There are 3 choices, 3 votes for GoblinQueen Warious' debate

Freedom What is it? Can it be a bad thing?

  • Of Freedom and Death

    I was struggling over trying to define a concept and for the life of me could not proceed very far and kept hitting solid brick walls until I received a revelation.

    Revelation:

    No Ideal, no matter how good it seems, be it Freedom, Human Love or Justice, becomes worthless and corrupt without God. God is the center point and fulcrum of every good Ideal and so without him they cease to be good or of any worth.

    Without God everything falls apart and there become no point to any Ideal.

    With this now firmly in place I could begin with my searching for answers more freely than I was before.

    The question was Freedom.

    What is Freedom?

    My first answer was that Freedom is an Ideal and as such a state of mind.

    Today’s definition of Freedom is the idea of doing whatever you want. This is Freedom without taking God or others into account.

    Our Founding Fathers, despite whatever your have been brainwashed to think, did have God in mind when they decided to fight for their Freedom from England.

    The Founders idea of Freedom consisted of having the Right to govern themselves, the Right not to be taxed without representation and Free of soldiers which Forced themselves into people’s homes and hospitality.

    For more information on this time and a look at the Declaration of Independence go here: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/charters.html

    Now go read the Declaration if you have a problem with what I say.

    I’ll still BE HERE!

    Second Question:

    Can Freedom become a bad thing and when?

    The answer to this is, yes. Freedom can easily become corrupted by another person merely by following the modern definition of Freedom.

    Freedom ceases to be good when it harms others and or oneself emotionally, physically or mentally.

    For example of harming ones self, say you had the freedom to indulge in drugs or binge drinking. This would harm your body and your mind, making your freedom a bad thing.

    The other aspect I then explored is that one can abuse their freedom by interfering with another person’s freedom. This is assuming you believe everyone to have freedom. I have met people who may say they believe this but really do not.

    Some examples of infringing on another’s freedom is Rape and Killing.

    If you rape another person you take away their choice to have or not have sex with you. (Please keep in mind this is only an example and NOT an accusation)

    If you kill someone you take away their freedom to live life. In fact you take the one thing that makes it possible for them to experience freedom when you kill them, their life.

    And to those people who love and/or are not afraid of Death/Dieing:

    Please Remember MOST people do not want to die.

    They. Won’t. Appreciate. Being. KILLED!!!!!!

    So leave them alone. You take away their freedom when you kill them and in turn remove your own freedom because you will be pursued by the law.

    More on Death will be blogged later but I have digressed.

    On Tyrants and Freedom:

    Tyrants come in many forms. A Tyrant is anyone who is an oppressor, bully, tormentor, persecutor or dictator.

    They can, in ones eyes range from ones parents (for which it is their right until the age of eighteen or you move out of their house) or Saddam Hussein a political dictator. (If I get so much as one complaint that Bush is a Dictator I will come down on you like a two ton anvil in a cartoon because you obviously just parrot what you hear or you don’t know how very limited Presidential power really is. Bush is not a Dictator anymore than Bill Clinton or George Washington was.)

    Do dictators deserve to be killed? Do we have a right to kill any and all tyrants?

    Well the answer is no. Part of the reason behind this answer has to do with Morals (something which will also be blogged upon at a later date which this country sorely lacks). This ties in with the above paragraphs.

    But with this question one must also take into consideration, God. Granted this will make no sense to you nor will you agree unless you believe in a supreme being.

    But this leads to a more ultimate question; When does one person’s ‘freedom’ stop and another begins?

    It stops before you harm another being or yourself.

    If you harm another person, authority (which is more ultimate than freedom *modern definition*), has the freedom to stop you from doing so.

    This is all I have to say for now on this subject. If you believe somthing should be added go a head and tell me.

    Voted for by GoblinQueen Warious.
    View 2 comments
  • :

  • pleas(/e)...

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst

    Are full of passionate intensity."

    W.B. Yeats

    Man's justification for his own being, while not necessarily being true but instead truly, truly necessary, is imprinted on all his philosophy despite the Derridan trace. In the seventeenth and eighteenth century, as the Enlightenment was trying to suture humanism and Christianity together, this trace was simply called God and dismissed. I see their legacy, all be it the dross of it, has persisted despite time and sociology.

    Your argument speaks of today's alleged idea of freedom, modern freedom, etc. There is nothing new about Puritanism. People, myself included, see the immorality of the world, and wish to see them turn to pillars of salt. The difference is that in a wealthy and technologically-advanced, stable society we are _convinced_ that we can get what we want. It is manipulation on a macroeconomic scale that provides the cornucopia of macroeconmoic benefits that we call America. That is all. Whether people think in terms of philosophy, except for the French, Russians, Swedes and Germans of course, on a popular, common, everyday scale is a different story. There is nothing new about this, either; this is just another Puritanism, but from the Left and not the Right.

    As to your argument of licentiousness, stop sweating, from either fear or labor. Here is a link to Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan."

    http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext02/lvthn10.txt

    "Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness." General Washington, Circular to the States (May 9, 1753)

    Bush is not a dictator.

    "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." James "Jimbo von Atheiststrasser" Madison, Speech in the Virginia Convention (June 16, 1788)

    Bush is not a dictator; at all times in funcioning democracy, it is almost natural for someone to be called dictator or usurper - it's a symptom of freedom; it's what mononucleosis is to a healthy social life. But, insofar as Americans can imagine how a dictator would act in a postmodern world, Bush fits that bill extremely well. People don't fear dictatorship in this case; they fear that if a dictator were to come, they'd use Karl Rove's tactics and meet the same success. Throw in the fact that something like the Patriot Act can pass without anyone really reading it (even more frightening is the thought that they did read it), and recurring nightmare turns into eery familiarity. Such thoughts as Madison's lead us to cynically believe that the goings-on of the president are purely evil. Such thoughts deny us the certainty that Bush isn't a dictator. Well, why not keep them up? Such amiable certainties are symptomatic of one-party rule.

    Voted for by Auxiliar.
    View 1 comment
  • :

  • freedom
    Freedom is the ability to will your life, and take the responsibilities of that decision. In the sense where we cannot escape ourselves we can never be free, and so this is as close as it comes. To say that freedom can be a 'bad thing', is a matter of oppinion. The truth is though, that 100% freedom-freedom to kill ect..ect.. anhilates itself since absolute freedom means freedom to oppress. So when you take the freedom away from another you are working against freedom in doing so. This is why part of being free is taking responsibility for all that you do.
    Voted for by antsandmoths.
    Add a comment
  • :

    •  

    None of the choices fit your opinion?  Add one →