged risks of a weaker government, because I think the cost of a police state is so high that even a very small chance of allowing one is a serious risk. But... It's a tough call, and I don't think anyone's done a proper risk analysis. :)
__________________
Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open
See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware
Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together
Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-22-2004, 07:31 PM
dave_a's Avatar
dave_a dave_a is offline
This space is for rent
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: DCIV
Default Re: Freedom

Quote:
Originally Posted by lunachick

For me personal freedom is important, naturally - I believe it is to us all - but, in my opinion, if too many individuals have too much personal freedom then it won't be long before we actually have less personal freedom in real terms. The OP in this IIDB thread is another illustration of what I mean. To me, the freedom of those darned Virginians to pack some serious heat in a family restaurant infringes on my freedom to feel safe and comfortable eating in a family restaurant where the patrons are not ready for a gunfight at the OK Corral.
I think here you are misdefining freedom. You want the "freedom" to go someplace where somebody else's freedom is being denied so that you can "feel" some way, in this case safer. I say feel because it is just that, a feeling. Similarily the notion that one is safer in an area with cameras is also just a feeling, statistically this feeling of increased safety is unproven to be true. If it was proven to be true then the argument would be much stronger.

In this sense freedom is tied to a right (to keep and bear arms) and a want (the desire to have an increased feeling of safety). The freedom to bear arms is regarded as a constitutional right in the US. You may not value that right and you may wish others didn't have that right as recognized, but ultimately it is a right which is recognized in the US (for the sake of this discussion the right to keep and bear arms could be replaced with any other right, I am using it because it was your example, not because I want a gun rights debate).

What you call your right, is not a right, but a want. You want to have a feeling. Even if your want was a right, the want of the gun packers to feel safer (by carrying a firearm) would have to be infringed in order for your want to feel safer to be possible.

If something is a right (bearing arms) then you can only have the freedom you are seeking (feeling safer) by infringing the rights of others. In this case on the basis of a want (wanting to not have people bearing arms). When it's rights vs. wants, the right ought to win every time, in my opinion.

True freedom, in my book, is being able to do or have whatever you want as long as you are not depriving others of their rights. If you feel less free because you are unable to stop others from exercising their rights then your freedom, in my opinion, is an illusion and would be more appropriately called selfish intolerance (meant nicely, honestly).

Hugo mentioned Mill's harm principle which is good, but then how do we define harm? A good way to define it, which is not my own method, is on the basis of competing rights. What rights do all people have? (A debate in and of itself). If I have the right (bypassing the messy discussion of what rights we have and where they come from) to do something and my exercising that right doesn't result in any of your rights being infringed upon then there is no tension. If the exercising of my right does infringe upon your right then things get more complicated because it is now necessary to prioritize rights.

In many cases, however, things are fairly simple. In your example of Virginians carrying guns, they have that right. Your *preference* to eat in an establishment where patrons do not have guns can be met in multiple ways. Many (most) states have passed concealed carry laws where you would never know that some patrons were carrying firearms (out of sight, out of mind. You would *feel* safer since you didn't see the guns). Also, individual establishments can require firearms to be left at the entrance, or they can disallow them altogether.

In the latter case the right of the property owner to determine the conditions upon which a patron may enter and be served is trumping the right of the individual to bear arms.

Overall I would say when individual rights are subordinated to the pseudo rights of a community (communities are non entities, they cannot have rights) or to the whims/desires of others, particularly majorities, freedom is a casualty for everyone in that community who wishes to exerise a right not valued by that community.

Of course that seems to be an argument for laws and regulations being handled by the lowest level of government possible which allows for a plethora of communities to do their own thing and in this way individuals can choose their community on the basis of what order one's rights are valued in.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-22-2004, 09:35 PM
Hugo Holbling Hugo Holbling is offline
Warra warra
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: With Bo, Merryn and Charlie
Posts: CXXV
Default Re: Freedom

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adora
When you have freedom, you have to specify what you have freedom from, otherwise it's an empty term.
That does not follow. Isaiah Berlin didn't think a negative conception of freedom ("freedom from") was sufficient, hence his introducing the concept of positive freedom ("freedom to"). I explained the difference in the linked article. Note that Mill's Harm Principle was a negative understanding of freedom.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-22-2004, 09:47 PM
dave_a's Avatar
dave_a dave_a is offline
This space is for rent
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: DCIV
Default Re: Freedom

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugo Holbling
That does not follow. Isaiah Berlin didn't think a negative conception of freedom ("freedom from") was sufficient, hence his introducing the concept of positive freedom ("freedom to"). I explained the difference in the linked article. Note that Mill's Harm Principle was a negative understanding of freedom.
I don't see a link in your post. I also don't follow how the harm principle is a negative understanding of freedom. It is the "freedom to" do whatever one wishes with the only restraint being that one must not do harm (or as I prefer it, violate the equal right of another). In that sense I suppose it is "freedom from" harm or "freedom from" a violation of one's rights, but it's primary emphasis is the "freedom to" do whatever one wishes.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-22-2004, 09:57 PM
dave_a's Avatar
dave_a dave_a is offline
This space is for rent
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: DCIV
Default Re: Freedom

nevermind, hugo. I was confusing the harm principle of Mills with Locke's "harm principle".
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-24-2004, 01:50 AM
squian's Avatar
squian squian is offline
who?
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: CLXVIII
Images: 6
Default Re: Freedom

The OP tended to cast freedom in a political light. Later, lunachick recast this in the light of personal freedom. Later still, dantonac introduced the notion of economic freedom (though not with those particular words):
Quote:
Originally Posted by dantonac
True freedom, in my book, is being able to do or have whatever you want as long as you are not depriving others of their rights.
It's this last focus that provides the most interesting insight about freedom for me. Our freedoms are so great in the USA that some people are free to spend the night at the Ritz-Carlton and others are free to spend the night in a cardboard box. Some people are free to inherit unparalleled sums of money from their happy accident of birth and others are free to inherit a crack addiction. Some people are free to earn money without lifting a finger and others are free to work for wages that do not even cover living expenses.

So, which has a more limiting impact on our freedoms: politics or economics?
__________________
Better fewer, but better
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-24-2004, 02:14 AM
dave_a's Avatar
dave_a dave_a is offline
This space is for rent
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: DCIV
Default Re: Freedom

Quote:
Originally Posted by squian
So, which has a more limiting impact on our freedoms: politics or economics?
In my opinion politics. Politics has an effect on economics. Politics affects evveryone whereas unfortunate economic conditions generally affect only a portion, at least directly.

A poor economic situation, so long as there is sufficient political freedom that opportunity still exists, can be overcome. I am not so ignorant as to believe it is easy or much short of impossible in some cases, but the possibility of improving one's economic condition via the opportunity that exists in a nation as free as possible politically far exceeds that of a poverty striken person in a nation where political freedom is non existent.

A poor economic situation is the result of either a personal failing or a political failing. If it is a personal failing, then that is what needs to be corrected, but if it is a political failing (ie the drug war) then it is political change in the direction of increased freedom which is necessary.

Or at least that is how I see it.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-24-2004, 02:31 AM
Adora's Avatar
Adora Adora is offline
Raping the Marlboro Man
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MMMLXXXVI
Images: 1
Default Re: Freedom

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugo Holbling
That does not follow. Isaiah Berlin didn't think a negative conception of freedom ("freedom from") was sufficient, hence his introducing the concept of positive freedom ("freedom to"). I explained the difference in the linked article. Note that Mill's Harm Principle was a negative understanding of freedom.
Yes, well, I strongly disagree. Freedom to requires freedom from, in my books. You only have the freedom to do something when you also have the freedom from persecution. You could argue that both are the same thing, I just stick with the negative connotation because I'm a pessimist and all that shite.
__________________
I ATEN'T DED
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-24-2004, 04:18 AM
squian's Avatar
squian squian is offline
who?
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: CLXVIII
Images: 6
Default Re: Freedom

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantonac
A poor economic situation is the result of either a personal failing or a political failing.
Why can't a poor economic situation be the result of a poor economic system?

So you hold out hope for the downtrodden to fix their own situation but recognize that it is difficult. So this introduces another aspect of freedom. How easy is it to exercise freedom?

Gravity does not eliminate the possibility that I can leave the earth. If I can build up enough acceleration, I can exceed the forces that hold me here. And yet that much acceleration is not easy to come by. I would say that gravity limits my freedom to get to the moon. Unless I want to exercise my freedom to starve, I must work for a living. Sure, I am free to miss a day here or there and not starve. However, the pull of the economy is as sure as the pull of gravity.

Perhaps we should also be thinking about scientific freedoms. Does physics limit our freedom to be in 2 places at the same time?
__________________
Better fewer, but better
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-24-2004, 05:02 AM
dave_a's Avatar
dave_a dave_a is offline
This space is for rent
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: DCIV
Default Re: Freedom

[QUOTE=squian]Why can't a poor economic situation be the result of a poor economic system?[quote]

It could be. If you are implying that a specific person or group's poor economic situation is the result of a specific poor economic system you will need to provide specifics. In general though I agree that a poor economic system could be the problem. A poor economic system would be a political problem though, in my book.

Quote:
So you hold out hope for the downtrodden to fix their own situation but recognize that it is difficult. So this introduces another aspect of freedom. How easy is it to exercise freedom?
Much easier without an oppressive government than with one. Let's consider the US as an example. While we are the richest nation on earth in some respects, we have our share of ghettos and desperately poor people. In those ghettos we can find street walking prostitutes and open air drug dealing to be going on. Both are illegal. So we have this vicious cycle where a person through no fault of their own is born into this environment, gets involved in prostitution or drugs and gets arrested. With the criminal conviction on their permanent record they have little chance of obtaining good employment. As a result they remain in the ghetto and breed and their children suffer the same fate. Could these people rise above their circumstances? Sure, in theory, but it sure ain't gonna be easy. What's the problem here? Well, some of it is personal failings, but some of it is government/politics. To the extent that we can remove the political burden, these people would have a less difficult time achieving a greater degree of economic success.

Let's consider another angle. A rare ghetto child somehow realizes the typical pattern of ghetto life and is determined to steer clear of the pitfalls. This person works hard for a meager income and saves every penny he can. He then attempts to start his own business since nobody wants to hire a ghetto resident. Unfortunately he can't get his business off the ground because he lacks the startup capital required. It's not that he can't afford the basic equipment, it's that he can't afford to comply with the regulations governing the type of business he wanted to start. Regulations put into place because big business lobbied for the regulations so they could limit competition. Here is some concretisation of this point. If you wish to paint someone's nails in most states you have to buy a license. Why? What is the worst possible thing that could conceivably happen if some utterly incompetent nail painter were unleashed on society? The reason is that the organization representing cosmetologists and salons lobbied for the licensure. Motive: any dummy working from home could do the same thing as overpriced "professionals" in salons and at a much lower cost to the consumer.

So, in both these cases we have politics affecting a person's economic situation. Get rid of those political barriers and while rising from poverty still has it's obstacles, those obstacles become more of a personal failing nature than anything else.

Quote:
Gravity does not eliminate the possibility that I can leave the earth. If I can build up enough acceleration, I can exceed the forces that hold me here. And yet that much acceleration is not easy to come by. I would say that gravity limits my freedom to get to the moon.
Ok, but there is no such thing as a freedom to get to the moon. I want the freedom to have everyone in the world send me $10.00, but unfortunately(for me) there is no such right or freedom.

Quote:
Unless I want to exercise my freedom to starve, I must work for a living. Sure, I am free to miss a day here or there and not starve. However, the pull of the economy is as sure as the pull of gravity.
Well if you are arguing that you have some kind of right to economic independence while not doing anything to earn an income I really don't have any sympathy for you. I would love to have a high income for siting around masturbating ;-)

Quote:
Perhaps we should also be thinking about scientific freedoms. Does physics limit our freedom to be in 2 places at the same time?
while I appreciate your humor you are stretching the definition of freedom to illogical places that just don't compute.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-24-2004, 11:01 PM
squian's Avatar
squian squian is offline
who?
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: CLXVIII
Images: 6
Default Re: Freedom

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantonac
While I appreciate your humor you are stretching the definition of freedom to illogical places that just don't compute.
I'm glad you picked up on the humor. However, the very first definition of freedom is:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunachik
1. The condition of being free of restraints.
The point about a force like gravity is that it restrains but not absolutely. I am theoretically free to go to the moon but not realistically and practically. In fact, this is my problem with the economic system as it exists today. We are theoretically free to do whatever we want. But realistically and practically, our freedoms are limited by our economic condition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantonac
Well if you are arguing that you have some kind of right to economic independence while not doing anything to earn an income I really don't have any sympathy for you. I would love to have a high income for siting around masturbating ;-)
Now it is I who who must give you kudos on your sense of humor. But perhaps your masturbation could fill some kind of economic need. Have you considered contributing to a sperm bank?

On a more serious note, I am suggesting that all of us have certain, well-defined needs: nutritious food, clean water, shelter from the elements, and Internet access. There is no reason that allocation of these basic needs should be determined by laws of supply and demand. We are not so limited in these basics that only some can have them. To be clear, I am disputing the right to not do anything while earning an income. The people who do so, are exercising that right at the expense of other people's freedoms.
__________________
Better fewer, but better
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-27-2004, 12:46 AM
dave_a's Avatar
dave_a dave_a is offline
This space is for rent
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: DCIV
Default Re: Freedom

Quote:
There is no reason that allocation of these basic needs should be determined by laws of supply and demand.
Actually there is.

First, every person has a limitted income. Some have more than others, but everyone's income is limitted and finite.

To distribute these needs according to anything other than supply and demand results in serious problems. First is the moral issue of taking from one person, without explicit consent, to give to another.

Next is the very real economic issue of demand increasing without restraint if there is no economic restraint. Let's say food, a very basic necessity, were available for "free" regardless of ability to pay. Why wouldn't a person simply eat the choicest cut of steak for every meal every day? The average cost per meal would rise dramatically.

To combat this some controls would need to be put into place. Some entity (read government) would need to regulate what people ate or the income threshold for receiving free food would need to be regulated.

Next is the problem of motivation. If a person can essentially do nothing and have food, clothing and shelter handed to them at the expense of others, why would those 'others' slave away all day being productive (earning money) which is necessary to support the providing of necessities to those who don't supply themselves?

All means of providing the basic needs have their problems. In the system of supply and demand where the money is in supplying the masses moreso than the elite virtually everyone get's the necessities they need. For those that are so far below the average in terms of income that they cannot provide for themselves we have subsidies.

In my mind that is as close to perfect as we are ever likely to get. Not perfect, just as close to it as I can see getting.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-27-2004, 05:52 AM
squian's Avatar
squian squian is offline
who?
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: CLXVIII
Images: 6
Default Re: Freedom

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantonac
every person has a limitted income.
To some extent, this validates my point. Limited is not "free of restraints"; therefore, it is not freedom.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dantonac
First is the moral issue of taking from one person, without explicit consent, to give to another.
Unless, of course, the thing you are taking does not belong to the one person. I am unconvinced that anyone has the right to own another person's means of subsistence. It is one thing that resources are limited -- it is another that they are limited by a person (or persons). You made the point yourself that freedom is being able to do or have whatever you want as long as you are not depriving others of their rights. But maybe life is not a right? If it is, then why aren't the basic needs for life also a right? Inspired by LadyShea, would you tell someone, "You have the right to run but not the right to have legs"?


Quote:
Originally Posted by dantonac
Next is the very real economic issue of demand increasing without restraint if there is no economic restraint. Let's say food, a very basic necessity, were available for "free" regardless of ability to pay. Why wouldn't a person simply eat the choicest cut of steak for every meal every day? The average cost per meal would rise dramatically.
dantonac, I have appreciated your arguments thus far (even if I have disagreed) but this is a bit of a stretch for me. Although a steak diet would suit the hip, Atkins-crazed Americans quite well, there are many reasons we don't eat steak at every meal. The world's wealthiest are already free of limitations on what they can eat and they don't eat steak at every meal. People who have lived their whole lives free to eat what they want happen to choose a fairly healthy diet (at least compared to a steak diet).

From an oversimplified cost-accounting perspective, I have no doubt the cost per meal would increase. But dramatically? A person can only eat so much in a day. I would not consider that growing without restraint.

Moreover, the overall economic cost of "the right to food" could not be very high at all. In fact, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has set the minimum requirement for caloric intake per person per day at 2,350. Worldwide, there are 2,805 calories available per person per day (according to the FAO database for 2000). Therefore, there are already sufficient calories per person per day, without anyone having to work any harder. You made the contrast between want and right in a previous post -- is it a right to eat as much as you want? Apparently, it is for those who can afford it.

I suspect, there is actually a drain on the economy for not providing the basic right to food. Since those who go hungry have higher levels of chronic illnesses and death, what is the loss of productivity due to inequitable distribution of food? Since they cannot afford food, there is no chance they can afford healthcare or even their own cemetary plots. So who pays when their hunger leads to other problems? Talk about freeloaders, those hungry really drag the rest of us down!


Quote:
Originally Posted by dantonac
Next is the problem of motivation. If a person can essentially do nothing and have food, clothing and shelter handed to them at the expense of others, why would those 'others' slave away all day being productive (earning money) which is necessary to support the providing of necessities to those who don't supply themselves?
I think I have missed the point of your dichotomy. However, why does Warren Buffet work? Why does Bill Gates work? They want to. They want to because beyond "needs" there are always "wants". The ability of the human being to want is unbounded. That is why we must be sure to satisfy everyone's needs before we allow the few to satisfy their wants.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dantonac
virtually everyone get's the necessities they need.
Virtually everyone, except 9.4 million people in the USA (see Household Food Security in the United States, 2002). But that's nothing compared to 842 million people worldwide (see World Hunger and Poverty: How They Fit Together) who get only virtual necessities.

To return to the OP, my thought is that laws of market economics impose some very serious and often overlooked restraints on our lives. The choice between working and starving is no choice at all. In my mind, it is a contradiction to support freedom and to say that you must threaten people with starvation or else they wouldn't work. If it's as perfect as we can get, let's at least admit we have sacrificed freedom for efficiency.
__________________
Better fewer, but better
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.11207 seconds with 15 queries