Originally posted by generalissimo
What is arguably even more interesting is FMF's fondness of flying the flag of "freedom" without ever expounding on the actual meaning of it in the real world and how it is justified, and we've all seen this before, with his uncompromisingly unrealistic take on freedom of speech, and we even have those favorite keywords of his, "freedom advocates", "hu ...[text shortened]... her it be equality or privacy, in FMF's cavalier judgments these are all negligible.

But FMF has not claimed that freedom is the only value worthy of admiration. It is not clear from his posts that he thinks freedom "trumps all other concerns", such as equality or privacy. He has only claimed that freedom is an important value, and that there is no reasonable way in which Cuba can be described as "free".

Originally posted by Palynka
Can you answer my questions directly now?

I have offered a specific and detailed definition of how I think freedom would be exercised in what I would define to be a free country.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
This might be the case, but it is also possible that a libertarian and a Communist would agree on what freedom is, but have different ideas about how valuable it is.

I think the question is that the two are not independent. It's about how monolithic the concept of freedom is. If the constraints (economic, political, of action, etc.) are not independent, then condensing it in one unique concept is going to require aggregating them. And to aggregate them you need to assign some relative value to each, leading to different concepts of what the aggregate is. "Freedom" becomes tied to the valuation of each of those dimensions and therefore to the political views of each person.

Originally posted by FMF
I have offered a specific and detailed definition of how I think freedom would be exercised in what I would define to be a free country.

Yes and I contested with those questions. If you don't want to communicate, that's fine. It's the impression I had for a while now anyway.

Originally posted by FMF
What are you talking about? Citizens should have the freedom to modify the policies of, and reject restrictions on their freedom handed down by, their governments. Adult citizen should be free to stand for office, to discuss policies freely, and to vote. There should be freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, freedom of action. I have "expoun omisingly unrealistic take on freedom of speech

Uncompromisingly unrealistic? How so?[/b]

What you fail to notice in these series of statements about what citizens ought to be able to do is that this doesn't in any way automatically translate into freedom. What you are advocating here is the easy way out of any foreseeable conflict instigated by ideological divergencies- leave it all to a show of hands, let the biggest and loudest mob decide the rules of the game.

By what means do you wish to see citizens modifying and/or rejecting restrictions handed down by their government? How would this prevent the usurpation of freedom by special interests and other forms of oligarchy?

As for these freedoms you continually advocate in such vague, broad terms, would you say that article 10 of the european convention on human rights (just to cite an example) takes precedence over article 8? do you hold it to be inviolable?

Uncompromisingly unrealistic? How so?
Im referring to your remarks on the westboro baptist church.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Uncompromisingly unrealistic? How so?
Im referring to your remarks on the westboro baptist church.[/b]

What remarks? I don't remember deviating much from the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling - and I don't think you're claiming that ruling was "uncompromisingly unrealistic" are you?

Originally posted by Palynka
Yes and I contested with those questions. If you don't want to communicate, that's fine. It's the impression I had for a while now anyway.

They weren't 'questions'. This OP seeks 'definitions' of a free country. And I have offered one. Surely you need to weigh it against competing definitions rather than simply say you "contest" mine? What is your definition of a 'free country'?

Originally posted by Teinosuke
But FMF has not claimed that freedom is the only value worthy of admiration. It is not clear from his posts that he thinks freedom "trumps all other concerns", such as equality or privacy. He has only claimed that freedom is an important value, and that there is no reasonable way in which Cuba can be described as "free".

FMF has the advantage of being slippery enough to avoid taking any firm stance on these issues which might prove to be embarrassing, but he has certainly expressed it implicitly; his claim that Cuba isn't free in any way, and his defenses of the actions of the westboro baptist church, for example.

Originally posted by FMF
They weren't 'questions'. This OP seeks 'definitions' of a free country. And I have offered one. Surely you need to weigh it against competing definitions rather than simply say you "contest" mine? What is your definition of a 'free country'?

The caravan rolls on.

Originally posted by generalissimo
What you fail to notice in these series of statements about what citizens ought to be able to do is that this doesn't in any way automatically translate into freedom.

I am not claiming they "translate" into freedom. I am claiming they are the essential mechanisms of freedom.

Originally posted by generalissimo
FMF has the advantage of being slippery enough to avoid taking any firm stance on these issues which might prove to be embarrassing, but he has certainly expressed it implicitly; his claim that Cuba isn't free in any way, and his defenses of the actions of the westboro baptist church, for example.

Implicitly? Well I'll be explicit, yet again. Cuba is not a free country. And I agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that uphold the westboro baptist church members' freedom of speech.

Originally posted by FMF
Implicitly? Well I'll be explicit, yet again. Cuba is not a free country. And I agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that uphold the westboro baptist church members' freedom of speech.

Apart from bombastic reinstatement of your opinions, have you anything to offer to the debate? perhaps an explanation of the brand of freedom you are advocating here.

Originally posted by generalissimo
By what means do you wish to see citizens modifying and/or rejecting restrictions handed down by their government?

Freedom of speech. Free elections. Representative democracy. Deliberation. Action. Free elections. And so on.

Originally posted by FMF
Freedom of speech. Free elections. Representative democracy. Deliberation. Action. Free elections. And so on.

Are there any other favorite keywords you'd want to add to this list? perhaps "human rights"?

Originally posted by generalissimo
Apart from bombastic reinstatement of your opinions, have you anything to offer to the debate? perhaps an explanation of the brand of freedom you are advocating here.

I'm sorry if my definition of freedom and a free country doesn't impress you. But I simply can't change it to one that allows me to say that all countries are "free".