How do you define Liberty?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 28, 2005, 1:54 pm

How do you define freedom. Left and Right leaning people argue from the basis of maintianing one's liberty.

How do you personally determine what is a liberty?

Personally I determine liberty from what God laid out in the bible, but where do you guys look?

I have heard in the past the idea that one determines liberty from the statement "do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt another".

Do you guys have other ways of baselining your determination of what a person should be free to do?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 28, 2005, 2:18 pm

Internet porn.

miir · Post by **miir** » September 28, 2005, 2:40 pm

Animale · Post by **Animale** » September 28, 2005, 2:58 pm

So what kind of "liberty" is outlined in your interpretation of the Bible Adex? Just wondering.

Animale

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » September 28, 2005, 3:28 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Personally I determine liberty from what God laid out in the bible, but where do you guys look?

Just a quick aside...

You do realise that God would be most likely unable to write an actual book by his own right?

The book itself was most likely written by human being like you or I. Now they may have been influenced in their writings by God, that is a very real possibility, however their writings were as well most likely influenced by the social and political climate of the time.

I'm pretty positive their definition of freedom was drastically different than that we perceive it to be.

Personally, I base my freedoms on what I view to be right or wrong within the measure of the laws set forth in the country I live.

Luckily, I don't feel like I've been denied anything that I wanted to do yet.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » September 28, 2005, 3:31 pm

Animalor wrote: Luckily, I don't feel like I've been denied anything that I wanted to do yet.

i have, i'd like the liberty to spend all the money that i earn. fuck income tax.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 28, 2005, 3:41 pm

Truthfully the Bible doesn't say a lot about Liberty as we would define it today because the idea really didn't exist at the time. Liberty is mentioned a number of times but it is more of an ability to choose than a right.

One of Webster's definitions is "the power of choice" and I think that would sum it up for me. Liberty is the power to choose what is right or wrong for you as an individual.

If you were all alone you could literally do whatever you wanted. However in a society / civilization we have to limit some of that Liberty in order to have a society that functions at all. Thus we have laws.

From a Biblical standpoint Jesus gave 2 real commandments in the Gospels. 1. Love God with all your heart 2. Love your neighbor. When asked by someone in the crowd if Loving your neighbor was more important that all the sacrafices and burnt offerings Jesus said that surely he was close to the Kingdom of God. Heh, unlike so many of our Church leaders today, this man 2000 years ago, got it.

People say the Bible isn't relevant but if you read it yourself and don't let the biggots and hate mongers influence your thoughts God will show you the peace, forgiveness, love and revelance it has on our situations right here, right now.

Think if everyone went out of their way to take care of everyone else, not tell them what to do and take away their liberty but opened themselves to take care of those around them in need. We wouldn't have any problems.

Since the Resurrection I believe the Old Testament has little relevance except that it can help us understand, through stories, how we might deal with certian situations. I read a post on another board where a bunch of people are trying to bring back Levitical Law (yes, Christians wanting to be the Talaban), they just don't get it. Jesus is the law, his teachings surpass the levitical law and the resurrection changed forever the relationship between God and Man.

So how does this tie into Liberty? Because it is Liberty from a spiritual nature that tells us how we should interact with others. We should take care of them and respect them. We should be open to them as brothers and to do that we must allow each to his own. Those that wish to know more will be shown the light.

To me this means I'm responsible for my family and I should do what I can to demonstrate that to those around me and help all I can. I believe that is also means I'm not to judge, condem or harm others if there behavior effects no one but themselves. It's not my place to cast the first stone.

As I said, my beliefs tell me this is the way to act and I should live my life based upon those principles. However when we look back at a society or large population, everyone is not going to believe that way. America was founded by groups of people seeking religious and educations freedom. They wanted to worship as they choose and explore new ideas without hinderence from a Church governed body telling them what was acceptable to believe and what wasn't.

To that end, our great Nation was founded and in my opinion should continue. We have become, IMO, the Greatest Nation in the World not because we legislated morality, although that was tried a few times, but because we were open to new ideas and respected, in general at least, the ability of the individual to make their own way, their own path and think outside the box.

From a philosophical standpoint, only through allowing someone to come to a desicion on their own is it truly their own decision. Sure we can argue down is any decision "truly" our own but that is another discussion. For this one lets assume they can.

I believe it is our moral duity to give them that Liberty and chance, good or bad. Through those choice some will make good ones, in terms of both society and religion and others will not. In regards to Religion that is ultamately between them and God. In regards to society that is between them and the state (their peers). While these two thing play upon each other and in many ways are interdependant, we must strive to keep them separate in order to assue true Liberty is achieved. I will act in relation to what I believe and so should they. We are both doing what is correct in regards to socity as long as neither of us acts in a way which will take away those right or choice from the other.

Marb

nobody · Post by **nobody** » September 28, 2005, 3:47 pm

good post marb,

there's a saying that goes something like: "a society can only progress at the rate at which it's members can get along with each other."

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 28, 2005, 4:36 pm

Marbus wrote:Truthfully the Bible doesn't say a lot about Liberty as we would define it today because the idea really didn't exist at the time. Liberty is mentioned a number of times but it is more of an ability to choose than a right.

If God was all knowing, he'd have been able to see a few thousand years into the future and integrate words into the bible that made sense to any generation. This supports the single nut job theory for Jesus/God. Even Nostradamus could foresee the future better than this Jesus/God.

The Bible was a mass controlling device written specifically for its era. A cult would be better served to pick up the writings of some recent whacko who better relates to modern issues to increase flockage and donations. Christianity must use the same campaign managers the democrats have been stuck with recently.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » September 28, 2005, 5:14 pm

The Constitution lays things out pretty well

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 28, 2005, 5:28 pm

I'm not sure how us, humans, not having an idea or conceptual understanding at a certian point in time lesses or discredits the Almighty.

It's our lack of understanding that is the problem here. If God is going to give us "liberty" or a choice in the matter then we have to have the ability to choose and learn. Take for instance the Isrealites after the exodus from Egypt. They are walking around in the desert, most of them ignorant slaves with little understanding of anything but curosity. Like a child you can't explain the details concepts of microbology, genetics nor evolution, they just won't get it. So... just like a child you give them the information in a way they can understand it... let's see now... how about the days of the week, calendar, most of them get that... that will work.

The limitation there was not God but man, a by product of God giving us a choice. Today we know that it took millions of years for us to develop into humans. In fact, IMHO the whole story of God making Adam from the dirt into man is a pretty darn good analogy once you understand the time needed. Of course you still have some ultra fundies that try to add up all the time in the Bible then say the Earth is only like 6000 years old... nevermind the fact that the Bible states that God is outside of time as we understand it, they heard a good line from their minister once and are stickin' too it! Is it God's fault they are ignorant? No... once again, God gives us the ability to learn and to make choices, some of those choices by humans are bad, even when they are in relation to beliefs about Him.

Marb

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 28, 2005, 5:32 pm

God... you are FIRED!

Spang · Post by **Spang** » September 28, 2005, 5:57 pm

i just wanna quote the character Ruffus from the movie Dogma.

"He still digs humanity, but it bothers him to see the shit that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, but especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it...I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should be malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant...A belief's a dangerous thing...People die for it. People kill for it.
"

carry on!

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 28, 2005, 6:21 pm

Heh, good quote Spang!

Many Christians feel that Dogma is sacreligious, I however think it makes a number of VERY good points. Sure some of the stuff obviously goes against Dogma but that's the whole point right?

As the quote alludes to, if you don't open your mind to new ideas, you will never grow.

Marb

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 28, 2005, 10:34 pm

I think it is well established here what you guys think of God and the bible. Such strong opinons are on every other post.

What I'm more interested in is your personal method for determing right and wrong.

If the supreme court makes a ruling, on what basis do you decide if the ruling is fair?

What basis do you build from when determining what life is worth?

Most of us agree that spousal assault is wrong and someone shouldn't be free to pursue it.
Most of us think adultery is wrong, but a person should be free to pursue it.

What is your personal mechanism that lets you say Adultery is okay, and hitting on your spouse is not okay?

I hate to use a specific example because I'm more interested in your personal determination rather than your judgement of the example.

What is your process for weighing freedom vs. restriction?

Can you frame it? Or do you just go by the situation that suits you best for the moment?

What do you stand on when looking at life?

Lisandre · Post by **Lisandre** » September 28, 2005, 10:45 pm

Generally, I go by the Golden Rule.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » September 28, 2005, 11:01 pm

My view on personal freedom is this:

If what you are doing does not harm others in any measurable way and does not permanently harm yourself, you should be free to do it. The moment your actions start having real consequences to others well being or inflict irreperable harm to yourself (thereby causing grief for those who care about you) you are crossing the line.

That said, being disgusted by fudge packers being married because you think it pisses some immaginary boogeyman off does not constitute measurable harm to you. Some asshole shouting "I love the cock" at the top of their lungs near your backyard disturbs your peace (not to mention being inappropriate for small children to listen to) and would be crossing the line of personal freedom. You don't need an antique morality manual to tell you this, just common sense.

The real question you should always ask yourself when attempting to restrict someone's personal liberties is: "Am I doing this because I am bothered, personally, by this person's choice of actions or because I am trying to prevent them (or others) from comming to harm?" Forcing ones moral values on people who do not share them is the single greatest source of conflict on the entire fucking planet, and it needs to stop.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 28, 2005, 11:41 pm

Liberty is the ability to debate the meaning of it, without being shot, imprisoned, or inquisitioned.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 29, 2005, 12:26 am

Adex_Xeda wrote: Most of us think adultery is wrong, but a person should be free to pursue it.

What is your personal mechanism that lets you say Adultery is okay, and hitting on your spouse is not okay?

I guess most would think adultery is wrong but I'm not one of them. If a married couple are swingers, so be it.

Marriage is forcing two people to have sex only with each other? That's so outdated. Sex should only be governed by the simple law of "consenting adults." If your spouse wants to line up your neighbors and have sex with all of them, they can. If that causes you to want a divorce, so be it but it shouldn't be treated any differently than if your spouse was a crackhead, ignored you and played EQ all day, or simply, the two married individuals aren't compatible or in love anymore.

The only difference in married couples is regarding children. If your spouse goes out and knocks up the neighborhood or gets pregnant from someone other than yourself, it's not your responsibility. In this case, liberty is the right to have sex with anyone that can consent, not to get pregnant by anyone while married. Marriage should be a license to have children and protect the children during the marriage and after a separation, not a license to fuck. Among same sex partners, marriage (civil unions) are there to protect the assets of the legally bound couple. That's it.

Jice had some good words. Religious people need to keep their noses out of other people's private lives if it doesn't affect them. How does a guy banging another guy in the ass in private remotely affect you? (remember the consenting adults theme here) The key word is private. An example of something affecting you is someone doing drugs in public and directly affecting your life due to the impact of those drugs.

Fucking a sheep is a tough call. For religious types, contrary to belief, all of Gods creatures probably aren't equal so the lessor ones can be taken advantage of...but that sheep should probably be treated on the same level as a retarded human that can't consent in terms of sexual practices. Might need a poll for a majority vote on this one.

Liberty in America originated directly from the desire to prevent religious nut jobs from imposing excessive restrictions on human activities.

For a large governed society to exist, there must be a basic set of laws. The most important one is tolerance for private practices. There also must be a way for the laws to change if desired by the majority of the people. (example, if the majority decided that public urinating was ok, then so be it)

The number one problem I have with christianity (and other cults) is their inability to grasp the idea of tolerance.

Tolerance in this case meaning:

-Willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others

-A permissible difference; allowing some freedom to move within limits

If you don't agree that two men should be able to have sex, more power to you. Preach on brother...in a forum like this where people may choose to participate or not. You may even convince some to adopt your set of morals. What I don't want to see, is some religious person in a public area where I must be to conduct public business or government business, preaching. That goes for atheists and the rest of the bunch as well.

Liberty:
The ability to do what you want as long as it doesn't harm others mentally or physically, and doesn't harm or exploit someone under your protection or unable to consent. (children, mentally disabled, elderly, etc)

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 29, 2005, 2:25 am

so you define liberty by what some dude 3000 years ago commands you to define it by?

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » September 29, 2005, 2:50 am

I like Winnow's definition, as its pretty close to the way I would define it.

When you go back to Adex's scenario, one thing I see there as well, is the ability for the wronged party to defend themself. Typically when you have an abusive spouse, they physically and/or psychologically dominate their victim, who is in essence unable to or finds it extremely difficult to defend themself. With an adulterous spouse, there may be psychological trauma but its less incapacitating: your wife may be hurt and leave you but she is still able to defend herself from repeated behaviour on your part.

I realize you didn't want to key on specifics but in casting moral or ethical judgements, I do think the ability of a victim (if there is one) to defend themself is a key determining factor in how a lot of us view the severity of the event. Some of it is defining a victim or wronged party.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » September 29, 2005, 3:01 am

Men have liberty to do anything they please so long as it does not violate the rights of men as derived from rationality and enacted by the consent of the majority in a hypothetical social contract situation, or by the compromise of the community in a hypothetical veil of ignorance situation.

There are no such things as natural rights, there is only natural liberty. Without a system of governance, nothing prevents men from exercising liberty of action in whatever manner they see most fit for securing their ends.

To understand the obligations created by rights and freedoms granted by liberty in a community of men who do live under a system of governance, the appropriate thing to do is to go through a mental process in which all members of the community would agree to enshrine certain principles or values, as derived from reason in a hypothetical situation.

The principles of American society (the relevant society for my conception of liberty, as I live here) seem to be largely based upon the version of natural law posited by John Locke: That all men are free and equal, and none ought harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions. The declaration of independence offers the more ambiguous phrase 'certain inalienable rights' and specifies life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as examples.

Thus, American liberty (and the conception of liberty in most of the western-style democracies) permits the individual to act in any way he sees fit so long as he protects the rights to life, liberty, health and possessions in the manner hypothetically agreed upon by his community.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 29, 2005, 3:39 am

Sueven said what I said but in a college research paper type way and without mentioning sheep.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 29, 2005, 11:32 am

I curious how many people took ethics in College? I've personally always found Kohlberg's stages of Moral development quite interesting and based upon my experience, very accurate.

What I've noticed is that people will move up or down from time to time but generally stay at one level. I've also found that most, not all mind you, liberals are higher on the scale than conservatives, perhaps only because they have actually thought about it but who knows... in fact some who argue against the theory say most people don't think they just act. I actually agree with those people in so far as most people don't think and are thus act in the lowest level of moral judgement. Placed in the right situation, we all might...

Looking around for a link I found that Wilk had a good one, check it out for more information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's ... evelopment

Marb

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » September 29, 2005, 12:09 pm

Winnow wrote: Liberty:
The ability to do what you want as long as it doesn't harm others mentally or physically, and doesn't harm or exploit someone under your protection or unable to consent. (children, mentally disabled, elderly, etc)

I think you need to add "potentially harm" to your statement and the words "anothers possessions or peace"

Under your definition it would be ok to participate in potentially harmful behaviour, drinking and driving, speeding etc as long as you were lucky enough to avoid an accident.

Your definition is too loose in several aspects.

Jice Virago wrote: The real question you should always ask yourself when attempting to restrict someone's personal liberties is: "Am I doing this because I am bothered, personally, by this person's choice of actions or because I am trying to prevent them (or others) from comming to harm?" Forcing ones moral values on people who do not share them is the single greatest source of conflict on the entire fucking planet, and it needs to stop.

I wonder how one "forces" moral values on another?

Once again a far too vague statement. I think you will agree that morals are as different from one person as they are to the next. Having said that it is societies obligation to set forth laws that dictate acceptable behaviour based upon the majority consensus. Some of these laws are obviously restrictive but in my opinion they need to be.

Canada and the USA as a couple of examples are a great balance between personal liberties and laws meant to benefit society.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » September 29, 2005, 12:25 pm

Atokal wrote:Canada and the USA as a couple of examples are a great balance between personal liberties and laws meant to benefit society.

ie. pedophilia, child pron (toker pron) vs normal pron (bubba pron)

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » September 29, 2005, 1:34 pm

Atokal:

An Example of forcing ones values on another would be the entire abortion debate. The whole Intelligent Design debacle is another good one, for that matter. An example not involving religion would be flag burning bans. Anti sodomy laws (not really specific to religion, there are plenty of Atheist homophobes and there are heteros who are into ass fucking) in the south are another excellent example of a law that tries to impose one set of moral values on people who do not nessecarily share them.

Ethics should be legislated, morals should not.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 29, 2005, 2:28 pm

nobody wrote:
Winnow wrote:Canada and the USA as a couple of examples are a great balance between personal liberties and laws meant to benefit society.
ie. pedophilia, child pron (toker pron) vs normal pron (bubba pron)

I didn't write that! That comes from Atokal's post.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » September 29, 2005, 6:03 pm

Sirensa · Post by **Sirensa** » September 29, 2005, 6:04 pm

Sueven wrote:Men have liberty to do anything they please so long as it does not violate the rights of men as derived from rationality and enacted by the consent of the majority in a hypothetical social contract situation, or by the compromise of the community in a hypothetical veil of ignorance situation.

But what about women?

At least try to be PC when discussing "liberty".

I would say liberty is any right guaranteed by the constitution or any state or federal stature. Liberty is, after all, controlled by the government. While technically you're free to do as you please, you'll also have to deal with consequences, if they exist.

Personally, I think looking to the Bible or any other religious paraphenalia to determine your "liberty" or "freedom" or "rights" is bullshit. The Bible doesn't guarantee you anything but a system of beliefs - that you can choose to adopt or forsake.

Kylere wrote:Liberty is the ability to debate the meaning of it, without being shot, imprisoned, or inquisitioned.

Nah, that's just free speech - which of course has limits.

Adex_Xeda wrote:What I'm more interested in is your personal method for determing right and wrong.

That isn't liberty or freedom, that's morals and personal ethics. This thread is mixing issues. Ethics and morals are generally not the ceiling (or floor) of what is legal behavior.

Adex_Xeda wrote:If the supreme court makes a ruling, on what basis do you decide if the ruling is fair?

Personally, I read the case and then decide whether the argument for the particular ruling makes sense. Usually the issue before a Court is fairly small and often fact-specific. The Court doesn't like to decide things generally. If the Court's logical convinces me, I agree with them. If not, then I don't. Sometimes, if I am unsure, I'll read the briefs (additional materials) submitted to the Court for argument to get a greater understanding of the picture.

Note: I'm in law school atm, so this is a disclaimer that my views may be skewed by logic and and overdoes of case readings.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 29, 2005, 7:43 pm

Ahh yes Sirensa, but without free speech there can be no liberty!

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » September 29, 2005, 8:28 pm

Sirensa wrote:But what about women? At least try to be PC when discussing "liberty".

In my usage, 'man' in this context simply means 'the set of living organisms which possesses political rights.' It is an intentionally vague term, as it can encompass older conceptions (white male christians) and newer conceptions (male and female humans). I'm sure that you are smart enough that you understood that in the first place. I have no reason to be PC, I have reason to communicate clearly, and anyone who could sort through the logic of what I said can certainly infer multiple definitions of the word 'man.'

All that you are doing by defining liberty based on laws and constitutions is abstracting the issue to another level. I assume that you have some sort of social contract / mutual consent view of government, which means that ultimately, men* are responsible for the creation of those laws and constitutions in some sense. Thus, if you are to term 'liberty' as something rooted in law and constitutionality, you must discuss the legitimate sources of laws and constitutions if your definition is to be meaningful.

* IN THE BROAD SENSE OF THE TERM

Kylere wrote:Ahh yes Sirensa, but without free speech there can be no liberty!

That may be, but that does not make 'free speech' an adequate definition of liberty or a sufficient condition for liberty.

Marbus: I've taken a few ethics courses, but never read Kohlberg.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 29, 2005, 8:49 pm

An adequate definition of sugar in real world terms is sweet

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » September 30, 2005, 11:12 am

Sirensa wrote:
Sueven wrote:Men have liberty to do anything they please so long as it does not violate the rights of men as derived from rationality and enacted by the consent of the majority in a hypothetical social contract situation, or by the compromise of the community in a hypothetical veil of ignorance situation.
But what about women? At least try to be PC when discussing "liberty".

I hope to Christ in a fucking hand cart you're joking

Sirensa · Post by **Sirensa** » September 30, 2005, 12:20 pm

Zaelath wrote:
Sirensa wrote:
Sueven wrote:Men have liberty to do anything they please so long as it does not violate the rights of men as derived from rationality and enacted by the consent of the majority in a hypothetical social contract situation, or by the compromise of the community in a hypothetical veil of ignorance situation.
But what about women? At least try to be PC when discussing "liberty".
I hope to Christ in a fucking hand cart you're joking

Do you fuckers not see the wink?! That was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. HENCE THE WINK.

Notice Sueven left that part out of his mis-quote... before rattling off his spew.

Sueven wrote:Thus, if you are to term 'liberty' as something rooted in law and constitutionality, you must discuss the legitimate sources of laws and constitutions if your definition is to be meaningful.

Not really, because my definition of liberty IS how liberty is defined in this country. I don't need to justify or explain it for it to be meaningful. It just is. My point was merely that no matter how "you" personally define liberty, your definition is irrelevant. I define liberty as controlled by the government. Morals and ethics, a completely different subject, I might explain otherwise.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 30, 2005, 2:40 pm

Both ethics and morality define right and wrong.

Ethics define one's personal character.

Morals define the customs of an interactive group.

What I do can violate my character, or it can violate a groups' customs.

Both can be used when defining law, but I suggest that morals have a greater significance on determining law.

So far I haven't heard anything outside of my original proposition, that of
"Do whatever as long as you don't harm others."

I would say biblical stance goes beyond this, It urges one to build up your neighbor, to take the initiative to help your neighbor out and support them. A tall order I grant you, but a distinguishing difference.

So far we've defined two systems, right and wrong defined by God, and right and wrong defined by people.

Do any of you subscribe to something different? If so, talk about it.

Do any of you determine right and wrong from something outside of yourself or your understanding of a higher power?

If yes, how does your 3rd system approach freedom vs restriction for a person under law?

Tuddi2 · Post by **Tuddi2** » September 30, 2005, 3:08 pm

nobody wrote:good post marb,

there's a saying that goes something like: "a society can only progress at the rate at which it's members can get along with each other."

so when will the u.s. progress ?

nobody · Post by **nobody** » September 30, 2005, 3:24 pm

i don't think the US is progressing. people are so selfish and prideful here from the very richest right down to the very poorest. there are plenty of nice people around but they are becoming fewer. it has become damn near impossible for someone to turn on their blinker and merge on the freeway, we live in constant fear of lawsuits, and we have politicians who care more about their own pocketbook than what is good for america. how can our government expect us to get along if they can't even work together. i think the US will progress when people take more personal responisbility and decide to give more without expecting anything in return.

VeeshanVault

How do you define Liberty?

How do you define Liberty?

Re: How do you define Liberty?

Re: How do you define Liberty?