U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-19-2018, 07:16 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
3,361 posts, read 1,881,293 times
Reputation: 3168

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell View Post
As you said first the definition itself.
personal freedom
: freedom of the person in going and coming, equality before the courts, security of private property, freedom of opinion and its expression, and freedom of conscience subject to the rights of others and of the public (emphasis to further iterate free to decide for ourselves without government interference)
The M-W definition ultimately contradicts itself, or at least is arbitrary. A lot of the elements in that definition, if put into effect, cannot help but go against actual freedom. Having laws, courts, and securing private property inherently infringes on other's freedom to act against your own interests. In fact, subject to the rights of others itself corrupts the purity of freedom, for that implies others rights are at least sometimes more important than your freedom to act or express yourself. I don't care what the constitution says, restricting someone's freedom in the name of another person's interest, by definition, contradicts the meaning of freedom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell View Post
The Constitution does not grant us personal freedoms. Personal freedoms are inherent. They exist because we the people exist.

Constitutional Freedom
Constitutional freedom refers to those freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Such freedoms are granted by the Constitution to its citizens and they can enjoy it under the protection of the Constitution. The freedom guaranteed under the Constitution includes the aggregate of personal, civil, and political rights of individuals. These freedoms are secured against invasion by the government or any of its agencies. Freedom of religion, speech, and press as guaranteed by the first amendment and the due process clause of fourteenth amendment are certain basic freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to its citizens.

Our personal freedoms are protected by the Constitution which defines the responsibilities of the government. The Bill of Rights derived from the Constitution farther iterates our protections in respect to personal freedom.

Decent pay and workplace safety? Inherent or Granted by Constitutional Law.

A wage stamp by government means this is how much you are worth and is a price control on labor. Your value in the market place may be more, or less, but guaranteed in the open market is a federal mandate to your value. Hint, an employer does not have to pay a person any more than the federal mandate. (not inherent and falls under economic freedoms)

Workplace safety OSHA, does the government agency of the u.s. derive its powers from the Constitution or the people? Workplace safety effects commerce, consult commerce clause of the Constitution. (granted by constitution)

The right to vote? Inherent or Granted by Constitutional Law.

This is a conflict. Since the voters are extracted from the same social construct as the rulers. All people are sovereign (inherent) and the act of the vote gives the people power to rule in their very freedom ... freedom of conscience.
Every one of those rights you listed, a lot of people disagreed with in the past. Some even said back then "pay you what you're worth", regardless of whether it's a living wage or not. At any rate, "talk it out" usually benefits the established majoritarian ways of doing things, even when the majority is wrong despite what conventional and traditional values or attitudes say about the matter at hand. In short, "talk it out" works in favor of the "tyranny of the majority". Even the rest of your list below are examples of this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell View Post
imo the examples given are that of Constitutional (except for voting, could be either/or) freedoms; not that of personal freedoms.
True. Example the Bathroom Bill. Because people could not seemingly work that (sex) out on their own ... some one came along and made a federal case out of it. Which created a legal, confusion in public privacy.

In some cases liken that of lunch room meals in government schools. Rather than an adoption by the schools to provide their students with a more balance meal and that be the end of it. The higher authority in government became more involved and parents lost their right to send homemade lunches to school with their children. (consensus parents lack the knowledge in proper nutrition)

These are personal freedoms.

Mom gets called on by social services because she allowed her 8 year old daughter to walk their family dog near their home. (one example of many) Some thing that decades ago wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. Yet now, parents are calling on the lawmakers so as to regain/retain their freedom (Free Range Parenting law) ---

When we consistently involve the government in our personal problems, rather that work them out ourselves, we increase the power of the government and decrease (place a limit on) our personal freedoms.

Every time we involve the government it creates a need; from that need a new agency (CPS 1974) is created, which is then funded by our taxes to do what? Help raise our kids and reduce our parental rights, which are inherent, because we the people exist.
Bathrooms: redesign the bathrooms so that they are gender neutral. If necessary, have the state or federal government (as appropriate for who passes such a law) pick up the tab for redesign.

School Lunches: Where and how did the parent's lose that right? As far as I know, governments only supply kids who qualify for the school lunch program with extra nutritional options - not tell the parent's "No, you send your children *that*".

Social Services (CPS): there to protect the safety of children. Children can't "talk it out with their parents". Often even adult relatives who know about it have great difficulty convincing the negligent parent. Government has to step in to protect kids.

Those are two cases I can say it's appropriate to have government involvement on the side of the less powerful party - precisely because they lack the power to address the injustice.

 
Old 12-19-2018, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
7,991 posts, read 4,193,305 times
Reputation: 1287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230 View Post
The M-W definition ultimately contradicts itself, or at least is arbitrary. A lot of the elements in that definition, if put into effect, cannot help but go against actual freedom. Having laws, courts, and securing private property inherently infringes on other's freedom to act against your own interests. In fact, subject to the rights of others itself corrupts the purity of freedom, for that implies others rights are at least sometimes more important than your freedom to act or express yourself. I don't care what the constitution says, restricting someone's freedom in the name of another person's interest, by definition, contradicts the meaning of freedom.



Every one of those rights you listed, a lot of people disagreed with in the past. Some even said back then "pay you what you're worth", regardless of whether it's a living wage or not. At any rate, "talk it out" usually benefits the established majoritarian ways of doing things, even when the majority is wrong despite what conventional and traditional values or attitudes say about the matter at hand. In short, "talk it out" works in favor of the "tyranny of the majority". Even the rest of your list below are examples of this.



Bathrooms: redesign the bathrooms so that they are gender neutral. If necessary, have the state or federal government (as appropriate for who passes such a law) pick up the tab for redesign.

School Lunches: Where and how did the parent's lose that right? As far as I know, governments only supply kids who qualify for the school lunch program with extra nutritional options - not tell the parent's "No, you send your children *that*".

Social Services (CPS): there to protect the safety of children. Children can't "talk it out with their parents". Often even adult relatives who know about it have great difficulty convincing the negligent parent. Government has to step in to protect kids.

Those are two cases I can say it's appropriate to have government involvement on the side of the less powerful party - precisely because they lack the power to address the injustice.
Your argument loops back around and onto itself.
Quote:
In fact, subject to the rights of others itself corrupts the purity of freedom, for that implies others rights are at least sometimes more important than your freedom to act or express yourself.
here ...
Quote:
Those are two cases I can say it's appropriate to have government involvement on the side of the less powerful party - precisely because they lack the power to address the injustice.
As you advocate for less individual (personal) freedom of authority and more (tyranny of the majority) authority of the government to decide (in the aspect of our personal lives) what is right/wrong in child raising. It is the job of the parents to protect their children, not that of the government. Where does the government end and we the people begin?


First, in the definition of personal freedoms, who has the authority to state the fact, one in which we can all agree, as to what personal freedoms entail? Where as this is what it is, there is no debate; no cause for concern. I use to think that people knew this on their own and did not need some one to tell them. Now it seems ... no one knows for sure and it is subject to debate.

Second, the Constitution does not (give appropriate) limit ones personal freedoms, where by, power not delegated to the rule of law aka The Constitution, the people retain such power.

School lunches, Michelle Obama's signature program in nutritional foods for school kids, did not stop at the lunch room counter and the foods the schools prepare. It reached into the homes of those kids and to their parents, who often sent lunches with their children to school. The schools then decided to confiscate those lunches and the child was then made to eat, the foods prepared by the schools.

Social services CPS, often over step their boundaries, which has been an ongoing problem since the agency began in 1974. Often times rendering parents powerless to protect their children from others misguided sense of authority.

The bathroom bill reaches far beyond, redesign of bathrooms, in that it created legal chaos and is a waste of legislation time in an effort to decide for us, our behaviors. Men (and visa versa) should know without (a law) some one telling them, it is inappropriate to enter a woman's restroom. More gender appropriations are being created in an effort of our government to regulate ... sex. Which is an area we are more than capable of figuring out on our own, without having to associate legalities. However, here we are ...

Finally, what is the limit to personal freedoms? At this point in our society, where do personal freedoms even begin? Do our personal freedoms stop as we exit our home and are only granted while we reside in our home?

The Patriot Act, says, no. The Patriot Act, (enacted to keep citizens safe) gives power to our neighbors to snoop, peer into other's homes, leaving us finally with fewer to no legal boundaries from the tyranny of the majority.

When we consistently involve the government in our personal problems, rather that work them out ourselves, we increase (tyranny) the power of the government and decrease our (liberty) personal freedoms.


"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." ~ Ronald Reagan ~

Last edited by Ellis Bell; 12-19-2018 at 12:44 PM..
 
Old 12-19-2018, 05:40 PM
 
Location: State of Grace
1,542 posts, read 1,087,736 times
Reputation: 2530
IMO, the reason the government(s) of the world have too much freedom-limiting power is because, demonstrably, the general population is dominated by fear (usually government manufactured fear), and they value (perceived) security over freedom.

‘We wear the chains we forge in life.’ (Dickens)

Positive changes, such as womens’ right to vote, unionization of the work force, freedom of religion, free speech, and freedom of the press etc, did not come about because the government was feeling benevolent, but rather because the people had had enough and rose up in large enough numbers to force the government’s legislative hand. Positive change is *always* the result of grassroots movements, and all of recorded history bears this out.

When the people have ‘had enough,’ and governments fail to act, revolution follows. (‘Off with their heads!’) ‘Twas ever thus.


Mahrie.
 
Old 12-21-2018, 06:00 AM
 
7,826 posts, read 1,945,061 times
Reputation: 5449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahrie View Post
IMO, the reason the government(s) of the world have too much freedom-limiting power is because, demonstrably, the general population is dominated by fear (usually government manufactured fear), and they value (perceived) security over freedom.

‘We wear the chains we forge in life.’ (Dickens)

Positive changes, such as womens’ right to vote, unionization of the work force, freedom of religion, free speech, and freedom of the press etc, did not come about because the government was feeling benevolent, but rather because the people had had enough and rose up in large enough numbers to force the government’s legislative hand. Positive change is *always* the result of grassroots movements, and all of recorded history bears this out.

When the people have ‘had enough,’ and governments fail to act, revolution follows. (‘Off with their heads!’) ‘Twas ever thus.


Mahrie.
Thats exactly right...and they are usually honored and celebrated for what they did afterwards.


Im always trying to imagine what future generations will be celebrating in terms of current revolutions, uprisings, where those involved go from criminals/terrorists, to hero/patriots eventually.
 
Old 12-21-2018, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
2,862 posts, read 4,093,071 times
Reputation: 3049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230 View Post
Americans will quickly defend their personal freedom, considering it the most important thing there is – as in seeing it as a semi-religion. Everything in their tone, words, and acts implies they see it as such. But is actually sensible to believe to believe in it this passionately? Is personal freedom really the most important value there is? I say not, for valuing freedom this highly and this fervently leads to strange, if not self-destructive, conclusions.

First, the definition itself. I will say freedom means “the lack of barriers, limits, or inhibitions between what one desires and actual fulfillment of that desire”, and in the most absolute sense of the term besides. For a good metaphor, think of science documentaries showing gas molecules zipping across the screen in every direction, with some occasionally ricocheting off each other after collisions. This seems the only consistent definition of freedom I can think of. If there’s a better, more self-consistent definition, I’d like to see it.

By this definition, if we’re to stay true to the claim’s form, that implies that we should never interfere with people setting out to commit even the most blood-boilingly outrageous acts and expressions. Thus, true believers in “freedom first” are being incoherent when they support stopping people from committing such acts. After all, “the most important” means “THE most important”.

Of course, practically nobody supports personal freedom this much, for the reason just stated. At this point, they amend their belief with “as long as it doesn’t hurt others” (some add to this “or degrade the dignity of others”). However, this corrupts the purity of the “freedom first” claim. Adding this condition to “freedom” implies that the condition itself actually is more important than freedom.

So how much freedom actually is too much freedom? To what extent or degree is it necessary to restrict it? Should we restrict freedom in some areas even as we allow for more freedom in others?


My shorthand version is this: Freedom is important to the extent that it doesn’t threaten the safety or dignity of others or myself (the Twitter version of it, at least). If an act or expression (to "that" extent or degree) is likely to hurt, harm, or seriously indignify others to unreasonable degrees (unnecessary or excessive defense, retaliation, or punishment - clearly disproportionate to the wrongful act or expression), then that act or expression should have limits, if not outright banned.
What are the limits of personal freedoms? Your freedom ends when it infringes upon my freedom.
 
Old 12-21-2018, 11:34 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
3,361 posts, read 1,881,293 times
Reputation: 3168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell View Post
Your argument loops back around and onto itself.
here …
That's just reaffirming the basic point. No loopback here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
As you advocate for less individual (personal) freedom of authority and more (tyranny of the majority) authority of the government to decide (in the aspect of our personal lives) what is right/wrong in child raising. It is the job of the parents to protect their children, not that of the government. Where does the government end and we the people begin?
Nope, no "tyranny of the majority". In fact, it's government's duty to infringe of the freedom of the majority (read: no barriers to do what the majority feels is good) in order to protect the rights of the minority. As for the government-citizens matter, see the bottom of the post.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell View Post
First, in the definition of personal freedoms, who has the authority to state the fact, one in which we can all agree, as to what personal freedoms entail? Where as this is what it is, there is no debate; no cause for concern. I use to think that people knew this on their own and did not need some one to tell them. Now it seems ... no one knows for sure and it is subject to debate.

Second, the Constitution does not (give appropriate) limit ones personal freedoms, where by, power not delegated to the rule of law aka The Constitution, the people retain such power.

School lunches, Michelle Obama's signature program in nutritional foods for school kids, did not stop at the lunch room counter and the foods the schools prepare. It reached into the homes of those kids and to their parents, who often sent lunches with their children to school. The schools then decided to confiscate those lunches and the child was then made to eat, the foods prepared by the schools.

Social services CPS, often over step their boundaries, which has been an ongoing problem since the agency began in 1974. Often times rendering parents powerless to protect their children from others misguided sense of authority.

The bathroom bill reaches far beyond, redesign of bathrooms, in that it created legal chaos and is a waste of legislation time in an effort to decide for us, our behaviors. Men (and visa versa) should know without (a law) some one telling them, it is inappropriate to enter a woman's restroom. More gender appropriations are being created in an effort of our government to regulate ... sex. Which is an area we are more than capable of figuring out on our own, without having to associate legalities. However, here we are ...

Finally, what is the limit to personal freedoms? At this point in our society, where do personal freedoms even begin? Do our personal freedoms stop as we exit our home and are only granted while we reside in our home?

The Patriot Act, says, no. The Patriot Act, (enacted to keep citizens safe) gives power to our neighbors to snoop, peer into other's homes, leaving us finally with fewer to no legal boundaries from the tyranny of the majority.

When we consistently involve the government in our personal problems, rather that work them out ourselves, we increase (tyranny) the power of the government and decrease our (liberty) personal freedoms.


"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." ~ Ronald Reagan ~
Government-Citizens matter: It has to do with what I call "the cycle of accountability" - both government (as a body of citizens who protect citizens from injustice, crime, foreign invasion, etc) and the citizens hold each other to account.

It's true in every country that's a representative democracy / republic. It's as simple as the Separation of Powers - plus the Supreme Court can decide laws unconstitutional. Granted, it doesn't work perfectly (Plessy vs Ferguson, 1896; is the most dramatic example). Even so, office of Supreme Court justices must be both nominated by the President AND confirmed by the Senate. That keeps the justices (usually) from being too far outside the mainstream, and more often than not, usually on either the center-left or center-right.
 
Old 12-22-2018, 04:48 PM
 
1,039 posts, read 296,210 times
Reputation: 1619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230 View Post
Americans will quickly defend their personal freedom, considering it the most important thing there is – as in seeing it as a semi-religion. Everything in their tone, words, and acts implies they see it as such. But is actually sensible to believe to believe in it this passionately? Is personal freedom really the most important value there is? I say not, for valuing freedom this highly and this fervently leads to strange, if not self-destructive, conclusions.

First, the definition itself. I will say freedom means “the lack of barriers, limits, or inhibitions between what one desires and actual fulfillment of that desire”, and in the most absolute sense of the term besides. For a good metaphor, think of science documentaries showing gas molecules zipping across the screen in every direction, with some occasionally ricocheting off each other after collisions. This seems the only consistent definition of freedom I can think of. If there’s a better, more self-consistent definition, I’d like to see it.

By this definition, if we’re to stay true to the claim’s form, that implies that we should never interfere with people setting out to commit even the most blood-boilingly outrageous acts and expressions. Thus, true believers in “freedom first” are being incoherent when they support stopping people from committing such acts. After all, “the most important” means “THE most important”.

Of course, practically nobody supports personal freedom this much, for the reason just stated. At this point, they amend their belief with “as long as it doesn’t hurt others” (some add to this “or degrade the dignity of others”). However, this corrupts the purity of the “freedom first” claim. Adding this condition to “freedom” implies that the condition itself actually is more important than freedom.

So how much freedom actually is too much freedom? To what extent or degree is it necessary to restrict it? Should we restrict freedom in some areas even as we allow for more freedom in others?


My shorthand version is this: Freedom is important to the extent that it doesn’t threaten the safety or dignity of others or myself (the Twitter version of it, at least). If an act or expression (to "that" extent or degree) is likely to hurt, harm, or seriously indignify others to unreasonable degrees (unnecessary or excessive defense, retaliation, or punishment - clearly disproportionate to the wrongful act or expression), then that act or expression should have limits, if not outright banned.
Americans actually have LESS personal freedom than in some other high-income countries.

So let's look at reality, not how Americans see things.

I'm not aware of any economy being held back by having too little freedom. Nor am I aware of anyone who wishes that he or she had less freedom. If you can think of either, please specify them. Are you willing to give up your own freedom, or do you want to just limit others' freedom?

A person should be able to do whatever s/he wants as long as it doesn't hurt or harm someone else. These limits exclude speech: you should be free to say anything you want as long as it is not defamation.

Now let's go mind our own business.
 
Old 12-22-2018, 05:09 PM
 
8,646 posts, read 8,842,731 times
Reputation: 26971
Quote:
Originally Posted by PuppiesandKittens View Post
Americans actually have LESS personal freedom than in some other high-income countries.

So let's look at reality, not how Americans see things.

I'm not aware of any economy being held back by having too little freedom. Nor am I aware of anyone who wishes that he or she had less freedom. If you can think of either, please specify them. Are you willing to give up your own freedom, or do you want to just limit others' freedom?

A person should be able to do whatever s/he wants as long as it doesn't hurt or harm someone else. These limits exclude speech: you should be free to say anything you want as long as it is not defamation.

Now let's go mind our own business.
The theory is fine, but practice is much more difficult. For example, let's say we have a business that manufactures tires located within a community. In the process of manufacturing it pollutes the air. Many people in the community have asthma and other conditions that are directly related to the air pollution. A hard right conservative might claim that no one's freedom is being taken away by the tire manufacturing plant. Everyone else disagrees though. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution before the Industrial Revolution. As a result, they couldn't take situations like this into account. Such situations have necessitated a need for anti-pollution laws and the creation of agencies like the EPA.
 
Old 12-22-2018, 06:07 PM
 
1,039 posts, read 296,210 times
Reputation: 1619
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
The theory is fine, but practice is much more difficult. For example, let's say we have a business that manufactures tires located within a community. In the process of manufacturing it pollutes the air. Many people in the community have asthma and other conditions that are directly related to the air pollution. A hard right conservative might claim that no one's freedom is being taken away by the tire manufacturing plant. Everyone else disagrees though. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution before the Industrial Revolution. As a result, they couldn't take situations like this into account. Such situations have necessitated a need for anti-pollution laws and the creation of agencies like the EPA.

I'm a moderately conservative lawyer.

The tire manufacturing plant harms people and thus, if my "rule" in my post is applied, the tire manufacturing plant would be stopped from doing so.

The question is how to stop it: by governmental regulation or by allowing citizens to sue. In the US, many government regulations don't allow citizens to sue; only government can take action to stop harm (and it often fails to do so).


In the absence of governmental regulation, and before the growth of governmental regulations, individual citizens (and companies) could sue, under common law. In England in the 1700s, for example, and even well before then, there were plenty of lawsuits about this kind of thing (obviously there were no tire manufacturing plants in a pre-industrial economy, but the principle and common law were there).
 
Old 12-27-2018, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
3,361 posts, read 1,881,293 times
Reputation: 3168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor'Eastah View Post
And who are you to propose limits to freedom? Who gets to decide what those limits are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230 View Post
Simple sentence: Society as a whole, via their elected officials and independent judiciary, gets to decide.

However, all groups should be open to persuasion by activist groups to go along with their program (to change or repeal the law as appropriate).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey2k View Post
How do you figure? So a group of people gets to arbitrarily place limits on the freedom of others just because they outnumber them (however slightly).

In other words, might makes right.
It's not arbitrary IF that rule is needed to protect the well-being of the governed. This is especially true when it comes to the rights of minorities or historically oppressed (race, orientation, religious, and such). What's more, society has legislators and an independent judiciary to repeal or overturn laws that blunt the "tyranny of the majority". It's what I call "the circle of accountability": citizens voting, citizens for change, and all the aspects of government's "Separation of Powers", the Constitution) .

Is the system perfect? No. Can the system be changed or made less bad? Probably, or at least "perhaps". So does a lot to prevent the worst aspects of human behavior from expressing themselves from expressing themselves - and this system, at its core, probably does the best job of blunting the worst abuses of lawmaking, those abuses being limiting freedom without a compelling reason to do so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top