Freedom Do we have freedom by the definition?

• Zombaypirate

  free·dom /ˈfrēdəm/
  

  Noun The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.

  Umm no we in the USA cannot even add an addition to our home without getting a permit. (permission) Where I live you need a permit for a deck off the back of your home. Want freedom move to the Congo or some other countries in Africa they understand freedom more than the USA does. Discuss. I think most citizens of the USA do not understand FREEDOM except that means you can walk outside your house or voice your opinion (depending on your opinion) Is it time for a revolution against our government? Of course peaceful revolution!!!!!!
• Cleveland Buck

  

  No. Those aren't the best definitions, but I suppose we aren't free by any definition.
• justincredible

  

  FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
• QuakerOats

  We have drifted so far from freedom, and sooooo far from common sense, that it is no longer a laughing matter ....... it is probably gone forever, until the next revolution.
• O-Trap

  

  We're free to do as we're told. Does that count?
• justincredible

  

  O-Trap;1423206 wrote:We're free to do as we're told. Does that count?

  For a lot of people...yes. Which is unfortunate. And depressing.
• O-Trap

  

  justincredible;1423209 wrote:For a lot of people...yes. Which is unfortunate. And depressing.

  Told my wife that if she dies, I'm moving to Costa Rica. Property is cheap, and taxes are lower.
• justincredible

  

  O-Trap;1423214 wrote:Told my wife that if she dies, I'm moving to Costa Rica. Property is cheap, and taxes are lower.

  Our next move will be to a property where we can homestead. I'm eventually getting the fuck out of the system, or at least, opting out as much as possible. I know it will be a slow process but it will be so incredibly rewarding.
• BoatShoes

  On one hand we are all actually Radically Free as Sartre would say.
  
  On the other hand, within our political economy...of course we are not completely and totally negatively free....we are all bound by a social contract called the social contract and we are bound as we have impliedly manifested our assent to the terms of this socio-political agreement by staying, working, living and taking part in the political economy....Our wishful expatriates such as O-trap here are, and always have been free to remove ourselves from a party to this contract at all times.
  
  In that sense we've limited our own natural liberties just like I have limited by natural liberties by the promises I have made to my employer in my employment contract...my landlord in my rental contract...etc. etc.
  
  And, what is great about our social contract though...is that the slight impingements on our natural liberty from this arrangement have actually allowed us to have a greater liberty and freedom in the aggregate....my giving up my natural liberty to kill and steal has allowed me to live with the general freedom and liberty from being killed and having my property stolen and free from the fear of those travesties...and on and on....
  
  And this is all readily visible in the actual world as the lands wherein people have unrestrained liberty live with less prosperity than those of us in regulated and collective social contracts.
  
  So no...we're not "free" as you mean it...in our political economy....but it actually allows us to be more free in a contemporary sense and actually preserves the blessings of liberty.
• BoatShoes

  justincredible;1423216 wrote:Our next move will be to a property where we can homestead. I'm eventually getting the fuck out of the system, or at least, opting out as much as possible. I know it will be a slow process but it will be so incredibly rewarding.

  Way less restraints on freedom in Haiti I hear...Somalia too...not sure what the prospects are for smart IT pros though???
• justincredible

  

  BoatShoes;1423232 wrote:Way less restraints on freedom in Haiti I hear...Somalia too...not sure what the prospects are for smart IT pros though???

  Okay?
• BoatShoes

  justincredible;1423234 wrote:Okay?

  Well...you could get a homestead in the tropical weather of Haiti for real cheap. The debased dollar that Ben Bernanke tries to destroy goes real far there...like decades ago far here. It was once the richest country in the western hemisphere. Beautiful weather. No insane gun laws. People pretty much pack their own heat because there are no cops. All the marijuana you could dream to smoke. Etc.
  
  Why not move there and "get out of the system"
• justincredible

  

  BoatShoes;1423237 wrote:Well...you could get a homestead in the tropical weather of Haiti for real cheap. The debased dollar that Ben Bernanke tries to destroy goes real far there...like decades ago far here. It was once the richest country in the western hemisphere. Beautiful weather. No insane gun laws. People pretty much pack their own heat because there are no cops. All the marijuana you could dream to smoke. Etc.
  
  Why not move there and "get out of the system"

  I like the weather and the landscape here. I don't want tropical weather, I want to live in a rural area in a climate I am used to.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  justincredible;1423245 wrote:I like the weather and the landscape here. I don't want tropical weather, I want to live in a rural area in a climate I am used to.

  He thinks he is making a point. In Haiti if someone has any kind of significant money to invest in a business, the government steals it all. There is no private capital, therefore there is no wealth. Then the government sits back and lets the people they impoverished fend for themselves.
  
  He thinks you would like the idea of a "hands-off government", get there, see the utter poverty, and long for the days of the "social contract" that we didn't sign and isn't legally enforceable by anyone. (No, my mere presence on my own property does not signify consent.)
• O-Trap

  

  Cleveland Buck;1423254 wrote:He thinks he is making a point. In Haiti if someone has any kind of significant money to invest in a business, the government steals it all. There is no private capital, therefore there is no wealth. Then the government sits back and lets the people they impoverished fend for themselves.
  
  He thinks you would like the idea of a "hands-off government", get there, see the utter poverty, and long for the days of the "social contract" that we didn't sign and isn't legally enforceable by anyone. (No, my mere presence on my own property does not signify consent.)

  You just said it, though. It's not a "hands-off" government. It may be on social issues, but they're as greedy bastards as we have in Washington.
• justincredible

  

  
• Fly4Fun

  

  The idea of freedom is one of degrees. It's not a black and white situation. I would argue the most "Free" people in the world are the dictators of countries. They have the least restrictions on what they can do, assuming they don't cross over a line to the point that their country is invaded by other countries in response to some undesirable behavior.
  
  However, in every society that a person is a citizen of there are restrictions (law or moral guidance from other institutions such as religion) on what they can and cannot do. The purpose of those restrictions is to ensure that people can co-habitat in close proximity. The more people there are and the closer people inevitably become, laws will become more prevalent and important.
  
  A thread like this just indicates that a person is only concerned about his own freedom and not the freedom of others. Law tries to achieve that balance between your own freedom and that of others. It's the only way for society to work.
• queencitybuckeye

  BoatShoes;1423232 wrote:Way less restraints on freedom in Haiti I hear...Somalia too...not sure what the prospects are for smart IT pros though???

  Irrelevant unless you can prove causation, which you can't.
• BoatShoes

  Cleveland Buck;1423254 wrote:He thinks he is making a point. In Haiti if someone has any kind of significant money to invest in a business, the government steals it all. There is no private capital, therefore there is no wealth. Then the government sits back and lets the people they impoverished fend for themselves.
  
  He thinks you would like the idea of a "hands-off government", get there, see the utter poverty, and long for the days of the "social contract" that we didn't sign and isn't legally enforceable by anyone. (No, my mere presence on my own property does not signify consent.)

  You said this on Dec. 2, 2011;
  

  What are you talking about? There is almost no government in Haiti.

  So Which is it...is the government of Haiti stealing private capital...or does it not really exist to protect private capital.
  
  In reality, the Rich in Haiti with private capital...do pretty well all things considered minding their own private affairs and relying on themselves and high walls for self-protection from coercion from others. It's kind of strange; they paint their houses white and put barbwire on their fences and they stick out like sore thumbs amidst the grey concrete everywhere else.
  
  Additionally, you need not sign a piece of paper that amounts to a memorial of a contract for it to be valid...as a contract is really just a relationship and the pieces of paper we call contracts these days are memorials of that agreement. You have manifested your assent to the social contract by purchasing private property knowing it was under the sovereign jurisdiction of that contract and taking part in the commerce, customs and political economy under the scope of that contract.
• BoatShoes

  queencitybuckeye;1423395 wrote:Irrelevant unless you can prove causation, which you can't.

  Well the Authors of "Why Nations Fail" have interesting idea as to why the Dominican Republic experienced relative prosperity in comparison to Haiti in the aftermath of World War II despite being in about the same position economically right after:
  
  
  
  
  Their opinion is that, despite the oppressive regime in the Domincan Republic that took hold; it was nevertheless a strong state while Haiti did not have strong state control.
  
  
  (Que QCB: "Boatsh0es you are just an idiot with shitty education not worthy of my NU condescension repeating what smart people think again because you use a source when he resp0ndz to mai p0sts!!"
• BoatShoes

  justincredible;1423291 wrote:

  
  Actions speak louder than words no? You gladly accept the benefits every time you use your debit card sending little electronic telecommunications through our heavily regulated centrally controlled payments system in the Federal Reserve System.
  
  Kind of like the difference between: "Stop. No. Don't" and "No, Don't Stop!" IMNSHOIYAMFWIW
• Cleveland Buck

  

  BoatShoes;1423485 wrote:You said this on Dec. 2, 2011;
  
  
  
  So Which is it...is the government of Haiti stealing private capital...or does it not really exist to protect private capital.
  
  In reality, the Rich in Haiti with private capital...do pretty well all things considered minding their own private affairs and relying on themselves and high walls for self-protection from coercion from others. It's kind of strange; they paint their houses white and put barbwire on their fences and they stick out like sore thumbs amidst the grey concrete everywhere else.

  It is what I said it is. The only function of the government of Haiti is to steal the wealth of anyone who has enough of it to be worth their time. And you talk about the wealthy there living well, those are the government officials. Of course they live like kings. That's what governments do.
• queencitybuckeye

  BoatShoes;1423491 wrote: Their opinion is that, despite the oppressive regime in the Domincan Republic that took hold; it was nevertheless a strong state while Haiti did not have strong state control.
  
  

  Their opinions do not constitute proof. At best, it leaves out a number of unrelated reasons. At worst, it's factually dubious.
• justincredible

  

  BoatShoes;1423492 wrote:Actions speak louder than words no? You gladly accept the benefits every time you use your debit card sending little electronic telecommunications through our heavily regulated centrally controlled payments system in the Federal Reserve System.
  
  Kind of like the difference between: "Stop. No. Don't" and "No, Don't Stop!" IMNSHOIYAMFWIW

  Did you not see where I stated that my future plan is to opt out as much as possible? I get it, you enjoy your servitude. I don't. I'm setting up a framework to limit it as much as possible in the near future.
  
  Also, what does this mean? IMNSHOIYAMFWIW.
• BoatShoes

  queencitybuckeye;1423499 wrote:Their opinions do not constitute proof. At best, it leaves out a number of unrelated reasons. At worst, it's factually dubious.

  Of course they do not constitute "proof" as you are using the term. What is your standard of proof any way? Is it proof by a preponderance of the evidence...beyond doubt??? Who knows? It is one attempt at finding what the truth is. It is evidence that is reasonably trustworthy from experts as to what reasonable people evaluating it might determine what the truth is. It is an "offer of proof" as the saying goes to be evaluated in the marketplace of ideas in attempt at persuasion toward one particular claim. It is a suggestion as to what the truth is grounded in evidence.
  
  
  So as it relates to this topic, it is a hypothesis as to causation...in direct response to your post. Perhaps you might offer a returning volley?