Freedom

[jGilder]

The irony here is that all of these concepts being shared on this thread about what freedom is doesn't represent why American sons and daughters are fighting, killing, and in some cases dying. The majority of what US foreign policy does has restricted or taken away the freedom of people around the world rather than promote it. The purpose of the war has more to do with greed rather than freedom.

If the US was so concerned about Saddam's dictatorship and the freedom of Iraqi people why did we assist in his rise to power and support him while he carried out the brutal repression of the people there? The US has been complicit with Saddam and his predecessor’s tyranny for well over 20 years before they began to seek replacing him. Saddam didn’t threaten the freedom of Americans in the slightest, so we aren't fighting a war in Iraq for our freedom either.

The reason you hear American leaders and war hawks using the word “freedom” so much is because they realize that the only way to motivate Americans to back their war is to convince them that their "freedom" is somehow threatened. Even though it's far from true, the misconception echoes over and over in US mainstream media. This is very deliberate and it works on well-meaning American citizens who have been sheltered from the reality of what their government has been up to in the last 50 years or so.

[David Levine]

To understand contemporary USA foreign policy statements, just substitute the word "profit" for the word "freedom." All will be clear.
To understand USA foreign policy in years gone by, just substitute the word "profit" for the word "freedom." All will be clear.
This is not a peace-loving country. Nor do we particularly value life. At least, not as much as we value cheap oil.
I love what Bush said about stem-cell research: "I made it very clear... that the use of federal money... to promote science which destroys life in order to save life is -- I'm against that."
Does this apply to smart bombs as well? Nuclear weapons?

[OnTheMoor]

Freedom, for me, is when the government exists for the benefit of the people, rather than the other way around. Not to be confused with the belief that government should provide everything everybody wants, only that it should provide... uh... peace, order and good government.

[peeplj]

David, I understand you don't like U.S. policies, and I can appreciate that, as there are many policies of my government I do not agree with at all.

However, as has been said before, it would be a mistake to stereotype all Americans by the actions of their government.

Fact it, I think it's almost alawys a mistake to stereotype anyone.

It doesn't change them or limit them in any way. It doesn't change what they are.

What it does change is your own perspective. Once you stereotype someone, once you label them, you have forever limited how you see them. The blinders are on your own eyes.

The eyes of the person you have stuck a label on, however, are still open and clear.

--James

[Jack]

"Freedom" is a very vague word. The US' concept of individual freedom is very similar to that of France. Historically, France and the US' concepts of freedom are almost identical for the most part. They're forever tied together by history. Even the Statue of Liberty, the quintessential symbol of American Freedom, comes from France.

[emmline]

The reason you hear American leaders and war hawks using the word “freedom” so much is because they realize that the only way to motivate Americans to back their war is to convince them that their "freedom" is somehow threatened.

Sadly, I think this works in too many cases.

[David Levine]

it would be a mistake to stereotype all Americans by the actions of their government.
--James

What have I said to make you think I have stereotyped?
OTH, When I say we -- as a country -- do not particularly value life, I refer to the suppport most of our representatives have given to the war and to US foreign policy.
The dialogue on C&F is often banal.
To what extent does C&F represent the American public?

[Jack]

To what extent does C&F represent the American public?

That is a good question for this forum. I think, because so much of our membership is European, that C&F is (in general) more politically liberal and less prone to hold favourable opinions towards war. America, when it comes down to it, is basically a conservative country. The northeast and large cities are exceptions, but that's the case everywhere. People who live in rural areas are generally more conservative, and most of America is rural (it's a huge country, after all).

[Arto_Vallivirta]

Society first -concept of freedom could be as in the marxist jargon: Freedom is individual freedom to work for the society and benefit from it. Something like that anyway.
What I see is that for freedom seems to be freedom FROM something. Other way of thinking is freedom TO something. There has been a huge debate around the subject in the 20th-century American social philosophy. But it is very interesting to see how the (truly vague) concept of freedom is seen in the public view. Thanks everyone.

I find the American thinking very interesting because of your political history. What differs the U.S. from Europe is that you really have no notable left wing parties. Your two biggest parties are both really on the right wing side. It is not the case in Europe. We have allways had strong left wing parties as well as strong right wing parties. It has made possible a dialogue which, I believe, hasn't happened in the U.S. Thats shaped our concepts a bit different from yours. Of course there are major differencies between European countries but there seems to be something in common.
In Finland, I think most of the people think about many things very much like you folks. There are some differences in our "system" compared to yours. We have higher taxes. It has made possible (at least it used to be the case) a good public health care and a free education equally for everyone. Nowadays there has been some changes so I don't really know where we are going to. Some time ago, we didn't really have very very poor, or very very rich people, because of the taxing system. But global capitalism has done it's work here as well. Our society is becoming more and more like the U.S.
Why I don't find it a very good thing? I think that all this freedom from -thinking with it's consequences (did I spell it right?) is fatal in the long run.
Our planet can stand one country but if the whole world starts to be like the U.S., were doomed. And if everyone can't live like the Americans, then there's something wrong.
I really hope I'm wrong about this, but I'm deeply worried.

Oh, one more thing. I don't think our society is any better. There's really not so much difference. This is a problem of the whole modern civilization. It's becouse of the economy, but the roots are in the very ways we think.

/Arto

[dwinterfield]

While I agree with, or at least understand, many of the sentiments in this thread relating to freedom, it seems somewhat sterile. Freedom is a powerful concept that, to me, is only meaningful in a context that includes other people. Specifically I'm thinking about two additional ideas, justice and community.

Since we all share the same planet with limited resources, we must modify our application of freedom as individuals to account for the freedom of everyone else on the planet to at least survive. As Arto suggests in Finland, this disparity between very, very poor and very, very rich is growing across the planet. It is certainly accelerating in the US. I don't have the numbers at hand, but the difference in income between the average worker and the the average CEO remained pretty constant throughout the 20th century. Now the gap has exploded - was something like 20 to 1 now something like 2000 to 1. If you're affluent, you're concept of freedom is probably different from those who are not affluent. As global trend, this can't continue.

I haven't said this well, but freedom, justice and community are all bound together. We in the US have many individual freedoms, but our ability to exercise is them is tied to our relative affluence. As we overconsume global resources we unintentionally reduce the freedoms of others. This increases injustice around the world and erodes our sense of community. All in all, a bad direction.

[The Sporting Pitchfork]

Here's what I think is funny: the way that "liberty" has lost ground to "freedom" in the American English lexicon over the past 60 or so years...

[Flyingcursor]

One of the problems with the concept of "freedom" is the lack of a solid definition. The word has meant different things to different groups of people since before the US existed as a nation. The Bill Of Rights is a good place to get an anchor but most people have never read it, and it's certainly subject to interpretation. I really wish all naturally born American Citizens were required to put more effort into understanding the Constitution, Bill of Rights and American government. We have government classes in high school but that's hardly enough.

I see freedom, not so much as freedom to have or do things as freedom from.
Freedom from the government meddling in my life.
Freedom from being harrassed for stating my opinion even if it does not go agree with the mainstream.
Freedom from constant observation in the name of "safety" in the form of video cameras.
Freedom from being locked in prison without due process.
etc.

Unfortunately too many short-sighted Americans view freedom in the following ways:

1. Freedom from personal responsibility. Laws should be passed to make sure I am protected from my own stupidity or sloth. It is the government's job to secure this freedom.

2. Freedom from consequences. I should be free from any penalty, consequence or punishment for any action if I have had negative experiences in my personal upbringing. This is the government's job.

2. I should be free from any potential for personal harm even at the expense of all my privacy or mobility. It is the government's job to secure this freedom.

3. I should be free from any external source of annoyance or offense. Nothing should ever be said, written or communicated in any way that could offend my personal sense of morality, dignity or opinion. I should be free from anything that annoys me. It is the government's job to secure this freedom.

4. I should have the freedom to possess any material item I desire regardless of how hard I work to attain it. It is the government's job to secure this freedom. (see #1)



Perhaps the best way to determine what freedom IS would be to look at the worlds most despotic governments to see what it ISN'T.
[/b]

[OnTheMoor]

1. Freedom from personal responsibility. Laws should be passed to make sure I am protected from my own stupidity or sloth. It is the government's job to secure this freedom.

2. Freedom from consequences. I should be free from any penalty, consequence or punishment for any action if I have had negative experiences in my personal upbringing. This is the government's job.

2. I should be free from any potential for personal harm even at the expense of all my privacy or mobility. It is the government's job to secure this freedom.

3. I should be free from any external source of annoyance or offense. Nothing should ever be said, written or communicated in any way that could offend my personal sense of morality, dignity or opinion. I should be free from anything that annoys me. It is the government's job to secure this freedom.

4. I should have the freedom to possess any material item I desire regardless of how hard I work to attain it. It is the government's job to secure this freedom. (see #1)



Perhaps the best way to determine what freedom IS would be to look at the worlds most despotic governments to see what it ISN'T.
[/b]

I think the exact opposite of each of those is just as much a problem. The freedom from actually having to give a damn about anyone else. There's little room for sympathy or compassion in modern freedom.

[Flyingcursor]

[I think the exact opposite of each of those is just as much a problem. The freedom from actually having to give a damn about anyone else. There's little room for sympathy or compassion in modern freedom.

I don't see that as the opposite. In fact "ME FIRST" seems responsible for all of the above attitudes.

[Tyler]

Arto, have you ever been to the U.S.? I just wonder, having myself lived in Canada, and having been a frequent visitor of the UK, I hold a different view of what "freedom" might mean, per se.. I think the "freedom-from" mode of thought as you put it, is wrong, or flawed, and has unfortunately defined our way of life in the US.
There are some freedom-froms that folks may quote, that can be rearranged to state a "freedom-to", i.e. freedom to worshop by choice, etc.

I believe that the basic concept of freedom cannot be universal due to , as stated in a previous post, the lack of a concrete, and therefore, universal definition.
Liberty can be universal, I think....
When I lived in Canada, I enjoyed many liberties (not freedoms, mind you) that I normally cannot enjoy in the US. Likewise with my visits to the UK.
Let me give you an example of what I'm trying to express.....
When I was in college, I took an American History 150 (beyond US hist. 101) course, as I am a bit of a history buff in certain aspects. The first day of courses, the instructor asked us what it meant to be "American."
Not a one could give a definite answer, not one could single out one definition that could not be applied to several different countries and societies, outside of the geographic definition.
The point that this instructor was trying to get across, at least from my viewpoint, is that, though the US is trying to homoginize the rest of the world because we feel we have the corner on the market for lifestyle (or whatever), we fail to see the similarity of the conditions that exist in the cultures we try to assimilate. Do you follow? Very few Americans travel abroad frequently, and even fewer endeavour to live in another country for any stretch of time. There are even many who live their entire lives within the State of their birth. This causes ignorance to other cultures outside of their schema, and therefore, these other cultures do not "exist" in their reality. Sadly, even when the existence of these culture becomes apparant, the still do not "exist" to certain closed minds.
This is the reason that we have the tendancy to force our way of life on others.
Liberty is universal, despite what forms it may exist in or to what extent it does exist. Because it does not conform to our sense of liberty, or "freedom", our leaders feel then need to change that.
Liberty is also a choice of the people....

And for the record, I prefered living in Canada, though I would like to give living in the UK a try.