Freedom: Earned or a Right?

Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
hewunch said:
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
Click to expand...

Last para starts out
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America"
while we didn't have the Constitution and the Article of Confederation was five years out were from that sentence on the united States of America. And in 1781 with the Articles became The United States of America
 
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
Freedom is not the right to do what we please, but an opportunity to do that which is right.
 
ed4copies said:
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??
Click to expand...

Well, also consider that one of the most universal beliefs among the Native Americans was that their tribe or extended family were the only "true" humans, and that most others were only partially human or of debased lineage in some way, fit mostly to be killed or enslaved in ritual warfare. The literal translation of most tribes name for themselves is almost always "the people" or "true people". My "true people" were Mescalero Apache on one side and Kotsoteka Comanche on the other (about 1/16 of each, not enough to count, but enough to maintain interest).

As for Freedom, I am of the opinion that it is neither a right nor a normal state of being for the human animal. Freedom is a temporary state of affairs wherein the normal oppression of the majority by the stronger minority is suspended. Usually due to the planning and sacrifices of a tiny group of truly gifted individuals. These individuals from time to time throughout history have been able to engineer social situations where there was a workable balance of responsibility and authority within a social framework that was able to nurture and protect this unnatural situation of minimal social injustice. Unfortunately, this delicate balance is intrinsically unstable and always oscillates out of control when those who are in possession of the authority become unwilling or incapable to take on the responsibilities that should accompany it. The resultant degradation of social forms from autocratic monarchy to hereditary despotism, or from republic to warm body democracy seem to be unavoidable given the tendency of humans to vote them selves bread and circuses, or food stamps and cable tv, whichever is most technologically feasible. Roman Empire or 16'th century France, or the late great United States of America, all ultimately decay from within, and are overtaken by the barbarians.

But it's a wonderful place to live right up to the point when it's not anymore.
 
An very old man told me once, when I was a young boy, "My freedom starts when yours finish...!". Many years later and I still haven't worked out what he meant...!:confused:

On the other hand, freedom is like a double edged sword, used right you enjoy its meaning, used wrong and you will find out in jails what it exactly means...!

Cheers
George
 
I know people who are imprisoned yet they will tell you that they have never been more free than they are now. I know people who many would call impoverished yet they too will tell you that they have never been more free in their lives. I know people who have great wealth and riches but will tell you they feel imprisoned. I know people who travel the world but yet feel oppressed.

True freedom has nothing to do with the natural, temporal, or tangible. True freedom goes far beyond that.
 
you really want to understand the depth of this issue then loook at the other countries and then stop and think how much of it we as americans have. and, since it has gottni nto politics and religion then i leave it here. but go loo at the movie calles babies( not that I am advertising it) and then you 'd understand what freedom and right is all about. I respect and honoe those who fought for us to let us live in such luxury, and ask those who are still alive then you'd get your answer to this discussion. otherwise you ae just sitting and speculating all along.
 
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...


Freedom to me is a right that has been earned and defended by many brave men and women. Many of us has fought to give you that right of freedom--you even have the right and freedom to burn my flag--BUT if you do it in front of me you will PAY for your freedom to do so.
 
Last edited:
OK, it's late and I'll throw my hat in the ring so to speak...

Freedom is gained and kept by the expenditure of flesh & blood, sweat, and plenty of tears, lots of money and boatloads of ammunition.

On the idea that the internet being a luxurey that has to be earned, maybe, realistically it has to be paid for.

As for saying bad things about the Frenchie-French, I love the women, the men- not so much.

On telephones and being able to live without one... I would love to.
 
The assumptions of American law reach back to the Magna Carta and 'natural law'. In that reguard it is assumed that we people act naturally when it comes to threats, to civilized behavior. Ben Franklin said that the constituion protects our right to 'persue' happiness, but it is up to us to catch it.
Michael
Al Udeid, Qatar
 
I haven't read every post herein, but I have skimmed through most of them. So if I am repeating a thought that someone put out previously, I apologize.

It's interesting to me that we love to talk about freedom and what freedoms are our right to have and to hold, but we forget to mention responsibility. I believe the freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.

If we are free to do whatever we want we have to be responsible enough not to do what encroaches too far on other people's freedom. I think that is what is meant by a quote in an earlier post
An very old man told me once, when I was a young boy, "My freedom starts when yours finish...!".
Click to expand...

I see too many people who take their freedoms too far because they neglect their responsibility. It is because of their irresponsibility that we need laws and rules that put boundaries on freedom.
  • I may desire the freedom to drive my vehicle as fast as it will go, but I have the responsibility to drive it in a safe manner that prevents injury to others and their property.
  • I may want the freedom to drill for oil wherever I want, but I have the responsibility to be prepared to cope with things when pipes break.
 
Whether it's a right or not, ALL the freedoms we have in America are paid
for by those who gave their service and some paid for with their lives so
we could enjoy the results of their labor:
It is the VETERAN, not the preacher, who has given us freedom of religion.
It is the VETERAN, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the VETERAN, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the VETERAN, not the campus organizer, who has given us freedom to assemble.
It is the VETERAN, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the VETERAN, not the politician, who has given us the right to vote.

Thank you VETERANS.
 
The right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness should only be limited by the point at which they infringe or deny anothers right. If this limit is exceeded then we have a fight, be it arrest or global conflict. It also must be earned by your daily conduct in support of others rights.

Having waived those rights for 20 years and offered my life to defend them, In my humble opinion you have those right but you must get off your dead butt and earn the means to support them.

In conclusion......please take a moment this coming Monday to offer thaks to the men and women who hav, are and will give all do defend this rights for you!!!:usflag::usflag::usflag::usflag::usflag::usflag::usflag::usflag:
 
jbthbt said:
If freedom is lost, does that mean it wasn't 'right' for us to have it in the first place?
Click to expand...

I'm physically capable of cutting your fingers off. Does that mean your fingers rightfully belong to me?

Just because you may have to fight to keep something doesn't make it any less yours. Even if you lose the fight, that doesn't mean the taker has any right to deprive you of it.
 
Two definitions of Freedom. I'll say the first has "problems", the second is more accurate. Then we'll talk about "rights" in that context.

1. "Freedom To" This is your fundamentally marxist definition. You do not have the "freedom to do something" unless you have the actual ability on the ground to do that thing. "I want the freedom to access the internet." This statement is a code for "I want somebody to pay for my wifi."

2. "Freedom From" This is the classical notion of 'freedom'. You have the freedom "to do" something BECAUSE there is no one *ACTIVELY* preventing you from doing it. "I have the freedom to my sit in my living room and drink lemonade" not because I actually HAVE lemonade and a living room, but because there is not a policeman sitting in my ottoman following orders to prevent said drinking.

So...rights....

1. "The right to" Derives from "freedom to" As in, "I have a right to the internet". This is a code word for "somebody owes me access to the internet." This confounds the words "right" and "privilege". Further, in the long term it is whollly self-contradictory as in this framework ANY desire can be construed as a "right" and once so construed becomes the "responsibility" of everyone to fulfill. That ball rolls in the direction of the government taking everything you have, and enrolling you into slavery-by-another-name, because infinite resources is what it takes to fulfill the infinity of "rights". And, of course, you cannot then enjoy "your rights" because providing for someone else's rights inevitably will interfere with your own. AKA "My right to a beach front mansion in malibu was violated by the government because they wanted to provide for someone else's right to a new car!" It is key to note here that this inevitably devolves to the government deciding what your rights are, and those rights changing from administration to administration.

2. "the right from" or more accurately "the right to be free from". Again, the classical construction of "rights" AKA "The right to be left alone". I do not have a "right" to anything that someone else would therefore be required to provide. I do, however, have a right not be interfered with. The natural corollary is "except where I am interfering with someone else". Notable here is that the government (aka, your neighbors) do not get to decide what your rights are. They can spell out some specific examples (aka "The Bill of Rights"), but are instead in the position of having to justify every interference into your life by pointing our how they are preventing you from violating someone else's life.

So here is the test. "I have the right to xxx" or "I have the freedom to xxx". If "xxx" would require someone else to to or provide something in order for you to enjoy that "right" or "freedom", it's not a "right" or "freedom" but is instead a privilege. You will either enjoy that "right" or "freedom" because of someone else's freely given largesse, or because the state committed the criminal (although legal) act of either extorting provision from someone else, or compelled them to provide for you directly.

On the other hand, if "xxx" simply requires that other people (including the state) leave you alone and let you do your thing, and "your thing" does not involve theft, fraud, or compulsion against someone else, then you have yourself a bona fide legitimate "right" or "freedom".
 
Let us think in terms of "privilege" rather than a right. Mush of what we have is a privilege in that we have to meet criteria and pay fees- think drivers license.

A right is that which is guaranteed us by birth, the Declaration of Independence, the Charter of Rights, Magna Carta. All of these documents require that the individual must be vigilant and willing to defend these rights. When I enlisted I took the following:
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

This is who we assure that all who are born or chose to become citizens keep their rights.

"But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

Remember our fallen and support those who serve.

To my fellow veterans here thank-you, I'm proud to be one of you. late Sgt. 2d Bn 102 Armor. Medical
 
Freedom is just a sheild that non conformist hide behind. You only are free to do as others approve and even then you are still far from free.
 
wolftat said:
Freedom is just a sheild that non conformist hide behind. You only are free to do as others approve and even then you are still far from free.
Click to expand...

Well, that's true to a degree, but only because the sheep have no need for freedom, no concept of what it means, and usually think that by conforming more slavishly to whatever the fashionista/advertising trend of the day is, they are demonstrating "freedom" But who is more unfree? The IBM jr manager in his cloned brooks brothers suit and red tie, or the biker in his leathers, chains and tats? (or a marine in his high-and-tight, corps tshirt and bumper sticker) All are conforming to a code imposed upon them by someone else in order to "belong" to a group. Perhaps it is a code that they willingly and proudly accept, but it is still conforming.

Is true freedom the crusty old desert rat, living out in the boonies and not seeing anybody else for weeks at a time (but not bothering to send in a 1040 every year either?) Or is it the Montagnard partisan, fighting on for his people and their homeland long after everyone else abandoned them, hunted and bloodied but unbowed?

All humans trade some degree of autonomy for the benefits of society and coexistance with their fellow man. The question is how much, and how willingly they make that trade.
 
Hello Joe G. -- I wondered how long it'd take you to wander over here from WN.
Congratulations on managing to post those thoughts without actually crossing into the realm of Politics.
That was quite a feat! :wink:
What I'd like to know is Is your def. #1 a little contrived?
I ask KNOWING we share numerous pol. philosophical ideas.
The reason I ask is:
I have the Freedom To Grow vegetables in my garden and eat fresh produce from said garden rather than buying it from large commercial producers.
I have that freedom because I bought and paid for my land and I have the knowledge and skill to do it.
I also have the Freedom From having my garden pilfered (excepting turkeys and deer) as I have the material means to keep thieves out of my garden.
Is your "Freedom To" merely illustrating one form of that type of Freedom?

Welcome aboard,
Gary

Who is John Galt?
 
jskeen said:
Well, that's true to a degree, but only because the sheep have no need for freedom, no concept of what it means, and usually think that by conforming more slavishly to whatever the fashionista/advertising trend of the day is, they are demonstrating "freedom" But who is more unfree? The IBM jr manager in his cloned brooks brothers suit and red tie, or the biker in his leathers, chains and tats? (or a marine in his high-and-tight, corps tshirt and bumper sticker) All are conforming to a code imposed upon them by someone else in order to "belong" to a group. Perhaps it is a code that they willingly and proudly accept, but it is still conforming.

Is true freedom the crusty old desert rat, living out in the boonies and not seeing anybody else for weeks at a time (but not bothering to send in a 1040 every year either?) Or is it the Montagnard partisan, fighting on for his people and their homeland long after everyone else abandoned them, hunted and bloodied but unbowed?

All humans trade some degree of autonomy for the benefits of society and coexistance with their fellow man. The question is how much, and how willingly they make that trade.
Click to expand...
I believe the Marine is actually one who truly understands that he is not free, but will fight to the death to defend the belief that someday he will be.

Basically what I am saying is that there is no such thing as complete freedom no matter what you do, so is it a right? Maybe... Is it a privledge? Maybe... Will people continue to argue, fight, and die over things that they have no control over? That is a definate yes.

The only way you will ever be free is to accept that you need to free yourself first. You will need to figure out for yourself how to do that.
 
Last edited:
wolftat said:
I believe the Marine is actually one who truly understands that he is not free, but will fight to the death to defend the belief that someday he will be.

Basically what I am saying is that there is no such thing as complete freedom no matter what you do, so is it a right? Maybe... Is it a privledge? Maybe... Will people continue to argue, fight, and die over things that they have no control over? That is a definate yes.

The only way you will ever be free is to accept that you need to free yourself first. You will need to figure out for yourself how to do that.
Click to expand...

True, very true. A warrior willingly gives up his own personal autonomy in order to achieve benefits for others first, and secondly for himself if he survives to enjoy them. This is the responsibilty that is the obverse of true freedom, and that is becoming more and more rare in our society. This is unfortunate, albeit predictable.

Like the Marley Mon said; "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, None but yourself can free your mind!"

Spartan Mothers are reputed to have said 'Son, either with this or on this.' when handing them their shields on the eve of battle. According to Plutarch, when asked why it was dishonorable to return without a shield and not without a helmet, the Spartan king Demaratos (510-491 BC) is said to have replied: "Because the latter they put on for their own protection, but the shield for the common good of all."

The flame of Spartan honor survives undimmed by more than 2000 years, while their ultimate conquerors, the Romans are mostly remembered for political corruption, debauchery and poor table manners.
 
Last edited:
wolftat said:
I believe the Marine is actually one who truly understands that he is not free, but will fight to the death to defend the belief that someday he will be.
Click to expand...


AMEN!! And if not freedom for himself, then for others who follow him!!
 
GaryMGg said:
snip

I have the Freedom To Grow vegetables in my garden and eat fresh produce from said garden rather than buying it from large commercial producers.
I have that freedom because I bought and paid for my land and I have the knowledge and skill to do it.

snip

Welcome aboard,
Gary

Who is John Galt?
Click to expand...

You best keep an eye on Monsanto and their GMO's then.
 
In England the Monarch 'gives' you rights and priveleges.
In America those rights bestowed by god (or nature if you will).
...That something that cost so much in human lives should be surrendered piecemeal in exchange for [trendy] visions or rhetoric seems grotesque. Freedom is not simply the right of intellectuals to circulate their merchandise. It is, above all, the right of ordinary people to find elbow room for themselves and a refuge from the rampaging presumptions of their 'betters.'" Sowell
DuroShark began with: 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.
Access to the internet is a 'Fee for Sevice' bussiness, not different than a barber or cable TV(are you stealing Cable?). This has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
Michael Edwards, MSgt
379 EAES
Al Udeid AB, Qatar................................exercising the 1st Amnd.
Thank you, Bill Jackson Edwards for sacrificing your life for the cause of liberty ; Khe Sahn, South Vietnam, May 1967; we still mourn.
 
Last edited:
jskeen said:
Hey Charles, did your wife make you watch food inc. too, or did you develop an interest in this subject on your own?

James
Click to expand...

Was that the documentary on PBS a few months back? If so I saw it.
Monsanto is EVIL. Suing farmers for growing from seed stock that they have been seed saving. Sueing for patent infringement (gene patents) because the open pollinated GMOs hybridised with natural plant varieties grown in nearby fields. Almost sounds like it was planned to capture the seed market...

I got interrested back in the late 80's when the open pollinated corn debacle occured. I have been trying to seed save heirloom tomatoes in the last few years, and now the local heirloom Datil pepper. This next year I am going to add plant cutting/cloning to my little experiment so I can have full tomato, pepper, eggplant and others earlier and not have to worry so much with hybridization(it keeps me up at night and I watch PBS documentaries :wink: ).

We don't have Freedom, or Justice for that matter, just limits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom