Defining freedom

[Pointedstick]

It's long been interesting to me how such a heavily-used term as "freedom" can mean drastically different things to different people. After a lot of thinking and observation, I think the two most popular definitions of freedom are "autonomy" and "carefreeness" and that you can tell a lot about someone's motivations and inner desires by which one they gravitate to.

With a primarily "autonomy" definition, you would be free if you had many possibilities to determine your own path, even if you were carrying a heavy burden of debt, needed to work many hours a day, and had to carefully balance many competing drains on your time, as long as these were burdens you had chosen for yourself. This is the state many of us adults find ourselves in.

But with a primarily "carefree" definition, you would be free if as many of your material and emotional needs as possible were taken care of by others so you didn't have to expend mental or physical effort on them, even if your own ability to make decisions for yourself was severely curtailed as a consequence. This is the state that a child exists in.

I find it curious how most people seem to gravitate toward one more than another, and it's my assertion that conservatives and especially libertarians tend to prefer autonomy and liberals want to be carefree. However, alone I don't think either of these really offers true freedom on its own.

Having autonomy without being able to be carefree means you are constantly burdened with stress and debt and time commitments and other accumulated obligations, and it's how conservatives and libertarians and married people and parents can consider themselves free even when they may be trapped in boring corporate jobs or with spouses they no longer feel for, or with their outgoing expenses perilously close to their income. By contrast, being carefree without any autonomy is to be totally dependent on others; a slave, essentially. This is why liberals don't tend to fear being enslaved by the state the way conservatives and libertarians do. Deep down, the understand it's the bargain you make when you ask another person or entity to take care of your every need. It's also why liberals prefer being unattached and are likely to delay marriage and children; they understand that such obligations destroy their potential to live carefree lives.

I say we need both! To be free, it's crucially important that we have autonomy, the ability to make our own decisions. It has to start with that. But we need to use that autonomy to bring ourselves the carefree life that allows us to be free of stress and want and fear. Nobody can give it to us, though. We have to earn it in order to retain the autonomy that we also need and crave.

For example, once you have, through your own labors, achieved financial independence, you not only have a vast amount of autonomy, but you are also far more carefree than someone still working.

Thoughts?

[Mountaineer]

Viktor Frankel might even have a third meaning for freedom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Frankl

An excerpt:
A thought transfixed me: for the first time in my life I saw the truth as it is set into song by so many poets, proclaimed as the final wisdom by so many thinkers. The truth – that love is the ultimate and the highest goal to which Man can aspire. Then I grasped the meaning of the greatest secret that human poetry and human thought and belief have to impart: The salvation of Man is through love and in love. I understood how a man who has nothing left in this world still may know bliss, be it only for a brief moment, in the contemplation of his beloved. In a position of utter desolation, when Man cannot express himself in positive action, when his only achievement may consist in enduring his sufferings in the right way – an honorable way – in such a position Man can, through loving contemplation of the image he carries of his beloved, achieve fulfillment. For the first time in my life I was able to understand the meaning of the words, "The angels are lost in perpetual contemplation of an infinite glory."

... Mountaineer

[Libertarian666]

I don't agree that carefreeness at someone else's expense is freedom. Such use is an attempt by the government or other parasite to redefine freedom so that they can justify their predations.

Accordingly, I don't see this as being a conflict between two definitions of freedom, but between freedom and other needs, since freedom is autonomy.

However, freedom without the ability to satisfy one's other needs, e.g., being on a desert island a la "Cast Away", is not terribly satisfying to most people. I think Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a good approach to this question.

[Pointedstick]

I don't agree that carefreeness at someone else's expense is freedom. Such use is an attempt by the government or other parasite to redefine freedom so that they can justify their predations.

I bet it feels pretty free to them, though. That's a related point: freedom is a subjective mental state far more than an objective set of conditions. If someone feels free when other people (deservedly or not) are taking care of his every need, then that's what freedom means to him. Maybe (certainly) not to you or me, but that's what it means to him.

[MediumTex]

How about the ability to allocate your time and resources as you see fit, restricted only by a set of guidelines that you agree to in advance.

Of course, not everyone could be free according to this definition, especially those who couldn't come up with a set of guidelines that the rest of the community was willing to agree to.

The murderers, for example, would have a tough time feeling free in such a community.

[Libertarian666]

I don't agree that carefreeness at someone else's expense is freedom. Such use is an attempt by the government or other parasite to redefine freedom so that they can justify their predations.

I bet it feels pretty free to them, though. That's a related point: freedom is a subjective mental state far more than an objective set of conditions. If someone feels free when other people (deservedly or not) are taking care of his every need, then that's what freedom means to him. Maybe (certainly) not to you or me, but that's what it means to him.

Words have to have meanings. If A defines "freedom" as "everyone else doing exactly what I want them to do", and B defines "freedom" as "being left alone other than according to agreements that I voluntarily enter into", can A and B discuss freedom in any remotely productive way?

[Xan]

Words have to have meanings. If A defines "freedom" as "everyone else doing exactly what I want them to do", and B defines "freedom" as "being left alone other than according to agreements that I voluntarily enter into", can A and B discuss freedom in any remotely productive way?

I think that was the point of PS's insightful post.  Since people do have different definitions of freedom, maybe we can figure out how to discuss it in a remotely productive way.

[Libertarian666]

Words have to have meanings. If A defines "freedom" as "everyone else doing exactly what I want them to do", and B defines "freedom" as "being left alone other than according to agreements that I voluntarily enter into", can A and B discuss freedom in any remotely productive way?

I think that was the point of PS's insightful post.  Since people do have different definitions of freedom, maybe we can figure out how to discuss it in a remotely productive way.

If people have conflicting definitions, then that's the first thing to straighten out. Otherwise we will be talking past one another, at best.

[Pointedstick]

The "carefree" approach also doesn't strictly speaking require the enslavement of everyone around you. In fact, I think it's perfectly compatible with becoming effectively enslaved yourself to the person or entity that's providing you with the things you need to have to feel carefree. They tell you what hoops you need to jump through and you do it so the stuff and condition of un-attachment don't end. It's quite similar to a master-slave relationship, but you're the slave, not the master.

[Libertarian666]

The "carefree" approach also doesn't strictly speaking require the enslavement of everyone around you. In fact, I think it's perfectly compatible with becoming effectively enslaved yourself to the person or entity that's providing you with the things you need to have to feel carefree. They tell you what hoops you need to jump through and you do it so the stuff and condition of un-attachment don't end. It's quite similar to a master-slave relationship, but you're the slave, not the master.

Sure, that is possible; in fact, it is a description of the wife's role in traditional marriage. But I would still not call it freedom.

[Pointedstick]

Sure, that is possible; in fact, it is a description of the wife's role in traditional marriage. But I would still not call it freedom.

Of course you wouldn't; you're an autonomy guy, like me. My point is that freedom is a subjective thing. There's no objective, rational way to arrive at precisely what it means any more than you could arrive at an objective and rational definition of happiness. We're talking about states of mind that mean different things to different people. You or I might feel free in a mountain cabin all by our lonesome, but someone else might feel free when they're able to walk the streets at night unarmed without fear for their safety.

[moda0306]

This might surprise some here, but I'm much more apt to believe autonomy=freedom. I don't like the commie definitions so much, but they make a valid point or two.

But I really think it's a question of how property should be viewed through the scope of freedom.  Unlike the anarcho-commits, I don't think owning means of production or a patent makes you an illegitimate absentee landlord.  However, I question what gives us the supposed right to modify significantly "community" property (not really anyone's), and just claim private property has occurred. Especially if we have to assign some rights to animals, then we have a real pickle on our if we want to till forest or prairie for farming or civilization.

One could say "but then civilization wouldn't be possible, so we need property."  Well 1) results should be irrelevant if we having a Kantian moral discussion here, and 2) one could say the same thing about government and appear sane to 95% of the population.

The thing is, as humans, we don't just love freedom and autonomy, but conquering the world around us to our own benefits, as well as security, some level of equality and a "fair shake," prosperity, progress, etc. it's in our nature. And in the end our human nature usually wins out of moral pontificating.  Not to say we're all animals, but when I see shows/movies like walking dead or any kind of lawless society, I tend to LOVE them, because it shows you what people (might) do in a world without social norms or laws superseding survival.  How truly moral would we be when the chips are down. Is "freedom" something illusive enough where we are willing to die for it at times (rev war), but if the scenario were different we would greatly be abandoning the very principles that warrant NAP in the first place. 

[Mountaineer]

When I think of the word freedom, the first question that comes to my mind is - freedom from or freedom to?  The second question is - are we discussing physical or mental freedom?  How I answer those questions greatly influences my further processing of the issue being discussed. 

... Mountaineer

[Libertarian666]

Sure, that is possible; in fact, it is a description of the wife's role in traditional marriage. But I would still not call it freedom.

Of course you wouldn't; you're an autonomy guy, like me. My point is that freedom is a subjective thing. There's no objective, rational way to arrive at precisely what it means any more than you could arrive at an objective and rational definition of happiness. We're talking about states of mind that mean different things to different people. You or I might feel free in a mountain cabin all by our lonesome, but someone else might feel free when they're able to walk the streets at night unarmed without fear for their safety.

Of course all feelings are subjective. However, it is not freedom in general that such a person is feeling, but freedom from fear of being attacked, which "autonomy guys" also have if they don't feel that they are going to be attacked by the government (for instance).

That is a discussion that can be meaningful, whereas if we just say "freedom" without specifying "freedom from what" or "freedom to do what" (as Mountaineer mentioned), we can't get anywhere.

[Kshartle]

Sure, that is possible; in fact, it is a description of the wife's role in traditional marriage. But I would still not call it freedom.

Of course you wouldn't; you're an autonomy guy, like me. My point is that freedom is a subjective thing. There's no objective, rational way to arrive at precisely what it means any more than you could arrive at an objective and rational definition of happiness. We're talking about states of mind that mean different things to different people. You or I might feel free in a mountain cabin all by our lonesome, but someone else might feel free when they're able to walk the streets at night unarmed without fear for their safety.

Of course all feelings are subjective. However, it is not freedom in general that such a person is feeling, but freedom from fear of being attacked, which "autonomy guys" also have if they don't feel that they are going to be attacked by the government (for instance).

That is a discussion that can be meaningful, whereas if we just say "freedom" without specifying "freedom from what" or "freedom to do what" (as Mountaineer mentioned), we can't get anywhere.

You cannot be free from the effects of the physical world. You can't be free from gravity. You can't be free from hungry wolves. Hiding from them is not the same as being free. Their hunger and propensity to eat you has FORCED you to take action. There cannot be freedom with force. This is the same reason if you flee from people who want to do you harm you are not truly free from them.

Freedom is freedom from the force of other humans. It's the only freedom that is acheivable. You cannot be free from nature because you cannot reason with nature and nature can't choose to not force you. Freedom requires the acceptance of the non-agression principle as the dominante morality such that even those who reject the concept will not violate it for their own sake.

If you think that such a thing as the freedom to think exists I won't argue with you. Since that's a freedom that always exists by the nature of what a mind is.......why even mention it though?

[Mountaineer]

Of course you wouldn't; you're an autonomy guy, like me. My point is that freedom is a subjective thing. There's no objective, rational way to arrive at precisely what it means any more than you could arrive at an objective and rational definition of happiness. We're talking about states of mind that mean different things to different people. You or I might feel free in a mountain cabin all by our lonesome, but someone else might feel free when they're able to walk the streets at night unarmed without fear for their safety.

Of course all feelings are subjective. However, it is not freedom in general that such a person is feeling, but freedom from fear of being attacked, which "autonomy guys" also have if they don't feel that they are going to be attacked by the government (for instance).

That is a discussion that can be meaningful, whereas if we just say "freedom" without specifying "freedom from what" or "freedom to do what" (as Mountaineer mentioned), we can't get anywhere.

You cannot be free from the effects of the physical world. You can't be free from gravity. You can't be free from hungry wolves. Hiding from them is not the same as being free. Their hunger and propensity to eat you has FORCED you to take action. There cannot be freedom with force. This is the same reason if you flee from people who want to do you harm you are not truly free from them.

Freedom is freedom from the force of other humans. It's the only freedom that is acheivable. You cannot be free from nature because you cannot reason with nature and nature can't choose to not force you. Freedom requires the acceptance of the non-agression principle as the dominante morality such that even those who reject the concept will not violate it for their own sake.

If you think that such a thing as the freedom to think exists I won't argue with you. Since that's a freedom that always exists by the nature of what a mind is.......why even mention it though?

For me, the reason to mention it is simple.  I cannot control the various stimuli I get every day; for example, your post.  I can choose how I respond.  I can choose to do nothing, I can choose to write a hateful response, I can choose to write a kind response, I can choose to talk behind your back to my wife, etc.  When I understand that I'm in total control of the way I respond to all those stimuli, I am no longer "bound" in a state of fear, confusion, anxiety, etc. - I am free to respond as I wish.  Of course there are consequences both positive and negative that I am also free to consider before I respond.  Thus, I find it very useful to be free to consider many aspects of an issue ... as Libertarian666 says, words have meaning and it is very important to choose them carefully, especially in an internet discussion where one can not observe body language.  It is hard for me to even visualize a situation where I cannot choose to be free - however, I must admit, I have not always felt that way.  Once my faith grew to the point of understanding Christian Scripture as I do now (really not very well but at least much better that I did before) I came to realize there is absolutely nothing in this world that can impact where I will spend eternity and I am really free to understand and accept God's will to the best of my abiity for I know His will is always for good, even if my rational mind cannot comprehend it.  That for me is the ultimate freedom and I can have it continually.  Everything else fades away in comparison.

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

Of course all feelings are subjective. However, it is not freedom in general that such a person is feeling, but freedom from fear of being attacked, which "autonomy guys" also have if they don't feel that they are going to be attacked by the government (for instance).

That is a discussion that can be meaningful, whereas if we just say "freedom" without specifying "freedom from what" or "freedom to do what" (as Mountaineer mentioned), we can't get anywhere.

You cannot be free from the effects of the physical world. You can't be free from gravity. You can't be free from hungry wolves. Hiding from them is not the same as being free. Their hunger and propensity to eat you has FORCED you to take action. There cannot be freedom with force. This is the same reason if you flee from people who want to do you harm you are not truly free from them.

Freedom is freedom from the force of other humans. It's the only freedom that is acheivable. You cannot be free from nature because you cannot reason with nature and nature can't choose to not force you. Freedom requires the acceptance of the non-agression principle as the dominante morality such that even those who reject the concept will not violate it for their own sake.

If you think that such a thing as the freedom to think exists I won't argue with you. Since that's a freedom that always exists by the nature of what a mind is.......why even mention it though?

For me, the reason to mention it is simple.  I cannot control the various stimuli I get every day; for example, your post.  I can choose how I respond.  I can choose to do nothing, I can choose to write a hateful response, I can choose to write a kind response, I can choose to talk behind your back to my wife, etc.  When I understand that I'm in total control of the way I respond to all those stimuli, I am no longer "bound" in a state of fear, confusion, anxiety, etc. - I am free to respond as I wish. 

You aren't free to respond because of the freedom in your mind. You're free to respond because no one is forcing you to respond anyway other than you want. It has nothing to do with your mind imo. We are all free to think any way we want because no one can drill into our heads and literally force our thoughts.

The freedom to think can't result or add to freedom because the freedom think always exists, regardless if it's for you and me, Obama, a slave picking cotton in the fields. We all have the ability to think as we choose, regardless of our real freedom. 

[Mountaineer]

You cannot be free from the effects of the physical world. You can't be free from gravity. You can't be free from hungry wolves. Hiding from them is not the same as being free. Their hunger and propensity to eat you has FORCED you to take action. There cannot be freedom with force. This is the same reason if you flee from people who want to do you harm you are not truly free from them.

Freedom is freedom from the force of other humans. It's the only freedom that is acheivable. You cannot be free from nature because you cannot reason with nature and nature can't choose to not force you. Freedom requires the acceptance of the non-agression principle as the dominante morality such that even those who reject the concept will not violate it for their own sake.

If you think that such a thing as the freedom to think exists I won't argue with you. Since that's a freedom that always exists by the nature of what a mind is.......why even mention it though?

For me, the reason to mention it is simple.  I cannot control the various stimuli I get every day; for example, your post.  I can choose how I respond.  I can choose to do nothing, I can choose to write a hateful response, I can choose to write a kind response, I can choose to talk behind your back to my wife, etc.  When I understand that I'm in total control of the way I respond to all those stimuli, I am no longer "bound" in a state of fear, confusion, anxiety, etc. - I am free to respond as I wish. 

You aren't free to respond because of the freedom in your mind. You're free to respond because no one is forcing you to respond anyway other than you want. It has nothing to do with your mind imo. We are all free to think any way we want because no one can drill into our heads and literally force our thoughts.

The freedom to think can't result or add to freedom because the freedom think always exists, regardless if it's for you and me, Obama, a slave picking cotton in the fields. We all have the ability to think as we choose, regardless of our real freedom.

I do not want to put words in your mouth, but what I hear you saying is that for you, physical freedom is more important than mental, emotional or spiritual freedom.  If that is what you believe, great!  However, for me, the mental, emotional and spiritual freedom is paramount.  Of course, I do not want to be locked away in a jail cell - I'm just saying there are a lot more important things, to me, than being physically "forced" to do something because I can ALWAYS refuse to do the physical as long as I'm ready to accept the consequences; thus, I can never be forced to do something.  Others may force my body but it isn't me that is doing it or complying with that force unless I decide to do so.

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

I do not want to put words in your mouth, but what I hear you saying is that for you, physical freedom is more important than mental, emotional or spiritual freedom.  If that is what you believe, great!  However, for me, the mental, emotional and spiritual freedom is paramount. 

I guess what i'm trying to say is along the lines of what Tech said about words having meaning. Since you are always free to think or feel whatever you want, this can't be freedom. It's the default state that's always present. It's like defining freedom as the freedom to breathe air imo.

Freedom must mean free from something. So the lack of freedom is when something forces you to act in a way you don't want to. This doesn't happen in your mind, since no one can force you to think or feel something, they can only force you to act or not act.

At any rate, I'm not trying to split hairs. I think this is an important point but I think we are about to get caught in a dissagreement loop and I'd rather not do that buddy.

[Pointedstick]

Freedom must mean free from something.

Why? Couldn't it also mean freedom to do something for some people? If I have a billion dollars, I'm free to take a vacation cruise whenever I want, for example. Couldn't that feel like a form of freedom?

[Kshartle]

Freedom must mean free from something.

Why? Couldn't it also mean freedom to do something for some people? If I have a billion dollars, I'm free to take a vacation cruise whenever I want, for example. Couldn't that feel like a form of freedom?

No that's purchasing power.

The freedom to buy a cruise just means no one is preventing you from buying by using force. Therefore it falls under my definition. It's the freedom from others forcing you to either act or using force to prevent you from acting.

If being able to buy a cruise means you are free then the people who can't buy a cruise are not free. The only difference between them is the amount of money they have. That would mean freedom vs. not freedom means having a certain amount of money vs. less than that certain amount. I hope it's obvious why that definition cannot be correct.

[MediumTex]

If there are two slaves working side by side and one slave is so convinced that being a slave is his destiny that, even if given the chance not to be a slave, he would choose to continue being a slave, while the other slave desperately wants his freedom from his master so that he can eat at McDonalds, play his XBox and run up credit card debt, is one of the slaves free while the other one is not?

[Gosso]

From David Foster Wallace, "This is Water":

[quote=David Foster Wallace]And the so-called real world will not discourage you from operating on your default settings, because the so-called real world of men and money and power hums merrily along in a pool of fear and anger and frustration and craving and worship of self. Our own present culture has harnessed these forces in ways that have yielded extraordinary wealth and comfort and personal freedom. The freedom all to be lords of our tiny skull-sized kingdoms, alone at the centre of all creation. This kind of freedom has much to recommend it. But of course there are all different kinds of freedom, and the kind that is most precious you will not hear much talk about in the great outside world of wanting and achieving.... The really important kind of freedom involves attention and awareness and discipline, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day.

That is real freedom. That is being educated, and understanding how to think. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing.

Source: http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/da ... -own-words
[/quote]

Gotta love DFW!

[Libertarian666]

If there are two slaves working side by side and one slave is so convinced that being a slave is his destiny that, even if given the chance not to be a slave, he would choose to continue being a slave, while the other slave desperately wants his freedom from his master so that he can eat at McDonalds, play his XBox and run up credit card debt, is one of the slaves free while the other one is not?

You cannot free a man who doesn't know he is enslaved. That is why it is so important for tyrants that they control the narrative of history, e.g., "democracy = freedom".

[Pointedstick]

If being able to buy a cruise means you are free then the people who can't buy a cruise are not free. The only difference between them is the amount of money they have. That would mean freedom vs. not freedom means having a certain amount of money vs. less than that certain amount. I hope it's obvious why that definition cannot be correct.

My premise is that there isn't a correct definition of freedom any more than there's a "correct" definition of happiness. It's a state of mind. If it was so easy to define, there's no reason why this thread should exist or we should be having this discussion. The fact that people disagree so drastically and vehemently about what freedom means tells me that it's a concept we should think of as a personally subjective opinion far more than a term with rationally-definable parameters and a universal and discoverable meaning.