Freedom

[AyumiBee]

I have read this sentence from my favourite writer: "Freedom? That's a statue in New York!" What do you think does freedom exist? Your personal freedom is really existing? Doesn't your freedom gives disadvatage to others?
Do you think that the write was pessimist when she wrote this sarcastic sentence or it's realistic?

[quietchat]

I think the idea was that the person who stated that, meant that Freedom is somthing that is hard to obtain, a place where you give up everything you know for a concept that may not even exist, but for whatever the risk they take that chance. That's the main idea of Immigration after all. Of course saying that it's a statue in New York, he may instead be referring that Freedom is a lie, it's only symbol being the Statue of Liberty. In this there would be no such thing as freedom, it's just a false hope. So, this could be taken several ways.

[leerock89]

Freedom is just an illusion made by us to make ourselves feel better about our choices. There is no such thing as freedom and there never will be, at least not for us humans.

[Viduus]

Freedom is just an illusion made by us to make ourselves feel better about our choices. There is no such thing as freedom and there never will be, at least not for us humans.I like to think you're free to do whatever you want, as long as you're ready to deal with the consequences of those actions.

[Russkie]

I guess it depends on what you would call "freedom". Personaly, I believe there is such thing as free agency. But not everyone has it, obviously.

[Koopaking]

I agree with what leerock said, we can pretend we are as "free" as we want, but in the end we really aren't. But I've heard the phrase "Freedom comes at a price" somewhere before. If it comes at a price it really isn't free, is it?

[spirit]

Freedom is just an illusion made by us to make ourselves feel better about our choices. There is no such thing as freedom and there never will be, at least not for us humans.

I agree with what leerock said, we can pretend we are as "free" as we want, but in the end we really aren't. But I've heard the phrase "Freedom comes at a price" somewhere before. If it comes at a price it really isn't free, is it?I must agree with both of you. Last year I wrote a research paper on "freedom" in USA, and one of my reflections was that there is no such thing as "freedom," or should I say... freedom is not for free. Depending on your point of you and philosophy of life - you might belong to the group of people who are overly positive about the life and the things we are giving in this world. Yet on the other hand, aren't those just lies.. or (as leerock described it) illusions we want to believe in? Because it sounds easier to accept and comprehend by the mass of human beings.
"Freedom" is a relative slogan. What do you consider as "freedom"?

[Viduus]

Is it possible to have total freedom without having complete anarchy?

[leerock89]

Why not have both? The whole ideal behind anarchy is that the individual can take care of him/herself without any outside help, order or law. That would be true freedom, but even then there is no such thing as true freedom. As is said in one of my favorite animes, "Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost."

[Russkie]

Why not have both? The whole ideal behind anarchy is that the individual can take care of him/herself without any outside help, order or law. That would be true freedom, but even then there is no such thing as true freedom. As is said in one of my favorite animes, "Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost."

But thats the funny thing about it! People cant take care of themselves! People are basicly sheepdogs with a piece a shrapnel sticking out of their bonts when it comes to thinking "whats best?".

And besides, what about the fact that there are plenty of naughty people out there who find enjoyment in taking away the life of others? Say for the sake of example... me? Who will stop me from killing you and your family, wearing your skin, and eating your organs?

In a place of Anarchy, certianly not "the law".

One last thing, explain to me how that quote from Full Metal Alchemist has any relevance to this argument?

[Viduus]

Why not have both? The whole ideal behind anarchy is that the individual can take care of him/herself without any outside help, order or law. That would be true freedom, but even then there is no such thing as true freedom. As is said in one of my favorite animes, "Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost."Are you actually advocating anarchy? Because that's perhaps the worst kind of system you can possibly have >.>

[leerock89]

But thats the funny thing about it! People cant take care of themselves! People are basicly sheepdogs with a piece a shrapnel sticking out of their bonts when it comes to thinking "whats best?".

And besides, what about the fact that there are plenty of naughty people out there who find enjoyment in taking away the life of others? Say for the sake of example... me? Who will stop me from killing you and your family, wearing your skin, and eating your organs?

In a place of Anarchy, certianly not "the law".

One last thing, explain to me how that quote from Full Metal Alchemist has any relevance to this argument?

Well, basic application of the law means for everything we get we have to do something for it, give up something for it, pay for it. Freedom is not free, as spirit mentioned, and we literally have to pay for everything.

Oh and u wouldn't be able to come and kill me cause you don't know where I live or what I look like. MUWAHAHAHAHAA!!!!

Are you actually advocating anarchy? Because that's perhaps the worst kind of system you can possibly have >.>

Not really. For the person who can take care of themselves its perfect. Alas the majority of humans need someone to take care of them so anarchy just isn't practical.

[analogZero]

well you've tapped the first source there, Leerock. Law is the first line of defense between you and your freedom. Freedom and Law are pretty much opposites. If you actually saw how many laws there are in your country, you wouldn't know what to do. In an attempt to gain the opposite of anarchy, control and governance, you have to implement rules and regulations, and for each one there's one less option you have. Now given that most laws are put in place for protection, ie. assaulting and murdering people is considered bad, so there's rules against it. However can you travel freely without restrictions or obstacles? can you park your car anywhere you want, even in cases of emergency? can you light certain plants on fire?
Next you're face with societal rules. Unwritten regulations that you are expected to abide by lest you be shunned by your surrounding populace. can you sit alone in a park filled with children with a camera in you possession? can you go to the bathroom anywhere other than a designated area? can you swear openly in public?
How about moral and ethical obligations? Being part of a family, community, or part of the working population you are obligated to hold certain values and maintain an unspoken kinship with those around you. We're all human and should work together. If a family member is sick or even dies then you are obliged to aid/sympathize/grieve for them. If you see someone being attacked you're to help them or call the police. If you accidentaly knock up your girlfriend it's in bad judgment to evade the situation. This is the selfish part of your freedom. with the presence of others your freedom diminishes. The greater the population the less freedom you attain. Unless of course your a selfish ass.
You can even apply restrictions of your freedom to the natural world if you so choose, not to mention religious rule. Point being, you will never know what freedom truly is in your lifetime.
"In truth, death may be the only absolute freedom there is!"
-kaworu-

[Russkie]

Well, basic application of the law means for everything we get we have to do something for it, give up something for it, pay for it. Freedom is not free, as spirit mentioned, and we literally have to pay for everything.

Oh and u wouldn't be able to come and kill me cause you don't know where I live or what I look like. MUWAHAHAHAHAA!!!!

Sure, freedom is not free, that makes sense. But how can you say its not really freedom if we have to get off our lazy asses and actually do something for it?

I beg to differ on that last statement...

[alsharid]

Absolute freedom doesn't exist in any modern system, and it won't. Even if there was no system, freedom won't exist. Freedom existed in the past, but not for long periods of time.

Freedom is not free, but you don't pay for it. It is unobtainable.

The more a person cares about his reputation, the less his freedom, so basically a free person is reputation-less, but no-one can be reputation-less. Since no-one can be reputation-less, no one can enjoy freedom.