Freedom.

[Loki]

Okay, I think I see what you're getting at a bit better now. I'll address the first part first:

1.) I don't actually find that example very pertinent if we are talking about freedom over one's self that doesn't directly harm others. Yes, the guy drilling the hole isn't using the drill to kill his neighbor, but if the point of his drilling is to sink the boat then he is essentially murdering everyone aboard. That's very different from your original example of a drug abuser who is shooting dope and the fact that he is hurting or killing himself saddens and hurts his family. While yes, he is hurting his family emotionally, he isn't subjecting them to what he is doing to himself. Does that make sense? They can choose to walk away from him and let him kill himself if that is what he wants to do, whereas the people on the boat would die alongside the idiot drilling a hole in the bottom of it and they have no choice in the matter, aside from restraining the guy with the drill, which they should definitely do.

2.) I see what you are getting at, but the way I see it "true" freedom would entail the freedom to do whatever you please regardless of the consequences to yourself or others. I don't encourage this, of course, but that means if you decide you want to ram the guy off the road who just cut you off and then shoot him in the face then that is your freedom. It was also the other driver's freedom to cut you off and to defend himself if you retaliate. It's anarchy essentially, and it's why anarchy doesn't really work. Anarchy/total freedom might work if we could guarantee everyone would behave in a beneficial way for society, but unfortunately we can't.

While yes, he is hurting his family emotionally, he isn't subjecting them to what he is doing to himself.
Does that make sense? They can choose to walk away from him and let him kill himself if that is what he wants to do

Yes, it does make sense and 'indirect harm' was my word of choice for emotional harm. Wouldn't you agree then that in this day and age we've taken this freedom thing a bit too far? Inotherwords we understand freedom too well to let someone destroy their life because they have that right instead of intervening even if its against their will. We jealously guard our 'spaces' as well as others' 'space'. Is it in a way apathy?

Anarchy/total freedom
might work if we could
guarantee everyone would
behave in a beneficial way for society, but unfortunately we can't.

So true! Its impossible given our natural inclination to selfishness, the source of all evil. This has actually reminded me of this long article on anarchism that iam yet to read. The work doesn't seem like your kind of thing though but you can skim through if you want
https://jaysanalysis.com/2016/03/06/non ... sion-tool/

[Loki]

While yes, he is hurting his family emotionally, he isn't subjecting them to what he is doing to himself.
Does that make sense? They can choose to walk away from him and let him kill himself if that is what he wants to do

Yes, it does make sense and 'indirect harm' was my word of choice for emotional harm. Wouldn't you agree then that in this day and age we've taken this freedom thing a bit too far? Inotherwords we understand freedom too well to let someone destroy their life because they have that right instead of intervening even if its against their will. We jealously guard our 'spaces' as well as others' 'space'. Is it in a way apathy?

Anarchy/total freedom
might work if we could
guarantee everyone would
behave in a beneficial way for society, but unfortunately we can't.

So true! Its impossible given our natural inclination to selfishness, the source of all evil. This has actually reminded me of this long article on anarchism that iam yet to read. The work doesn't seem like your kind of thing though but you can skim through if you want
https://jaysanalysis.com/2016/03/06/non ... sion-tool/

Right. It's easy for me to say that we should be allowed to do whatever we want to do barring hurting another person or thing because I don't really do anything that drastic. My biggest vice is that I like to smoke weed, which is a pretty neutral vice.

I think that my personal stance falls in line with that Wiccan quote Tara and I were discussing: We should be free to do whatever we want to the limit of hurting/endangering ourselves or others. However, that becomes tricky because you have to draw lines at what does and doesn't hurt you enough to be considered real harm. Many people still think that pot is dangerous, and I can't argue that it doesn't hurt me in some ways, such as affecting my lungs and encouraging me to stuff junk food in my face. On that note, should we then prohibit junk food because it can be harmful? Should there be a limit to how much you are allowed to eat every day? The obesity epidemic negatively affects everyone in a society after all. Some people like doing a line of coke here and there to party, should they be allowed to? It probably won't kill them, but it could.

As a society we should be encouraging personal responsibility and respect for everyone, including ourselves. I think we try, but I don't think we try hard enough, and a lot of that comes down to what you said, selfishness and greed. The Lays Corporation isn't going to encourage such moderation because then they sell more chips. Same goes for coke dealers. Even if all drugs were legalized (which I personally think is a responsible and healthy step) people would still abuse them and if big Pharma is the new pusher they will push hard to make that money. It's certainly a tricky situation.



I'll give that link a look when I get a chance. Have a good evening Karly!

Thinking more about it, the Wiccan quote even prohibits self-harm, which I hadn't really considered I guess because my immediate thought is "Harm no one else" but really it includes yourself as well. A solid rule to live by. You take that rule and the Golden Rule and humanity is good to go.

That is true. A few Wiccan teachers have taught me exactly that. Self harm, drugs etc are frowned upon in the Wicca community because of this, and many are vegetarian or vegan.

It doesn't differ much from the first five precepts of Buddhism. Do not kill, do not steal, do not use intoxicants, do not lie and do not spread sexual misconduct. It's a bit more specific in Buddhism, but in general I think these two have a lot in common and are reasonable to live by.

If everyone followed these, things would be much better.

Of course, not everyone does and there you have a problem. Or they have a seemingly sound morale but follow a God that says you shall slay infidels.

Right. It's easy for me to say
that we should be allowed to do whatever we want to do barring hurting another person or thing because I don't really do anything that drastic. My biggest vice is that I like to smoke weed, which is a pretty neutral vice. I think that my personal stance falls in line with that Wiccan quote Tara and I were discussing: We should be free to do whatever we want to the
limit of hurting/endangering ourselves or others. However, that becomes tricky because
you have to draw lines at what does and doesn't hurt you enough to be considered real harm. Many people still think that pot is dangerous, and I can't argue that it doesn't hurt
me in some ways, such as
affecting my lungs and
encouraging me to stuff junk food in my face. On that note, should we then prohibit junk food because it can be harmful?
Should there be a limit to how much you are allowed to eat every day? The obesity epidemic negatively affects everyone in a society after all.
Some people like doing a line of coke here and there to party, should they be allowed to? It probably won't kill them, but it
could. As a society we should be encouraging personal responsibility and respect for everyone, including ourselves. I
think we try, but I don't think we try hard enough, and a lot of that comes down to what you said, selfishness and greed. The
Lays Corporation isn't going to encourage such moderation because then they sell more chips. Same goes for coke dealers. Even if all drugs were legalized (which I personally think is a responsible and healthy step) people would still
abuse them and if big Pharma is the new pusher they will push hard to make that money. It's certainly a tricky situation. I'll give that link a look when I get a chance. Have a good
evening Karly!

Couldn't agree more. Its all tricky and we wouldn't want a Nanny State, right? By saying that the link might not be your kind of thing, just want to clarify that i didn't say it in a condescending way at all but that it may not be something that may greatly interests you as it does me.

Couldn't agree more. Its all tricky and we wouldn't want a Nanny State, right? By saying that the link might not be your kind of thing, just want to clarify that i didn't say it in a condescending way at all but that it may not be something that may greatly interests you as it does me.

Aren't we in one already?

Not trying to derail the thread, but something is always going to 'nanny' another. Whether it's the state, the church, the tribe or your grandmother. Someone's gonna have a say in your life.

And right now, as I see it, freedom is still quite limited. Even in Western countries. Yes, people can be openly gay or witches which they couldn't be 50 years ago. But what is freedom?

Freedom is much more than just being able to express your sexual preference or religion, freedom is the ability to make your own choices without being presurred or influenced by others. That is something almost unheard of in all of the world, since forever. Outing yourself as gay may be a right these days, that doesn't mean that everyone is going to accept it. In fact, many people won't. Your life will be influenced more or less by that choice, and your freedom will be limited in certain situations. Not because of the law, but because of the culture we live in. Two men holding hands is still anything but the norm. It can put you in danger.

In every society ever since the dawn of time deviating from the norm has put people in danger, whether they were ´free´ or not. By law of nature there is always a limit, like I said before even animals have their own rules which the group abides by. There is no such thing in this world as ultimate freedom.

I agree With Loki that true freedom would allow for harming others as you please. But I also believe that true freedom or better yet, total freedom doesn't exist.

Is not about having rules or been allowed to do or not do. We live in a society that has certain expectations of behavior for its members and then rules appear. We should be able to be as free as possible, and that is only possible if you are also responsible. For human beings living a spiritual life, real freedom comes with education (not indoctrination) and responsibility. If you assume full responsibility for your actions you are fully free. You have all the options at your disposition and you act accordingly to your values knowing well enough what the consequences will be and willing to accept those without problem.

I know that may not be a popular thought, but if a person cause harm to himself or other and accept the consequences that society will impose without regrets, that person is really free. And IMO, that should be what each society should look forward to. You are free to say do as you want, I'm free to accept it or not, to react or not, to be offended or not. If I get offended and act against you for saying something and you accept that, you are free, but if you don't take my reaction or lack of calmly and react to it, then you weren't really free to act in the first place. Total freedom comes with total responsibility, and in our reality, it doesn't exist.

Aren't we in one already? Not trying to derail the thread,
but something is always going to 'nanny' another. Whether it's the state, the church, the tribe or your grandmother. Someone's gonna have a say in your life.
And right now, as I see it,
freedom is still quite limited.
Even in Western countries. Yes, people can be openly gay or witches which they couldn't be 50 years ago. But what is freedom?

Yes. Truth is we all need a 'nanny' but in moderation, so to speak. Its why people want small gov't and not big gov't.
These images aren't meant in a sense political or religious freedom but in regard to dress. The Afghan ladies with grills over their eyes feel free.



The western counterparts think otherwise (not to say that its exactly what Riri, Christina and Selena all think about a burkha with grills, but the idea behind their clothing choice). The Afghanis may feel they aren't free, enslaved to 'immoral' ways.



This 'guy' is also exercising his freedom by permanently turning 'himself' into an androgynous alien.



He plans to get rid of his genitalia, nipples and bellybutton.
http://dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4 ... ALIEN.html

[Loki]

I agree With Loki that true freedom would allow for harming others as you please. But I also believe that true freedom or better yet, total freedom doesn't exist.

Is not about having rules or been allowed to do or not do. We live in a society that has certain expectations of behavior for its members and then rules appear. We should be able to be as free as possible, and that is only possible if you are also responsible. For human beings living a spiritual life, real freedom comes with education (not indoctrination) and responsibility. If you assume full responsibility for your actions you are fully free. You have all the options at your disposition and you act accordingly to your values knowing well enough what the consequences will be and willing to accept those without problem.

I know that may not be a popular thought, but if a person cause harm to himself or other and accept the consequences that society will impose without regrets, that person is really free. And IMO, that should be what each society should look forward to. You are free to say do as you want, I'm free to accept it or not, to react or not, to be offended or not. If I get offended and act against you for saying something and you accept that, you are free, but if you don't take my reaction or lack of calmly and react to it, then you weren't really free to act in the first place. Total freedom comes with total responsibility, and in our reality, it doesn't exist.

Very interesting, albeit a bit convoluted, way of looking at things. I think I agree.

Your avatar and Karly's post brought up what I think would be an interesting point in a conversation regarding freedom: Nudity.

If granted total freedom many would take that to mean they are allowed to be as naked as they please in public. Others might say that by them choosing to be naked in public they are infringing on their rights not to be subjected to nudity when they walk out of their house or down the street. Personally, I think that in a totally free society we should be allowed to choose to wear (or not wear) whatever we want and if you don't like seeing nudity you should avert your eyes. What do you all think?

Yes, I want this subject to be profoundly explored. All angles. We hear this stuff all the time but may be many of us never really sit down to think about them.
Thanks and have a great weekend.