What is Freedom?

I find myself asking that question time after time.

Is it the ability to associate with others of like mind? Is the ability to own a bar and allow smoking in it? Is it being able to have an abortion, or to vote?

Is it being able to make your own decisions about your own life without someone else telling you your decisions are wrong and criminal?

When does individual freedom cease to be worthwhile and replaced with the good of the many?

To me it boils down to choice. And being able to make choices, good or bad, and not having those choices being punished in a court of law.

From abortion to smoking, from what you eat to what you drive. Freedom is the ability for adults in this world to choose their own destiny, their own path - in this once in a lifetime experience they call life.

You only live once. And the ability to freely choose how you live should be your own. It should not be based on insurance, religion, or anything else. This is YOUR life. The only one you get. And far be it from me or others to tell you how to live it.

Yet so many do. And they justify it in so many ways. From smoking pot to having an abortion, people want to tell you how to live.

What does freedom mean to you?

not for yours. Freedom to me, is to be not meeting people
and being left alone from the expectations by nosey assholes.

... an arrogant, asinine, rebellious, person, as you know,
who does not appreciate any interference on the sovereign will.

And I want nothing honey if it ain't free
Feeling good was easy lord when Bobby sang the blues
And Freedom is good enough for me
Good enough for me and Bobby McGee

Nah nah nah nana na nah na na nah na nana:applause:

That it will haunt my mind for the next few days unless i can find something to take it's place

At least it's a good tune rolling around in my head.:headbang:

One of the designers of the Polaris missile was, at one time, a student of Aleister Crowley's. He wrote a pamphlet by the above title, and it is to me astonishingly clear. (By this time, he had broken with Crowley and was playing with solid rocket motors for JPL. I think the guy's name is Parsons.)

Dude (whatever his name was) held that one edge of the sword was "liberty", the other "responsibility". (Pass that j will ya?) His point is that those who exercise liberty without attending to responsibility eventually lose their freedom. Dude advocated a strong national defense on that basis, realizing that strong bad asses out there are just thrilled when they can enslave the weak. He also pointed to the responsibility of the strong and affluent to elevate others.

I remember while reading this I came up with a corollary to Will Roger's famous line "The freedom to end my fist ends where your nose begins." The corollary is, "But so long as I fist does not approach your nose, you have no right to restrain my arms."

I haven't done so in years (dammit) but let us presume there were a neatly rolled hooter in my hand at this moment. Merely holding it makes me a criminal. But in what sense does that act threaten your nose? I burn it, think some strange thoughts, giggle, gnosh down some munchies. In what sense have you been harmed? You cannot tell me. Why the fuck are you restraining my arms?

Conversely, I build a chemical plant and spit shit into the air and water that causes cancer rates to elevate, ecosystems to wheeze, and nine legged cows to be born. Yet I am not a criminal, I am an capitalist!

In what sense does this make sense? We do not have a free society here. Liberty is granted arbitrarily, and responsibility is barely acknowledged.

There's a difference? :evilgrin:
I keep reading that paragraph and the one before it over and over again. "Why the fuck are you restraining my arms?" Amen to that.

,

I was wondering here would catch the reference.

There's the freedom to do what you want to, which I think every person has the right to as long as it doesn't interfere with other people's well-being. The right to participate in government, to elect representatives and have a say in law-making is another kind of freedom.

The two don't always go together. Democracy is a big improvement over having a small group of people take away the freedom of many. But then it may be that the majority wants to deny freedom to people who can't outvote them. We've seen it so many times before- Jim Crow laws, religious discrimination, gay rights.

Power tends to corrupt, so if one person has more power than the rest, they would probably become a tyrant. But in the unlikely event that there was a monarch who wasn't corrupt, I could support that, in theory. If people protesting against the regime weren't bothered by police, the press was free to question everything, the leaders had to follow the same laws as everyone else, civil liberties weren't restricted and the law demanded that everyone was payed living wages, I wouldn't mind.

But that's extremely unlikely just because of the nature of power- or human nature. All things considered, democracy seems to be a better system. But then the question becomes how to protect freedom from the many.

Edit: i car'nt spel