Freedom: Earned or a Right?

Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
DurocShark

DurocShark

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
3,622
Location
Anaheim, CA
I know, flamebait. But I'm in an honest discussion on another forum (started by that "4 out of 5 people believe internet access to be a fundamental human right" story), and thought I'd see where we could go with it here.

To me, freedom is absolutely NOT a right. It must be earned and defended or it is lost.

The other side of the argument is that it *is* a right, but must still be defended.

I suppose it could just be semantics but to me they are two opposed worldviews.
 
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
The source of the problem is defining "Freedom".

My dad, a WWII veteran (88yo) rarely makes "deep" statements. When I visited recently, I was surprised to hear him say, "This sure is not the freedom we pictured when we fought in the war".

Really got me thinking about the men and women who have battled for the USA, because their government said the cause was worth the price.

To keep this completely Apolitical, just think of the war veterans. Did the WWII guys define freedom the same as the Korea era, then the Vietnam, then the Iraq I, or the Afganistan, or Iraq II?

These are the men and women who have given much, yet our government determines their purpose for fighting. Sure would be nice to listen to WHAT they THINK they are protecting. -----Our "Freedom".

To avoid having this thread deleted, remember to stay out of politics and religion. We walk a very tight rope, but it HAS been done successfully in the past.

Good luck to our current membership!! and active contributors.

(This weekend is MEMORIAL Day, remember???)
 
Last edited:
Seems like a weird thing to argue - how do you EARN a freedom? It's a guarantee, determined by legal documents and backed up by the government.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms determines what Rights, and Freedoms, a Canadian has. It's a rather short document, but the basic Freedoms are:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

The Rights are longer. So Freedoms are not the same as Rights, but both are protected by the Charter...if you're Canadian. I have no idea what the US documentation shows, however.
 
Our Freedom in my opinion is our right, bought and paid for in human blood from our troops past and present. They fought and died to give us the rights we have. This is a everyday battle they fight on foriegn shores and at home to preserve our right to said freedoms. Seems like a no brainer to me.
 
Freedom is both a right and it is earned. The only way that this country was founded was through men and women sacrificing for thier country. Every generation has to earn the right of Freedom for themselves. I know many vets some of them are WWII marines, Navy, and one from Hitlers Youth(nicest man you'll ever meet he was forced to join when the Germans took over his country). The perspective of each is interesting. They tell of stories that the entire country stood behind them and as a country we fought. The progression since then has been away from the earned portion. I am 20 and the majority of my generation have lost the Earned portion completely because so many are used to give me, give me and never sacrificed anything in thier lives. As Americans we have to stand up for the right of freedom and teach the next generation that it comes through sacrifice and it is like a right of passage passed down to every generation.
 
I've genuinely tried to think through the main posters point and it seems to me like there is slight differentiation between your definition of a 'right' and mine. To assert that freedom must be earned and defended presents that if you are unable to be victorious in your efforts to earn and defend freedom that you are undeserving of freedom. If I fight for another's freedom, does that mean that they are subject to me until they can take it away from me? If freedom is lost, does that mean it wasn't 'right' for us to have it in the first place?

I wholeheartedly believe that freedom must be defended, but I can hardly make the jump to assuming that those who are unable or unwilling to fight are automatically denied the freedom to pursue their own will. I would even go so far as to argue that the mere existence of human will indicates that freedom is in fact a right that cannot be denied. True, it may be infringed upon, but only to the extent that we choose to allow it. No one can steal the ability to think and choose, so that is a freedom that will always exist. Religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the other somewhat 'political' freedoms can be infringed upon unless defended, but their ability to be infringed upon does not negate the fact that the only way these can be truly denied us is by death. Are you free to make the choice between freedom and subjugation? Are you free to choose to fight for your freedom? I believe it stands to reason that the fact that we can choose to fight for freedom says that freedom is in fact a right.
 
Ed hit the nail on the head when he said define freedom. There is the Enemy ship off the port bow. Load the guns, man the cannons, and prepare to repel boarders freedom and the I can play the bagpipes in my backyard after dark without somebody hitting me with a phone book freedom. I think both sides of the argument are a lot closer than they think. Both seem to say that if someone infringes on my right to freedom or liberty and what ever gives them to me, right or not, needs to be enforced or defended.
I didn't mean to offend any bagpipe players :biggrin:
 
DurocShark said:
I know, flamebait. But I'm in an honest discussion on another forum (started by that "4 out of 5 people believe internet access to be a fundamental human right" story), and thought I'd see where we could go with it here.

To me, freedom is absolutely NOT a right. It must be earned and defended or it is lost.

The other side of the argument is that it *is* a right, but must still be defended.

I suppose it could just be semantics but to me they are two opposed worldviews.
Click to expand...

Well that statement there, means a lot. Was internet access envisioned to be a right, open equally to all? No. It was not, it was a means to communicate between universities and government offices.

Now freedom, to an American yes it is a right, period. defining that right is where the complications come into play. Amendments 1-9 (include 10 as well, since its ratified with the previous 9)


BUT

When the universal adoption of it becomes such that it is almost a necessity to work and or communicate with others in your life, then it does approach becoming a right that should be available to all.
 
Last edited:
maxwell_smart007 said:
Seems like a weird thing to argue - how do you EARN a freedom? It's a guarantee, determined by legal documents and backed up by the government.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms determines what Rights, and Freedoms, a Canadian has. It's a rather short document, but the basic Freedoms are:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

The Rights are longer. So Freedoms are not the same as Rights, but both are protected by the Charter...if you're Canadian. I have no idea what the US documentation shows, however.
Click to expand...

May I assemble a group in an auditorium and propose plans for "blowing up" a government building?

The assembly is peaceful, so my freedom should be protected by this document--
(Just the first wrinkle, rarely is a statement as universal as it appears when written!!)
 
DennisM said:
When the universal adoption of it becomes such that it is almost a necessity to work and or communicate with others in your life, then it does approach becoming a right that should be available to all.
Click to expand...


Devil's advocate here... Is it your right to be fed, whether you earned the food or not?

That's a much more basic need than the intartubes.
 
DurocShark said:
Devil's advocate here... Is it your right to be fed, whether you earned the food or not?

That's a much more basic need than the intartubes.
Click to expand...

IF you have a right to be fed, can you sue "mother nature" for a drought?

IF there IS food, someone raised it or it was raised on land owned by someone. They have a right to be compensated for your removal of THEIR food.

Or, must we remove "property rights" in favor of "feed all the hungry"?

(see your devil and raise you a fallen angel!!)
 
The US constitution grants inalienable rights of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Inalienable rights are those granted by God. So it goes from God to the people to the government.
 
:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

Getting into human rights is a tricky business. If I have a right to internet access, who pays for it? Someone has to. Should it be the government (taxpayers)? My neighbor (who won't turn on WEP on his wifi)? The library (taxpayers again)?

If freedom is a right, who pays for it? Should I expect that my neighbors go to war so I can sit and watch American Idol? Someone has to pay for it.
 
Rmartin said:
The US constitution grants inalienable rights of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Inalienable rights are those granted by God. So it goes from God to the people to the government.
Click to expand...

I don't recall the God-given right to liberty being in the bible, though it's been a while since I've read through it. Do you have a passage?

I'd gladly concede the point if it's there.
 
maxwell_smart007 said:
Seems like a weird thing to argue - how do you EARN a freedom? It's a guarantee, determined by legal documents and backed up by the government.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms determines what Rights, and Freedoms, a Canadian has. It's a rather short document, but the basic Freedoms are:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:


(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;


The Rights are longer. So Freedoms are not the same as Rights, but both are protected by the Charter...if you're Canadian. I have no idea what the US documentation shows, however.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Howard Stern who was kicked off the airways for making fun of French people. :rolleyes: You have the freedom of thought, belief and opinion unless the government says not today! People who are not Canadian can not make fun of Canadians on Canadian airways, even if those same people make fun of every kind of people there is so that there is no sort of racial or ethnical link that could ever be made..its' just their job to do so.
No...I am not a Stern supporter one way or the other...I am simply a supporter of free speech on public airways provided cursing is beeped out and it is not hate speech, which I define as trying to cause violence.

There's too many hypocrisies..and that is a world wide thing. Freedom is just a very thin thread of hope anymore.
 
ed4copies said:
IF you have a right to be fed, can you sue "mother nature" for a drought?

IF there IS food, someone raised it or it was raised on land owned by someone. They have a right to be compensated for your removal of THEIR food.

Or, must we remove "property rights" in favor of "feed all the hungry"?

(see your devil and raise you a fallen angel!!)
Click to expand...

According to the Native Indians you can't own land, so there. :biggrin:
 
Mankind existed for thousands of years with the concept of a king, ruler whatever you call him or her. The Kings owned everything and in a sense everybody. Freedom then was whatever the king let you get away with.

We revolted and became a people without a King. Something very unique in the world at the time. A tribe of sorts with a chief who did not need to be a warrior though he was.

Those that revolted and won earned our freedom. It is not up to each generation to earn it, it is a gift that is passed down to each succeeding generation. It is each generations to preserve it or loose it.

The problem today is too many people don't see the value of it, too many people could care less to preserve it and lastly and sadly, too many people don't have the stomach to earn it back.

The only thing that would get most people to rise up would be the complete loss of their Cable and Sat service.

I guess I am more cynical than I thought.
 
I think "Human Rights" are what man uses to keep from killing one another in times of drama.

The fact of the matter is... We have no rights. Not the right to be free, or eat, or breathe or anything else. "Rights" are a man made notion that simply lets people disagree without blowing each others heads off.

It is not a Lion's right to kill another animal to eat. It is not another animals right to live. Rights does not even play into the chase. It is S.O.F.

So no, In my opinion, Freedom is not a right. It is a luxury. You have to work hard or be fortunate or both to have such luxuries. We, as free persons, have a slighted view of what we are entitled to. The world owes us nothing, yet from it, we take everything!
 
Rmartin said:
The US constitution grants inalienable rights of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Inalienable rights are those granted by God. So it goes from God to the people to the government.
Click to expand...

Nit pick. It is in the Declaration of Independence. :)

As far as the Bible and Liberty Galatians 5 and Luke 4 both speak of it. I could find more I believe if pressed. :wink:
 
Luke 4:18 said:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Click to expand...

Galatians 5:13 said:
3You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature[a]; rather, serve one another in love. 14The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[b] 15If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
Click to expand...

Hmm.. I considered these passages to be about freedom to worship the God of the Bible, and personal freedom and the responsibility to yourself. Worth reading again. You'd think I'd spend more time reading the Bible since I spend 60 hours a week in a church. :wink:
 
Russianwolf said:
According to the Native Indians you can't own land, so there. :biggrin:
Click to expand...


Which takes us down another interesting path.

The Native Americans lived in "mutually-supportive" tribes. (An early commune). They respected each other's rights, but were subject to a hierarchy. Perhaps that is a "better" alternative??
 
DurocShark said:
Hmm.. I considered these passages to be about freedom to worship the God of the Bible, and personal freedom and the responsibility to yourself. Worth reading again. You'd think I'd spend more time reading the Bible since I spend 60 hours a week in a church. :wink:
Click to expand...

I guess it goes to one's definition of liberty. I consider the freedom to worship the greatest of all and the beginning of all liberties. :)
 
Last edited:
DurocShark said:
I don't recall the God-given right to liberty being in the bible, though it's been a while since I've read through it. Do you have a passage?

I'd gladly concede the point if it's there.
Click to expand...

I didn't mention a bible.

Inalienable: incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.

U.S. constitution:
"endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"

Seems rather clear to me. Why are you trying to pick a fight?
 
Declaration of Independence... not the Constitution. What you quote is not in the Constitution. It is in the Declaration of Independence. :)
 
Rmartin said:
I didn't mention a bible.

Inalienable: incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.

U.S. constitution:
"endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"

Seems rather clear to me. Why are you trying to pick a fight?
Click to expand...


I wasn't trying to pick a fight. Since we've been reminded that there's no religion allowed, I'll stop that part of this debate.
 
DurocShark said:
Devil's advocate here... Is it your right to be fed, whether you earned the food or not?

That's a much more basic need than the intartubes.
Click to expand...

That is true, and and yes, it is our right as humans, as Americans to ensure that each and everyone of us are feed. If I am raising a dog and choose not to feed it, I will be fined and possibly imprisoned, but yet our country doesnt have to take care of its own people the same way?

Phone service is something that is not a granted right, but in todays society it is essential to survival to some degree and there are programs in place to ensure that those without have the means to have it, that is more along the lines as my statement on the internet. Not saying fiber to the house here, but basic society imposed needs are meet..
 
Is it a right to be fed, or a duty to feed others?

Is it a right to have internet access, or a duty to provide it to others?

Personally I consider it a duty to serve. But it's absolutely NOT the right of those I'm serving to expect that service.
 
DurocShark said:
Is it a right to be fed, or a duty to feed others?
Click to expand...

Neither, it is human compassion that makes us want to be sure others are fed. It is in our DNA to keep our species surviving. Just like all other species.

DurocShark said:
Is it a right to have internet access, or a duty to provide it to others?
Click to expand...

Neither, the internet was developed for government use. It was then commercialized and is considered a luxury. Luxuries are not a right it is something that is earned.

DurocShark said:
Personally I consider it a duty to serve. But it's absolutely NOT the right of those I'm serving to expect that service.
Click to expand...

I consider it a privilege & honor to serve. We are fortunate to be in a Country (USA) where we are not required to serve to protect our freedoms (speech, elections, religion, you know the stuff in the Constitution & Bill of Rights). I like millions others have (for the most part) have volunteered (excluding the Draft) to serve our Country. There are some Countries that consider it a duty and requires all it's citizens to serve.
 
We do have a responsibility to defend our freedom, while it was written in the bill of rights that we have these unalienable rights, I think we have to look at the mindset of the bills authors and creators. Also it was noted that we must keep a standing Militia, so apparently they assumed that at some future point in time and history that we would need to defend our rights and protect our freedom. Thomas Jefferson 's greatest fear was a Government that could someday become unresponsive to the needs and freedoms of the people it was supposed to serve. And like the kids in the car always ask, "are we there yet" I have looked at the internet since I first heard of it in about 1987 as this last bastion of uncensored area for just about any thing. But this was before it really got to being used for Identity theft, and terrorism plots and outright larceny. I honestly don't see where we can claim the internet as a right. Jeff could shut this site down any time he wants. Arpa.net and Darpa were never intended for public use, so I guess it's not a right, rather a privilege, and like so many other things which we consider our RIGHTS we have abused them.
 
I agree, FREEDOM is a right that has been earned. The cost has been the blood of our forefathers and those who die every day defending the dream of freedom for others. It is not a RIGHT guaranteed by a piece of paper. I believe that those who believe so have a entitlement mentality.
 
As pointed out earlier the Declaration of Independence states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." These rights that the Declaration was speaking of were first "self-evident" you know like no duh and second, they cannot be taken away, they come from the Creator. Some of those rights the Declaration continues are listed and Governments of man are to "secure" those rights. Notice it doesn't say that the Government is the grantor of rights rather it continues on waxing eloquently about what should happen if Government does not secure those rights. You have individual rights but to what? What is the scope of these rights? I think the founders had it correct in the ones they enumerated, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Rolled up into those seven words is that you have a right to live free and try to be happy. I do not believe that we can say anyone has a right to a commodity. The internet just as food and gas are commodities. But freedom cannot be sold or bought however it is often paid for at a great cost. So remember the sage words of the Beastie Boys " you gotta fight!! for right!! to parrrrrty"
 
One thing. The Declaration of Independence is NOT an official US document. It is just an angry letter written for and signed by a bunch of disgruntled men to King George.
 
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
Well to "not be official" it sure is treated like one. I know we are picking nits at this point in that there was no "US" at the time of the Declaration of Independence, but without it, there probably wouldn't be a US
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom