Freedom:What does it really mean?

[anunitu]

The question is:What does freedom actually mean?

What is YOUR vision of what being free means?

I do wonder at times if there is something called freedom,and how do we define it?

Does money bring freedom?,does health allow us to be free...and Just what is freedom?

Post your ideas of what freedom means to you personally.

Have at it,but remember be civil and respect others ideas.

[MoonRaven]

Re: Freedom:What does it really mean?

Just a brief answer this time around, though I may give a more verbose one later.

To quote a country song here: "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." Which is why I don't want to be free and don't really understand people who do.

[Gleb]

Re: Freedom:What does it really mean?

Not being forced to do things that are against one's ideology. Not to be a slave. Not to be threatened. Possessing the ability to choose things. That's my idea of being free.

[Roknrol]

Re: Freedom:What does it really mean?

The question is:What does freedom actually mean?

If you were the only human being on the planet, what would it mean? Same thing. Freedom is exactly that. My personal limitation is where my Freedom infringes on another person's Freedom, although I agree that to most Governments "Freedom" means "Freedom to do as your told, how your told, and if you don't ask for permission before you do something we haven't made illegal yet you can bet your ass that the ink on the new laws won't even be dry by the time you start your sentence."

Blech. Freedom, to me, is exactly that. The right to be a human animal, whatever that entails (provided that it does not infringe on another's rights, I think I've covered that )

What is YOUR vision of what being free means?

That's it. I don't think there needs to be more explanation than that, TBH. Any "limitations" means that it's no longer Freedom. In the basest terms, Freedom is the ability to do what you want, when you want, and how you want. Full stop. Obviously we share this planet with other Free people (see, all people are already Free, they've just been told so long that they're not that they believe it), so the concession (and the only one that makes sense to me) to that Freedom is to not infringe on another's right to the same.

I do wonder at times if there is something called freedom,and how do we define it?

That's it. ^

Does money bring freedom?,does health allow us to be free...and Just what is freedom?

Money can buy you a better quality of Freedom - look at John McAffee. And it can buy you lots of things that can allow you to be totally free - yachts that can go into International waters, land in Alaska or Siberia where people leave you the fuck alone and simply put don't care what you do. But I do not believe that money will make you free - from what I've seen, the "habit" of focusing on money tends to lead to a memory lapse on the goals...suddenly you're making money for the sake of making money.

Money is only worth what you can get for it.

Post your ideas of what freedom means to you personally.

Have at it,but remember be civil and respect others ideas.

Oh, I shall certainly try

- - - Updated - - -

Just a brief answer this time around, though I may give a more verbose one later.

To quote a country song here: "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." Which is why I don't want to be free and don't really understand people who do.

Janice Joplin, not really country but that song borrowed heavily from country influences.

Of course, that's one perception, and in a way she is right, but only if you're a very cynical person who believes that they have no power over their own life/destiny/whatever.

The thrust, in that song, was the idea that when the Government (or as the case was at the time, "The Man") only has power over you as long as there is something to take away. Your livelihood, your money, your...well...Freedom (in the case of prison). When you have lost all of those things you are "Free" in a sense, but obviously only a very narrow sense.

I prefer to imagine myself on my own island, somewhere in the middle of nothing (doesn't have to be a real island, I mean an island unto myself, so to speak ), doing what I want to be doing. Sometimes that would be hunting for food, or tending to crops, or whathaveyou...and sometimes it would be writing, or video games, or music or...well...anything. That's the thing - it's my choice. I can invent. I can experiment. And I can do completely stupid shit just because I wanna. THAT is Freedom. What do you want to do? If you can't do it right now (and it doesn't infringe on anothers' Rights), then you are not Free. You might be "sorta" Free, or "mostly" Free (unlikely), or maybe you think you're completely Free because everything you want to do is already legal. Who knows...you might be Mormon. But not me, and not the other 7 billion people on the planet.

[thalassa]

Re: Freedom:What does it really mean?

What does freedom actually mean?
What is YOUR vision of what being free means?
I do wonder at times if there is something called freedom,and how do we define it?

Freedom is the ownership of one's self and ability of volition, of self-determination. My freedom only exists to the extent that it does not diminish the freedom of another, and that their freedom does not diminish mine. There is no such thing as freedom as an absolute--there have/are/will be always constraints on how we live (particularly when in proximity with one another)...or else we die.

No man is an island, and even he could be (alone on an island), Nature is a pretty harsh arbiter when it comes to man's "freedom". What freedom doesn't mean is the absence of law. Just laws are there to make sure that my freedom doesn't impinge needlessly upon the freedom of another. Sometimes, ensuring that, means that some of us can't always do exactly as we would like, when we would like, and how we would like. But then that isn't freedom either, but selfishness.

Personally, my freedom is not diminished by the laws under which I live. I do have friends and family whose freedom would be diminished by the laws under which I live, which is why I am involved in trying to have those laws changed. Honestly, the thing that most diminishes what I would like to do, how I would like to do it, and when I would like to get it done, is money...or, should I say, lack of it. Would I, personally, be more free with money? Cosmically, not really, but in many ways, yes...though a whole new set of responsibility would come with that. At a certain point though, yes, you are less free when you are in poverty. You have less access to education, to healthcare, to transportation, to the basic building blocks that let one build a life in our society as it stands now. And yes, I also that how free we are (in an extra-legal sense) is dependent on our physical and mental health as well.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Freedom:What does it really mean?

Freedom = private life, where nobody who doesn't have a personal interest in what I do, or hasn't been invited in, has no say over what I do. Secluded acreage in the country, or blinds on the widows, and knowing when and about what to keep one's mouth shut, goes a long way to securing freedom.

It's the exhibitionists who insist on letting their freak flag fly publicly, and gaining "acceptance" from those who's acceptance is meaningless, that provide much of life's comedy for the rest of us.

[ChainLightning]

Re: Freedom:What does it really mean?

Quick answer: Freedom is a lack of restraints.



Brief answer: Freedom is that place where people believe their constraints are just enough to keep themselves, and those around them, happy.



Long answer: Freedom is an ideal, a pipe dream, really, that varies from person to person. To some, it's not being told what to do. To some, it's not being a slave, either to someONE or someTHING. Yet, to others, freedom is nay but an unattainable dream to be able to provide for one's self and family. Many people attach another bit of idealism to it, called rights, that make the illusion of being free into some sort of basic need, for survival.

The reality is far different. In our concrete and steel environment, the tangible and substantial, there is no such animal as freedom. Just the degrees with which a lack of freedom can be measured and manipulated, in order to pervert and further convince the unwitting that they have been given something special. To one end, it's worth fighting for, or even dying for, to protect what little bit we've won, but on that very same scale, that little bit of freedom, that taste of being free, we're nothing but the sum of our experiences - which are clinically, almost to the point of sterility, very, very restricted. Whether by man or means, the limits laid upon our experiences promote a bastardized impression of what it means to be free.

In the end, you just "gotta put yourself smack dab in it". Believe. Learn. Share. Love. Hope. And dream. Freedom.

[Denarius]

Re: Freedom:What does it really mean?

Freedom is the relatively unrestricted ability to make choices that don't matter or matter only to yourself.

[Luce]

Re: Freedom:What does it really mean?

The question is:What does freedom actually mean?

What is YOUR vision of what being free means?

I can do what I like if it doesn't hurt anyone else, directly or (within reason) indirectly, or cause a serious hazard to public safety.

It's really that simple. You want to drink? Go ahead. You want to crawl in your car and drive home afterward? No. You want to smoke weed? Good on ya. You want to do it around people who don't want to do it (as in, within range of second-hand smoke)? Nope.

[feathered_regalia]

Re: Freedom:What does it really mean?

I find that when arguing freedom, one tends to come down to arguing rights as well. In the US Constitution we are guaranteed Freedom of Speech. We have other freedoms too, like the Freedom to Peaceable Assembly and Freedom of Press. All sorts of fun stuff. But what I've always wondered, is where does that freedom really draw a line? I mean the KKK have the right to gather and preach abusive speech. Ads on TV and political campaigns have the right to fudge the truth when speaking of their opposition. This has been bothering me for years now. I've known kids in high school who are verbally abusive then go on to say, "Freedom of Speech, bitch!" Literally. I know most would agree that being guaranteed liberties flies only so long as we don't impugn other people's liberties / rights, but... There are grounds to stop the dark side of those freedoms, like sexual / verbal harassment lawsuits and the like, yet allowances for some serious gray areas (such as those things I previously mentioned). I think freedom isn't always exercised responsibly and too much freedom allows for people to abuse what rights they were born with to excuse their lack of personal responsibility far too often. I mean, the US has, by far, the most accounted for serial killers than any other country compared to population. So, either we have the world's best police force; we're more open about who we put in jail; or we have a lot of irresponsible people who feel they're free to do whatever they want. Nothing is definitive, but that latter one is seriously thought-provoking, to me.

[DON]

[Roknrol]

Re: Freedom:What does it really mean?

I find that when arguing freedom, one tends to come down to arguing rights as well. In the US Constitution we are guaranteed Freedom of Speech. We have other freedoms too, like the Freedom to Peaceable Assembly and Freedom of Press. All sorts of fun stuff. But what I've always wondered, is where does that freedom really draw a line?

Ah, I can see where the mistake is

Our Bill of Rights does not establish our Rights, exactly. It establishes some of the Rights which we already possess (by dint of being human), and Rights for which no Government should be allowed to deny us. Madison actually argued against a Bill of Rights to begin with, because he felt that as soon as those words were put onto paper, any Government in power could take advantage of what wasn't written down. I'd post a link to my blog where I talk about this in-depth, however my blog is jacked right now and I don't know when I'll have the posts working correctly...stubborn problem.

I mean the KKK have the right to gather and preach abusive speech.

They sure do, and technically if the Boy Scouts are allowed to meet in gradeschools so can the KKK. That's what Freedom is about - sometimes people that we disagree with say things or do things we don't like.

Ads on TV and political campaigns have the right to fudge the truth when speaking of their opposition.

I'm in agreement with you on this, although again - the Freedom to say what you want gives other people the Freedom to lie. Honestly, if there was a limitation that I would put on the Freedom of Speech I would insist that public speech be honest or Fiction, and plainly clear. Advertising should be the same way - especially advertising.

But that's a line on the Freedom of Speech, and as much as I think that might be a good idea (and I have the right to talk about it), I really don't think that putting a limitation on the Freedom of Speech is a good thing - at all. Even if it's something I agree with. It's fine the way it is

This has been bothering me for years now. I've known kids in high school who are verbally abusive then go on to say, "Freedom of Speech, bitch!" Literally. I know most would agree that being guaranteed liberties flies only so long as we don't impugn other people's liberties / rights, but... There are grounds to stop the dark side of those freedoms, like sexual / verbal harassment lawsuits and the like, yet allowances for some serious gray areas (such as those things I previously mentioned).

When speech becomes personally abusive it becomes something else entirely - as you say, harassment and the like. It is a huge failure of the school board to prevent these kids from pressing appropriate charges - we had to deal with bullshit like that when my son was in school and had no recourse because the school wasn't interested in fixing the problem, just ignoring it.

Again, it's unfortunate, but seriously, I think people should have some thick skin if they're planning on associating with other people anyway. The world has gotten so small at this point that you could be dealing with someone that has very different cultural values to yours and may be "rude" without realizing that in *our* culture something is rude, or may ask and off question simply because they don't know any better.

But there's a difference between that and direct, deliberate verbal abuse, and since the laws are already there, the problem lies somewhere else. Creating more laws isn't going to change a lack of reporting, unless there's something built into those laws that prevents schools from doing something, at which point the laws should be changed. But that's a huge amount of speculation on my part...I haven't done any research or anything like that - at all.

I think freedom isn't always exercised responsibly and too much freedom allows for people to abuse what rights they were born with to excuse their lack of personal responsibility far too often.

How can a "right" be abused? A privilege (like driving, for example) I'll agree with those - those are meant to be taken away if abused or used badly. But a Right? Doesn't the very idea of a "Right" imply that whatever you do with it is yours. Yes, that means people can make bad decisions as well as good decisions, and sometimes those bad decisions will be very stupid indeed.

But then again, doesn't that promote critical thinking as a species? Right now people are legally allowed to be stupid...and that is one right that I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights does not grant

Again, as mentioned before, there are repercussions for Speech that other people don't agree with. The WBC never had a good reputation, and anyone dealing with them knew exactly what they were dealing with. If they weren't allowed to spew their vile, bile-inducing hate speech...well...we wouldn't know who they are or where they are, or even what they stand for. As it is, I'm glad that I can recognize those people from a distance and just avoid them entirely. That's another way the Freedom of Speech pays off - if you say stupid shit, people can let you know. It's this day and age where being politically correct has become a "right to not be offended" that the waters of Speech get murky...because now, suddenly, it's allowed to spew trash, but it's a real issue if someone responds in kind (see the Chick Fil Eh? shit...and many many more) They have the right to spew hate, I have the right to not spend my money there. I can't control (and don't want to control) your money or your opinions...you get to do that all on your own.

I mean, the US has, by far, the most accounted for serial killers than any other country compared to population. So, either we have the world's best police force; we're more open about who we put in jail; or we have a lot of irresponsible people who feel they're free to do whatever they want. Nothing is definitive, but that latter one is seriously thought-provoking, to me.

This is a whole 'nother can of worms. There is a LOT wrong with the US legal system, and that's exactly what happens when you privatize prisons (when someone can make a profit, they will). Right now the absolute best thing for prisons to get more money is to be full. Overflowing, in fact. And that means prosecuting everything - including petty bullshit - just to get asses in bunks.

You have things like the "War on Drugs" to thank for a whole lot of that. The US has created a black market and then they act surprised when there's a black market. Remove the black market and you'll stop filling the prisons with potheads.

Now, a lot of the murder and violence stuff is drug related - after all, if your dealer screws you out of $500 of coke you can't exactly go to the cops and press charges. So violence is the defacto response when there's a black market (such as the black market created by Prohibition, one of the more violent times of American history). So yeah, a whole lot of the murderers and killers that we have in prison are probably directly attached to the black market created by the prohibition on drugs That being said, they aren't necessarily drug dealers because they're into drugs...they could be shifting weapons or dozens of other black market items if drugs weren't around. </end ramble, sorry about that>

Anyhoo, so right now we have prisons full of the "high priority" cases...things like murder and rape end up being near the top of the list. And the Government throws so much money at the DEA that they have to produce results, so they end up bringing a lot of business into the prisons. Since a lot of those crimes are related, it seems to work out well.

Unfortunately, other crimes are largely unsolved, like auto thefts and home invasions (unless they're lucky enough to find DNA), and even lower end stuff like assault get treated lightly because that's someone that maybe *should* be in prison for a little while, but hey, we have another guy over here who we could put in for 15 years, so...you know...we can put off the paperwork for a lot longer. And they say yeah, groovy, that's a great idea, we'll suspend the first guy's sentence. So the petty crooks and criminals get slaps on the wrist.

Yeah, our prison system sucks. Hard.

But I don't think anyone should ever be put in prison for having an opinion, even if it's poorly thought out or unpopular. We need to know where the low bar is before we can rise above it.

[feathered_regalia]

Re: Freedom:What does it really mean?

Lots of interesting points Rok. I like your perspective. Gonna clarify on some of what I meant, though.

When I was thinking of serial killers, I was thinking of people like Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, and the Zodiac Killer: People who stalk victims without conscientious remorse. The sociopaths and psychopaths. The stuff movies are usually made of. Every time I look at a list or research paper, it says the U.S. has a significantly larger portion of these types of criminals compared to any other country, as opposed to what the majority of murder related crimes tend toward.

Yes, I realize I mixed up some of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. That was a terrible oversight on my part and sheer laziness on not wanting to jog my memory in the right direction.

Now, here's specifically why I find this a stickler about the KKK assembly and harassment. I've seen KKK rallies where they sit there and harass a black officer who's out there protecting their Right to Assembly. Ok, so because of Freedom of Speech, they're allowed to say what they want. However, that sort of speech would be considered "racial remarks" and could even be construed as harassment, could it not? So why is this level of speech okay, just because of assembly? The laws aren't very clear about why it's okay to harass someone, just because you're in a group, when that sort of speech would never fly in the workplace, especially when there are measures that police take to stifle mob growth and prevent rioting.

This is what I mean by that gray area that doesn't make any sense to me. I'm all for preaching about things I don't necessarily agree with, that's the nature of our country and it would be a very ugly country without it, but how can this distinction exist? I would phrase what I'm seeing like this: "You are permitted to exercise any of your freedoms, as stated by the Constitution, as long as you are exercising them conjointly with any right granted under the Bill of Rights. This permission is forfeit when you are in a situation that is no longer protected by this Bill. In these circumstances, you no longer have equal freedoms as would be granted under those rights." That's what that looks like to me. I'm not really an expert on what's considered harassment, because I've always thought that "feeling harassed" was very subjective... I mean, I don't know if the aforementioned black officer could or would sue said KKK member on a personal level and potentially win such a lawsuit, or if such a lawsuit would fail because he's exercising his Right to Assembly. This appears to be a double standard to me. And I know that's why we have courts to make such decisions. But that's where I see that aspect at. It's very gray. And harassment, I believe, is considered an abuse of the Freedom of Speech.

Clearly some ad campaigns believe that it would be seen this way as well, which is why they do put disclaimers on certain commercials in tiny print. Hence the reason Fiat felt the need to clarify that Godzilla didn't actually regurgitate one of their cars. Always the little disclaimers they put on their ads to protect themselves from lawsuits. Nevermind that there is litigation to protect certain parties from slander as well, another abuse of speech. While we are free to say what we will, there are, in fact, lawsuits that say otherwise.

Now, I do not see any clear difference between freedom and rights. The Declaration of Independence itself states that we have the "unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". (Side note: Originally that last phrase was "land" but they realized they couldn't guarantee land to everyone and changed it.) These rights were stated in the DoI as being what we now call our "god-given" rights, to paraphrase. So liberty, freedom, according to the U.S. ideology is in itself a right. That is to say all freedoms are rights without any supporting evidence to state whether or not the converse would be considered true, due to the lack of a contradiction within the DoI itself to say otherwise, I'm going to assume it is. Therefore, to use them in terms of what they mean to the U.S., I will not make a distinction because according to one of the rubric documents of our country, there isn't one. And as for myself, I do not believe there to be a distinction either.

I don't think people should be put in prison for having an opinion either. I know some countries don't agree, and those countries I don't agree with either. But I don't think we should be abusing any of our freedoms to harm others and use the word "freedom" as an excuse to do what we want. That's where I'm pretty much going with that, which is, what I said, what most people on this thread seem to be able to agree on.

[Roknrol]

Re: Freedom:What does it really mean?

I can't answer, honestly I'm certainly no lawyer, and only follow this stuff as a hobby.

As far as the KKK ralley goes, I have a suspicion...mostly because I used to live next door to Idaho, and they used to have ralleys all the friggen time. The majority of how those ralleys were dealt with (by the public and public servants) was done deliberately. IE, I wouldn't be surprised if that black cop asked for that post, because he wanted to show all of the honkeys how much better he was at the whole "human being thing". As long as they don't physically touch him, there's not much that he can do (I've heard rumor that public servants are not allowed to be offended, but I've also heard that's false, so YMMV), but I can promise you that the first person that lays a hand on him would be put down in a hurry. And I imagine he was looking forward to it.

But that's the thing -distasteful speech is still Free. Being rude isn't a crime any more than being stupid is.

We already have our Freedoms, we had them the instant we were born into the world. The Freedom to live and die as we choose. We accept, as a course of growing up, that we will play by societal rules, whatever they may be (including the Laws of the Land). Our Founders were big believers in breaking "stupid" laws, just to prove a point (tea party, anyone?)

I dunno...I guess I'm not seeing a conflict there...I don't think I've ever heard speech that should be banned, really. Like I said, rude is one thing - rude can be responded to in kind (nothing like putting a douchbag down when he's outta line)...and if he/she responds with force, then you've firmly planted yourself into the "legally right" position of pressing charges.

This reminds me...

Dead Like Me - Freedom of Speech

[thalassa]

Re: Freedom:What does it really mean?

Reasons why "people" are too dumb for "freedom":

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mrloganrhoades/38-yahoo-questions-that-will-destroy-your-faith-in-humanity?bffb

http://themetapicture.com/whenever-you-feel-dumb-just-remember/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnsZzH-Bhfw

http://www.rinkworks.com/said/stupidity.shtml

http://www.stupid-people.net/

...and, even by their own words, often our founding father's seemingly agreed, when it came to voting.

John Adams:

It is certain in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the consent of the people. But to what an extent shall we carry this principle? Shall we say, that every individual of the community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must consent, expressly, to every act of legislation? No, you will say. This is impossible. How then does the right arise in the majority to govern the minority, against their will? Whence arises the right of the men to govern women, without their consent? Whence the right of the old to bind the young, without theirs?

But let us first suppose, that the whole community of every age, rank, sex, and condition, has a right to vote. This community, is assembled—a motion is made and carried by a majority of one voice. The minority will not agree to this. Whence arises the right of the majority to govern, and the obligation of the minority to obey? from necessity, you will say, because there can be no other rule. But why exclude women? You will say, because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience, in the great business of life, and the hardy enterprises of war, as well as the arduous cares of state. Besides, their attention is so much engaged with the necessary nurture of their children, that nature has made them fittest for domestic cares. And children have not judgment or will of their own. True. But will not these reasons apply to others? Is it not equally true, that men in general in every society, who are wholly destitute of property, are also too little acquainted with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own? If this is a fact, if you give to every man, who has no property, a vote, will you not make a fine encouraging provision for corruption by your fundamental law? Such is the frailty of the human heart, that very few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest…


I should think that wisdom and policy would dictate in these times, to be very cautious of making alterations. Our people have never been very rigid in scrutinizing into the qualifications of voters, and I presume they will not now begin to be so. But I would not advise them to make any alteration in the laws, at present, respecting the qualifications of voters.


Your idea, that those laws, which affect the lives and personal liberty of all, or which inflict corporal punishment, affect those, who are not qualified to vote, as well as those who are, is just. But, so they do women, as well as men, children as well as adults. What reason should there be, for excluding a man of twenty years, Eleven months and twenty-seven days old, from a vote when you admit one, who is twenty one? The reason is, you must fix upon some period in life, when the understanding and will of men in general is fit to be trusted by the public. Will not the same reason justify the state in fixing upon some certain quantity of property, as a qualification.


The same reasoning, which will induce you to admit all men, who have no property, to vote, with those who have, for those laws, which affect the person will prove that you ought to admit women and children: for generally speaking, women and children, have as good judgment, and as independent minds as those men who are wholly destitute of property: these last being to all intents and purposes as much dependent upon others, who will please to feed, clothe, and employ them, as women are upon their husbands, or children on their parents…


Society can be governed only by general rules. Government cannot accommodate itself to every particular case, as it happens, nor to the circumstances of particular persons. It must establish general, comprehensive regulations for cases and persons. The only question is, which general rule, will accommodate most cases and most persons.
Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks, to one common level.

Alexander Hamilton (quoting Sir William Blackstone):

"If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other."

James Madison:

Viewing the subject in its merits alone, the freeholders [that is, landowners] of the country would be the safest depositories of republican liberty. In future times the great majority of the people will not only be without landed, but any other sort of property. These will either combine under the influence of their common situation, in which case the rights of property and the public liberty will not be secure in their hands; or, which is more probable, they will become the tools of opulence and ambition, in which case there will be equal danger on another side.

Theophilius Parsons

The first important branch that comes under our consideration, is the legislative body. Was the number of the people so small, that the whole could meet together without inconvenience, the opinion of the majority would be more easily known. But, besides the inconvenience of assembling such numbers, no great advantages could follow. Sixty thousand people could not discuss with candor, and determine with deliberation. Tumults, riots, and murder would be the result. But the impracticability of forming such an assembly, renders it needless to make any further observations. The opinions and consent of the majority must be collected from persons, delegated by every freeman of the state for that purpose. Every freeman, who hath sufficient discretion, should have a voice in the election of his legislators. To speak with precision, in every free state where the power of legislation is lodged in the hands of one or more bodies of representatives elected for that purpose, the person of every member of the state, and all the property in it, ought to be represented, because they are objects of legislation. All the members of the state are qualified to make the election, unless they have not sufficient discretion, or are so situated as to have no wills of their own. Persons not twenty-one years old are deemed of the former class, from their want of years and experience. The municipal law of this country will not trust them with the disposition of their lands, and consigns them to the care of their parents or guardians. Women what age soever they are of, are also considered as not having a sufficient acquired discretion; not from a deficiency in their mental powers, but from the natural tenderness and delicacy of their minds, their retired mode of life, and various domestic duties. These concurring, prevent that promiscuous intercourse with the world, which is necessary to qualify them for electors. Slaves are of the latter class and have no wills. But are slaves members of a free government? We feel the absurdity, and would to God, the situation of America and the tempers of its inhabitants were such, that the slave-holder could not be found in the land.

I only point this out because I think that WWOFFD? (what would our founding fathers do) to be a pretty poor reason to absolve or endorse or condemn anything. They were just men. Flawed, biased, hypocritical men. No different than you or I...except that I wouldn't have been about to vote, since I have a vagina.