Is there a such thing as too much freedom?

[Lallapalalable]

After all, we're just an advanced species of ape. Is it at all possible that we have unearthed a very amazing and invaluable ideal, but lack the ability to weild it responsibly or intelligently? I realize there are (fairly large) communities and certain types of people who are perfectly capable of handling it, and those who respect that of others. However, as a society, we are fallible, and in certain (perhaps extreme) situations, things can go pretty far south when we have the liberty to do what we want.

So, questions: What is acceptible as unacceptible behavior? How much freedom can we enjoy before it becomes a hazard to others or encroaches on their own equal freedoms?

 

[MineMineMine]

the notion that something more pure is better than something less pure, is a fallacy.
that something is pure means in the most cases that it's incomplete.

So, questions: What is acceptible as unacceptible behavior? How much freedom can we enjoy before it becomes a hazard to others or encroaches on their own equal freedoms?

This one is really relative on where you are. Which country and which group of people and of course also where you are in time.
i forgot who said it (and the exact formulation also <-<) but i think that:
'behave in a way that your every action can be made into a law of society without it destroying itself''

would be a pretty good starting point

 

[Aught3]

Kant: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

John Stuart Mill and the idea that the only legitimate restriction on freedom is the harm it might cause to others is pretty good.

 

[Lallapalalable]

So, I guess, there is no such thing as absolute freedom for everyone? You do have to conform to certain moors (mores?), otherwise your actions encroach the freedoms of others, and on that you do need some level of constraint for it to be compatible on a social scale.

On the subjectivity of location, I refer to people complaining that the US is a police state and that we have no freedom, and I just wondered if it was just because they want to do certain things that are either frowned upon or illegal altogether. Also, that some laws are enacted, restricting freedoms, to ensure security of the general population, and I always considered a Benjamin Franklin quote when faced with info like that: more or less "You should never sacrifice your freedoms in exchange for security".

Recent goings on with 4chan got me to thinking whether or not the whole proposed loss of anonymity in the internet would be good, because you sacrifice your privacy so that others may not worry about anonymous harassment. I dunno, just a musing on the subject as a whole, really.

I apologize for the vagueness and lack of elaboration, if it was, but I was running on about 23 hours of awakeitude when i wrote the OP. I would have waited 'till this morning, but I wanted to get the words out before I forgot/lost interest.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Sometimes I find certain people confusing "freedom" with the "absence of morality".

 

[PAB]

So, I guess, there is no such thing as absolute freedom for everyone? You do have to conform to certain moors (mores?), otherwise your actions encroach the freedoms of others, and on that you do need some level of constraint for it to be compatible on a social scale.

On the subjectivity of location, I refer to people complaining that the US is a police state and that we have no freedom, and I just wondered if it was just because they want to do certain things that are either frowned upon or illegal altogether. Also, that some laws are enacted, restricting freedoms, to ensure security of the general population, and I always considered a Benjamin Franklin quote when faced with info like that: more or less "You should never sacrifice your freedoms in exchange for security".

Recent goings on with 4chan got me to thinking whether or not the whole proposed loss of anonymity in the internet would be good, because you sacrifice your privacy so that others may not worry about anonymous harassment. I dunno, just a musing on the subject as a whole, really.

I apologize for the vagueness and lack of elaboration, if it was, but I was running on about 23 hours of awakeitude when i wrote the OP. I would have waited 'till this morning, but I wanted to get the words out before I forgot/lost interest.

Two things to keep in mind when considering freedom is Freedom From and Freedom To

The US is certainly a police state. But what also needs to be considered is that a state is inherently a police state via consensus ( see Ranciere's Dissensus: Politics and Aesthetics). The Franklin quote is great. The problem with gaining freedom from , is that it is reactive to the state (for example) and established law and norms. Freedom also consists in positing alternatives (freedom to), not to just be free from law in an anarchic sense, but to be political.

There is also freedom from duty, and the afterword of freedom to duty.

 

[lrkun]

Sometimes I find certain people confusing "freedom" with the "absence of morality".

What is freedom?

What is absence of morality?

What is the difference between the two?

What is their similarity?

^-^

 

[Neil86]

Sometimes I find certain people confusing "freedom" with the "absence of morality".

What is freedom?

What is absence of morality?

What is the difference between the two?

What is their similarity?

^-^

I would have to say freedom is the ability to take actions other people do not agree with without them having a legal ability to apply punishment.
Lack of morality is having no negative emotions preventing a person doing things that harm others.
They differ in that one is internal with influence from society and the other is social with influence from individuals so a single persons freedom and moral based restrictions on behaviour will often be similar but not identical.

Back to the original point it is possible to have too much freedom, if it becomes permissible to act in a manner that is sufficiently harmful to others that widespread behaviour of that type will cause society to break down, or even become significantly more unplesant there is too much freedom. However to the best of my knowledge all large societies go way beyond this and many more freedoms could be granted without there being too many.

 

[Divergedwoods]

After all freedom is about choice, you can only be totally free when you can legally (and socially) do anything that you choose.
However the limitations to your freedom are imposed by your social context, and thus they ultimately derive from the sense of morality that the individual share
So I think that in the case of a society with no imposed laws, as long as it is formed by moral beings, there will exist inherent limits to personal freedom. The issue is that there will always be individuals who present various levels of disregard towards this limits (anti social behavior and therefore not acceptable)

 

[Nemesiah]

Kant: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

John Stuart Mill and the idea that the only legitimate restriction on freedom is the harm it might cause to others is pretty good.

Yes but are we WISE enough to understand the ramifications of our actions?

For example:

Driving a car seems harmless enough as long as you are sober, not speeding, abiding by the driving regulatory code, obeying traffic signs, etc...

So I'm not harming anyone by driving my car to work, right?

Well, let,´s take it one step further; by using a car by myself I,´m polluting quite alot for just one individual, so maybe I should get on a carpool and try to go to work with at least 4 others so that we can minimize the impact on the environment.

It turns out I was harming the environment, which causes decaeses and sometimes even deaths of the very young or the elderly and many animals; It was not what I intended but In the end I,´m contributing to the harm of others.

Let's take it another step further

By buying a foreign car I,´m depriving my countrymen of jobs and resources to feed their families, I liked the car, it was cheap, gave good mileage (always thinking about the environment) but in the end by buying from a brand produced in my country I could have helped a family in my country have a slightly better life.

I was harming my economy by prefering a cheaper car instead of a localy produced one.

Let' s take it one step further

By using an internal combustion vehicle Im creating a demand for gasoline or some other oil derivate; nowadays there is a war being fought in the middle eats so the USA can steal their oil so I can consume it; thousands of innocents are diying so that people can keep using cars. Today's cars run on blood, not on gas.

So I was harming the world by fueling a war by my driving a car.

So what seem as a harmless enough act had very nasty consequences, Am I really free to drive a car? Can I drive a car and still think of myself as a good person? Do I hava a right to put my oil addiction before the lives of the people from Irak? Do I have Too much freedom In this respect?

 

[PAB]

Kant: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

John Stuart Mill and the idea that the only legitimate restriction on freedom is the harm it might cause to others is pretty good.

Yes but are we WISE enough to understand the ramifications of our actions?

For example:

Driving a car seems harmless enough as long as you are sober, not speeding, abiding by the driving regulatory code, obeying traffic signs, etc...

So I'm not harming anyone by driving my car to work, right?

Well, let,´s take it one step further; by using a car by myself I,´m polluting quite alot for just one individual, so maybe I should get on a carpool and try to go to work with at least 4 others so that we can minimize the impact on the environment.

It turns out I was harming the environment, which causes decaeses and sometimes even deaths of the very young or the elderly and many animals; It was not what I intended but In the end I,´m contributing to the harm of others.

Let's take it another step further

By buying a foreign car I,´m depriving my countrymen of jobs and resources to feed their families, I liked the car, it was cheap, gave good mileage (always thinking about the environment) but in the end by buying from a brand produced in my country I could have helped a family in my country have a slightly better life.

I was harming my economy by prefering a cheaper car instead of a localy produced one.

Let' s take it one step further

By using an internal combustion vehicle Im creating a demand for gasoline or some other oil derivate; nowadays there is a war being fought in the middle eats so the USA can steal their oil so I can consume it; thousands of innocents are diying so that people can keep using cars. Today's cars run on blood, not on gas.

So I was harming the world by fueling a war by my driving a car.

So what seem as a harmless enough act had very nasty consequences, Am I really free to drive a car? Can I drive a car and still think of myself as a good person? Do I hava a right to put my oil addiction before the lives of the people from Irak? Do I have Too much freedom In this respect?

I can't help but look at this in socialistic/communistic perspective, and critique these problems as the distribution of commodities and relations between commodities etc. For example oil and cars are not really the problem (in terms of oil and cars are ''bad'') , but the 'freedom' from regulation of the industries and corporations in the free market economy is the problem. I essentially see the problem of too much freedom here specifically to much economic freedom. But what needs to be asked is what this freedom really is free from and gives freedom to.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I'm not sure that abstracts like "freedom" and "happiness" should be seen as goals in themselves, but ideals that can be used as tools to achieve certain goals. That is to say that you can be completely free if you live on a desert island by yourself, but I'm not sure what good that does you. You can feel pretty happy if you shoot up heroin constantly, but that's not what people normally mean by happiness.

I don't want some sort of abstract "freedom", I want to know that I'm not going to be jailed without a trial, or have my property confiscated for no reason. I want protection from crime, and someone to make sure that my food and water aren't contaminated. I would like to see good people prosper, and bad people fail. I would really like to know that I'm not going to work my whole life only to be told that I can't retire and collect my pension or Social Security because some greedy people stole the money, whether by illegal or legal means.

Freedom, real concrete freedom, has to be created, maintained, and constantly fought for. It is created by rules and regulations, maintained by taxation and the actions of the government, and fought for by everyone from activists to police officers to the military. Freedom doesn't just happen, and thoughtlessly removing limits on behavior on the principle that "rules take away freedom" is a guaranteed way to REALLY take away freedom.

 

[PAB]

Freedom, real concrete freedom, has to be created, maintained, and constantly fought for. It is created by rules and regulations, maintained by taxation and the actions of the government, and fought for by everyone from activists to police officers to the military. Freedom doesn't just happen, and thoughtlessly removing limits on behavior on the principle that "rules take away freedom" is a guaranteed way to REALLY take away freedom.

Very True.

There are many people i have come across who believe that fighting for and maintaining freedoms is something which was only done in the past, and no longer needed today :|
Similarly anarchistic thought of abolishing rule and governance misses the point in the pursuit of liberty

 

[Nemesiah]

Freedom, real concrete freedom, has to be created, maintained, and constantly fought for. It is created by rules and regulations, maintained by taxation and the actions of the government, and fought for by everyone from activists to police officers to the military. Freedom doesn't just happen, and thoughtlessly removing limits on behavior on the principle that "rules take away freedom" is a guaranteed way to REALLY take away freedom.

Very True.

There are many people i have come across who believe that fighting for and maintaining freedoms is something which was only done in the past, and no longer needed today :|
Similarly anarchistic thought of abolishing rule and governance misses the point in the pursuit of liberty

Yes BUT fighting or which freedom?

fight for freedom of speech seems good enough; fighting for the freedom to sell crap to 3rd world countries not so much.

This might seem to be utopic but shouldn't humanity strive for a society that has no need for killing in the name of freedom?

This preocupies me because USA's warcry is "Democracy and freedom" and we know just how misused this words have been in the recent past (afghanistan, Irak)

Is the Idea of "Fighting for" really usefull nowadays? shouldn't we be discussing for freedom, disarming the world so that reason and not violence can become the driving force of history?

 

[PAB]

Going out killing in the name of freedom needs to be separated to a degree from physically defending yourself. Some people are more than happy to use physical violence.
Fighting for your freedoms can mean physical violence , but can also mean non-physical violence. Fighting for something to be recognised as a freedom can be ''violent'' in disrupting the political and social consensus.

Utopia(the book) is great to understand the ''utopic'' idea of a society that has no need of killing for freedom.
Firstly those citizens of utopia oppose war and avoid it at all costs. (Even butchery of animals is disliked and done by slaves) .
However all foreign neighbouring dictatorships have been or plan to be actively taken care of , via propaganda, bribery or war. Based on the principle of democracy. (We can compare this to the US/UK invasion of Iraq, ) Democracy is in a sense a process of ''violence''.

 

[Nemesiah]

Going out killing in the name of freedom needs to be separated to a degree from physically defending yourself. Some people are more than happy to use physical violence.
Fighting for your freedoms can mean physical violence , but can also mean non-physical violence. Fighting for something to be recognised as a freedom can be ''violent'' in disrupting the political and social consensus.

Utopia(the book) is great to understand the ''utopic'' idea of a society that has no need of killing for freedom.
Firstly those citizens of utopia oppose war and avoid it at all costs. (Even butchery of animals is disliked and done by slaves) .
However all foreign neighbouring dictatorships have been or plan to be actively taken care of , via propaganda, bribery or war. Based on the principle of democracy. (We can compare this to the US/UK invasion of Iraq, ) Democracy is in a sense a process of ''violence''.

However all foreign neighbouring dictatorships have been or plan to be actively taken care of , via propaganda, bribery or war. Based on the principle of democracy. (We can compare this to the US/UK invasion of Iraq, )

I don't agree with this; I believe the USA and the UK (and the rest of the freedom pack) invaded Irak to steal from them, not to give democracy to its citizens or to thwart the evil machinations of Sadam Hussein against America.

In my eyes (and those of many others) the invasion of Irak was about simple theft of resources at gunpoint and it has tens of thousands of innocent victims. One of the sad parts of this is that the amercan soldiers that die in Irak do so actually thinking they are giving their lives for freedom and democracy; not the greed of some very powerful men and their corporations.

 

[Aught3]

Kant: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

John Stuart Mill and the idea that the only legitimate restriction on freedom is the harm it might cause to others is pretty good.

Yes but are we WISE enough to understand the ramifications of our actions?

For example:

Driving a car seems harmless enough as long as you are sober, not speeding, abiding by the driving regulatory code, obeying traffic signs, etc...

So I'm not harming anyone by driving my car to work, right?

Well, let,´s take it one step further; by using a car by myself I,´m polluting quite alot for just one individual, so maybe I should get on a carpool and try to go to work with at least 4 others so that we can minimize the impact on the environment.

It turns out I was harming the environment, which causes decaeses and sometimes even deaths of the very young or the elderly and many animals; It was not what I intended but In the end I,´m contributing to the harm of others.

Let's take it another step further

By buying a foreign car I,´m depriving my countrymen of jobs and resources to feed their families, I liked the car, it was cheap, gave good mileage (always thinking about the environment) but in the end by buying from a brand produced in my country I could have helped a family in my country have a slightly better life.

I was harming my economy by prefering a cheaper car instead of a localy produced one.

Let' s take it one step further

By using an internal combustion vehicle Im creating a demand for gasoline or some other oil derivate; nowadays there is a war being fought in the middle eats so the USA can steal their oil so I can consume it; thousands of innocents are diying so that people can keep using cars. Today's cars run on blood, not on gas.

So I was harming the world by fueling a war by my driving a car.

So what seem as a harmless enough act had very nasty consequences, Am I really free to drive a car? Can I drive a car and still think of myself as a good person? Do I hava a right to put my oil addiction before the lives of the people from Irak? Do I have Too much freedom In this respect?

Although I disagree with your examples I take the overall point that it can be difficult for an individual to understand all the consequences of his/her actions. The idea of restricting freedom from Mill is for governments and other civil authorities to follow, not so much for individuals to enforce. The government might get it wrong sometimes but we the people can always push back against it.

On Kant's CI, it's not an easy rule to follow you do have to sit down and really think about the consequences of your actions and whether or not you should desire a world in which everyone performs those actions. But, I agree, defining the actual limits is not easy.

 

[Commander Eagle]

So, questions: What is acceptible as unacceptible behavior? How much freedom can we enjoy before it becomes a hazard to others or encroaches on their own equal freedoms?

Right there. That's the limit; when your behavior hurts others or encroaches on their freedoms, that's your limit.

 

[THE HARMONIKZ]

Please forgive me if I fail to understand the question but how would one be able to describe something that one has never seen before?
Before we postulate any further it would seem we need to define freedom.

 

[Don-Sama]

So, questions: What is acceptible as unacceptible behavior? How much freedom can we enjoy before it becomes a hazard to others or encroaches on their own equal freedoms?

Right there. That's the limit; when your behavior hurts others or encroaches on their freedoms, that's your limit.

I surely hope you mean ''hurt'' in a psychical manner? If not remember this song, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijZRCIrTgQc

If you think, or act your bound to hurt someone somehow regardless whether you intent it or not. And rebelling and standing up to the establishment and thus hurt it necessary at times to reach those oh so noble goals such as our freedoms and right which we so much enjoy in the western world.

letting the group of people decide for themselves how much freedom they want seems like the way to go, but that also means they can stone to which seems to us as innocent people to death if they do something wrong in their eyes..

it's a difficult question