What is LIBERTY?

[B. de Corbin]

I've been very interested in this "Goddess of Liberty" thing since Thalassa brought it up a while ago. I've been thinking of some sort of jewelry I could make that would promote the idea of liberty. While researching pictures for inspiration, I ran across this pretty inflammatory diatribe about the "blasphemy" of liberty:

http://www.christorchaos.com/TheGodd...sBlasphemy.htm

While that whole thing is too crazy to actually take seriously, it got me thinking about the different takes that people might have on the idea of liberty, and the place it takes in a civil society.

So- what does "liberty" mean to you, and how can we realistically integrate it into a country which needs to be governed by rule of law?

[DanieMarie]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

I think it's hard to say. On one hand a lot of people (especially Americans) interpret it in terms of personal freedoms, but those often come at the expense of collective good and collective freedoms. I feel like liberty is best exemplified in a fair system....not necessarily one without rules and regulations, but one that gives a fair amount of opportunity to people (therefore I feel like public healthcare, strong education and social welfare are drivers of my concept of liberty, as they help people achieve more economic mobility).

[thalassa]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

IMO:

Liberty is a period of time, generally no more than 48 hours unless approved by the commanding officer of a naval---

--oh, wrong liberty.

Lets try this again...

IMO:

Liberty is the ability of an individual person to determine the overall path of their life and to express their beliefs by virtue of free choice, without the arbitrary or despotic interference of government, other establishments, or individuals. It does not entitle one to do whatever they want, nor does it absolve an individual of their social responsibilities. As such, it is a bit of a tightrope to walk...

[Ophidia]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

Well, for one, liberal doesn't equal liberty, like the article writer seems to think. Liberal, as in 'liberal left-wingers' or 'liberal Democrats' means a push for liberal, as in plenty of, government involvement - things like welfare, health insurance, corporate policies, committees and oversight groups like the EPA, etc. Conservative is just the opposite - those folks feel the government should stay the heck out of people's business and business' business.

For me, as an American, I feel my liberty is what the Bill of Rights and Constitution is all about. I am free to choose my own religion (I may have to fight for the choice, and some may argue with this, but there is no officially mandated religion that we are all forced to be part of), I don't have to worry about having military personnel quartered in my home or having regulators come into my home and take my stuff (unless I've obtained said stuff through illegal means). I can bear arms or arm bears. I can vote and I can talk smack about the people I voted or didn't vote for without having to worry about my ass landing in jail. For the most part, no one mandates what I do on a daily basis.

I don't even think I have any 'social responsibilities'. I'm not required to provide community service or donate my time, money or energy to any public endeavors. That may very well be part of America's problem - we have liberty so we don't have to care about our neighbors, we're just not supposed to inconvenience them beyond a certain level. Like, I can have an ugly, weed-filled front yard and park 15 cars in and around my house (hooray for liberty from an HOA!), but I can't annex my neighbors' back yards. But if my neighbor gets sick and can't pay their bills, it's not my problem. Yes, I do have to pay into taxes, but if I felt like devoting a lot more money and time to it, I could probably find a way not to. I could even quit my job and leech off the system if I wanted. Just like anyone else in the US. We have the liberty to be our own people, and the liberty to not care about anyone else.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

I think it's hard to say. On one hand a lot of people (especially Americans) interpret it in terms of personal freedoms, but those often come at the expense of collective good and collective freedoms.

LOL - that's true, at least in the case of THIS American. Let me explain why this is -

A. "Collective good" is good which applies to an artificial entity - "the People." I call "the People" an artificial entity because it is not a real entity, it is one we create so that we can talk about averages, rather than individuals.

B. An "average" is made up of total scores for individuals, divided by the total number of individuals.

C. If you lower the scores for individuals (individuals really do exist. They are you and me) - in this case, by reducing their total freedom, you also lower the collective average of "the people." This is an inevitable result of the mathematical calculation of an "average."

Therefore - it is always an error to deal with the "collective good of the people" without regarding them as individuals, each with their own particular life.



Now, there ARE times when it is worthwhile to think of the collective good - these cases occur when the benefit to many people is great (notice that individuals still come first here). An example would be laws against murder. These laws take away a right from a small group of people, and provides a big benefit to the rest (and even to the people who have lost the right to kill), so the equation balances.

In cases where there is a small (or even non-existant) loss of freedom to many people, but a great benefit to a smaller number, you get issues that are controversal - like gay marrage.

However, when there is a large loss of freedom to many people, and the benefits go to very few (i.e.: a minority group within the larger group is able to force their will on the majority), you get a condition called "exploitation." And, hopefully, shortly afterwards, a condition called "rebellion." These conditions can be created by bad governments, but they can also be produced by special interest groups, if those groups become powerful enough.

[Denarius]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

Liberty is being one's own highest authority, especially in a societal context.

In a governmental context, liberty means giving the population the responsibility of making their own decisions. Especially ones that pertain to, and effect, themselves. For better or worse, with limited restriction.

[thalassa]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

I don't even think I have any 'social responsibilities'.

Maybe I should explain what I mean by social responsibilities (at least in our society)...

Which (I might add) are entirely voluntary to keep, or not...though there are sometimes penalties for people that don't follow them, either legal or not. Examples include paying taxes (which *probably* means having a job), voting, jury duty, registering for selective service (whether you want to or not, if you qualify), etc...but there are also social responsibilities for individuals which have a moral or professional imperative (for example, an off-duty first responder at an accident scene) or a societal expectation (a parent to rescue their child in distress). When people *don't* manage to fulfill these responsibilities voluntarily, they get codified--scooping the poop is not just the hallmark of a responsible pet owner, its generally also a community ordinance.

Liberty (by virtue of free choice) allows you to make the choice of whether or not to fulfill those responsibilities, but it doesn't absolve you of any non-legal repercussions (if there is no law on the matter) should you fail to do so (as a more extreme example, when I was still in the military, several corpsman were charged with Article 134 for failing to render assistance off duty at an accident involving civilians off base, despite civilian law stating that they did *not* have a duty to act).

[B. de Corbin]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

^ in addition to that are any self imposed responsibilities (which also includes responsibilities created by membership in voluntary organizations, such as a religion), like working in a soup kitchen.

These are voluntary, though, and entirely up to the individual.

Liberty has to include the idea of free choices, freely made, I think.

[Monk]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

IMO:

Liberty is the ability of an individual person to determine the overall path of their life and to express their beliefs by virtue of free choice, without the arbitrary or despotic interference of government, other establishments, or individuals. It does not entitle one to do whatever they want, nor does it absolve an individual of their social responsibilities. As such, it is a bit of a tightrope to walk...

I agree with this and only add the inclusion of OUR(U.S.A.)second amendment rights. That being of course a "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Many people don't seem to understand such a simple sentence and all to often forget that "THE PEOPLE" didn't run down to there local armory to get these "ARMS" but instead reached up over their fireplace (or where ever they kept them) and went to face what ever conflict had/has arisen.
If someone does not like guns they have the liberty the move someplace that restricts their ownership.
Sorry if I got off topic, steps off soapbox and glares.

[DanieMarie]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

I don't really know how this fits in (I'm exhausted so I can't really sort it out at the moment), but I think there is a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE difference between 'rights' and 'privileges' as well, and these are not necessarily fixed (meaning, they are up to interpretation). What a culture deems these to be makes a huge difference. I think this comes into play somehow in this concept.

I'm just thinking about this because a few times I've heard Americans say things like 'you're not that free' when referring to places like Canada when talking about health care, but in Canada health care is considered a 'right' (whereas many Americans seem to see it more as a 'privilege') and the removal of that system would be seen as an infringement on the freedom to have equal access to health care.

Basically, liberty can mean different things to different cultures.

Sorry if that wasn't too coherent...kind of foggy!

[B. de Corbin]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

...in Canada health care is considered a 'right' (whereas many Americans seem to see it more as a 'privilege') and the removal of that system would be seen as an infringement on the freedom to have equal access to health care.

Foggy? No - you make perfect sense. There probably is a difference in the way "rights" and "privledges" are percieved in different cultures.

Obviously, I'm not speaking for all Americans, but this seems to be the way it generally works -

In the U.S., our "rights" are what are written into the Constitution. If it is in the Constitution, it had better be available, or else! - because it is our right.

Anything not in the Constitution is subject to the flow and flux of social conditions, as these are written into law, and as law changes to meet the needs of the times. These laws can be changed as circumstances require, as long as the changes are done in accordance with law, and do not violate the Constitution.

At present, there is nothing in the Constitution which guarantees health care, therefore, it is not a right (to Americans), but it can be a privilege, and a privilege can be written into law (as in driver's licensing laws). If there is ever a constitutional amendment that states that all Americans have a right to health care, then it will, as if by magic, become a right.

I don't know if health care is written into Canada's Constitution or not, or even if it matters to Canadians whether it is or not - that's for Canadians to decide. But Americans who think about these kinds of things like to see everything spelled out clearly on paper, because it's the only way we feel we can be sure we are getting from the government exactly what we are paying them to provide, and keep it (our employees, the government) from screwing us under the table.

This is why we (or, at least, those of us who are armed ) call gun ownership a right - it IS written into the Constitution - whereas somebody in a different country might call it a priveledge.

We're a bunch of amateur lawyers over here...

[Monk]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

As I see it a right is what gives you the liberty to choose whether to partake of something or not, such as gun ownership. And along with that right/liberty comes a great deal of responsibility. With out rights you do not have the liberty to choose but must abide but what others dictate to you.

[DanieMarie]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

That's very true (about gun ownership)...Canadians and Europeans feel that a gun is a tool to serve a purpose (hunting) and that it's only necessary to own one for that purpose. Since it's also dangerous, it's understandable to us that there are certain laws surrounding ownership, and that buying one involves background checks and that there are certain circumstances that would bar one from owning a gun (and we don't really want those people to have one).

I get "but a car can also be dangerous" as an argument sometimes when people don't understand the different way of thinking. Yes, it can be. And driving a car is subject to a LOT of rules. You have to go through training and an exam to be allowed to drive one, and if you have a DUI, or are not physically able to, or are too young or something like that, you are not allowed to drive a car. That's sort of how we see guns, and that combined with the fact that we see guns as tools for shooting deer (or quail or whatever) and not so much instruments of protection makes the view of gun ownership very different from the US.

But yeah, as you can see above, the idea of a 'right' vs a 'privilege' makes a huge difference as to what freedom to do something is in different cultures!

I think historical context also plays a strong role in what is and isn't an infringement on liberty. Germany also often comes under attack for freedom of speech. I think though that the anti-Nazi laws that govern this infringement on the freedom of speech we otherwise enjoy has a strong purpose though. People forget that the war wasn't -that- long ago, and while the rest of the world has it more safely in the past, because Germany was the one that instigated the horrors, it's kind of a bit more of an intense connection to it. And you can still see it here....especially in East Germany where the government didn't have the money to rebuild everything (and in Berlin there are also buildings left as monuments). It's more in your face. Also Germans are still fighting the 'Nazi' image and it's a very sensitive issue (just read this little gem from the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...er-Europe.html ...and yes, the Daily Mail isn't the most learned of publications but this is still an indicator of the attitudes many people still have...when I went to Greece I heard a lot of nasty things being said behind German tourists back, to other tourists!). There's a view that if we allowed Nazi publication that the rest of the world would probably throw a fit (and to be honest, despite what a lot of people say to the contrary abroad, I think they would).

[B. de Corbin]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

That's a pissy thing, DanieMarie - I'm sorry that some people do that kind of thing. I feel your pain, though. Being white and of European decent, living in America, I find that I am frequently blamed for slavery and killing Indians. And, the simple fact that I have a dangly between my legs seems to be enough for some peope to accuse me of oppressing women.

And I don't recall ever doing any of those things... nor did my parents, or grandparents (although my grandfather on my father's side may have done some oppressing of women. I never met him, but by all accounts, he wasn't a particularly nice man).

[Ophidia]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

Maybe I should explain what I mean by social responsibilities (at least in our society)...
snipped... voting... but there are also social responsibilities for individuals which have a moral or professional imperative (for example, an off-duty first responder at an accident scene) or a societal expectation (a parent to rescue their child in distress).

That's where you come into liberty meaning different things to different states, and even different counties/parishes, within the same country. There's also a factor of social responsibility meaning different things on an individual's level vs. local law makers'/law enforcers' level. In some places, off-duty medical or law enforcement personnel can get into hot water if they help out at an accident. People sue local & state governmental facilities over the weirdest things, and there are just as many regulations against being a good Samaritan as there are about not being a good Samaritan. 'Failure to render aid' isn't universal, just like performing 'citizens' arrests' can get you charged with 'kidnapping' and 'illegal detention', or even 'interference with a legal investigation'. As far as parents not helping their child in distress, well, if someone's kid lives with the other parent who is a drug addict, and the non-addict parent removes them from the home 'for their own good' without assistance from local law enforcement or Child Protective Services, they've just kidnapped their own child.

Voting's a privilege, just like driving. It may be a good thing to do, but it's perfectly legal to not vote. Personally, I think not voting should be illegal, even if it inconveniences me. Especially now that they have voting stations set up at almost every public place (at least here in Nevada) - schools, libraries, malls, large government buildings, etc., and there are even mail-in ballots, it's not as much of a hassle as it used to be.

...when I went to Greece I heard a lot of nasty things being said behind German tourists back, to other tourists!).

That's because German tourists are horrible. :O

(j/k... sort of... in that Wageslave of the Service-in-the-Hospitality-Industry way)