Definition of a free country

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

Sure. It wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
Yes, I know. Freedom is never absolute in the real world. That's because it has to be balanced against other goods, other values. That doesn't mean, however, that it's undefinable. Similarly, no society is wholly equal, but that doesn't mean we can lose hope of using the word "equality" meaningfully.

I agree with this.

Originally posted by FMF
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".

By no stretch of the imagination was that a definition of freedom, you were listing certain mechanisms of participation in a democratic society, nothing more nothing less; you're still evading a definition of the system you have in mind and the principles is it grounded on.

Originally posted by generalissimo
By no stretch of the imagination was that a definition of freedom, you were listing certain mechanisms of participation in a democratic society, nothing more nothing less;...

A country boasting those stated personal and political freedoms, exercisable within open democratic mechanisms, IS my definition of a free country, whether you approve or not.

Originally posted by FMF
A country boasting those stated personal and political freedoms, exercisable within open democratic mechanisms, IS my definition of a free country, whether you approve or not.

So you define a free country by the degree to which their constitutional framework allows the participation of the individual in the political process, rather than by the results it produces in society as a whole?

Originally posted by generalissimo
So you define a free country by the degree to which their constitutional framework allows the participation of the individual in the political process, rather than by the results it produces in society as a whole?

Yes. As long as no one goes to gaol for expressing disagreement with, or striving to change those "results". Besides asserting the primacy of personal and political freedom and democratic representation, I don't seek to pre-ordain or project any other values onto the society I am a citizen of, other than what I project onto it with my one freely cast vote and what I project onto it with the traction of my ideas in harness with free speech.

Originally posted by Palynka
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 ...[text shortened]... he valuation of each of those dimensions and therefore to the political views of each person.

I do not propose that there is one unique concept of freedom. I do not deny that the concept, like all moral and philosophical ones, is elastic.

I deny, however, that it is infinitely elastic.

Originally posted by generalissimo

oops double post

Originally posted by generalissimo
It is lamentable that the suppression of liberty and free speech of dissidents has to take place for the preservation of the quality won through the revolution and the system it established, but this doesn't in any way translate into a reality where there is no freedom, it translates only into a reality where the welfare and interests of the collective take precedence over those of the (blatantly subversive) individual.

I think this is, by definition, an un-free country you are describing, generalissimo, and not in accordance with any credible definition of a free country, as requested by the thread title. How on earth could "free speech of dissidents" do anything other than contribute to the debate about the "the welfare and interests of the collective"? But if it's suppressed then it certainly cannot. That means the "collective" is being denied its freedom too. I still believe you wrote about Cuba with tongue in cheek. But I could be wrong.

Originally posted by FMF
I think this is, by definition, an un-free country you are describing, generalissimo, and not in accordance with any credible definition of a free country, as requested by the thread title. How on earth could "free speech of dissidents" do anything other than contribute to the debate about the "the welfare and interests of the collective"? But if it's suppressed ...[text shortened]... dom too. I still believe you wrote about Cuba with tongue in cheek. But I could be wrong.

If more than 50% think freedom of expression is a crock, then that's what freedom of expression is, that is how right or wrong is defined, the whim of the mob.

Originally posted by Wajoma
If more than 50% think freedom of expression is a crock, then that's what freedom of expression is, that is how right or wrong is defined, the whim of the mob.

Yes. I agree. If freedom of expression is suppressed then that country is not a free country. Suppressing freedom of expression on a whim would be 'wrong' in my book.

Originally posted by Wajoma
If more than 50% think freedom of expression is a crock, then that's what freedom of expression is, that is how right or wrong is defined, the whim of the mob.

..finally evidence of a dry sense of humour...unless of course you sincerely belief that the minute you have even the smallest swing to a majority in popular opinion on any particular belief, that somehow a concept of fair and equitable rights for all (which would be the benchmark for freedom in my book) would by process of mob rule, suddenly crumble.

Originally posted by FMF
Yes. I agree. If freedom of expression is suppressed then that country is not a free country. Suppressing freedom of expression on a whim would be 'wrong' in my book.

So a country where more than 50% agree with you is free, and a country where less than 50% agree with you is not free.

Originally posted by Wajoma
So a country where more than 50% agree with you is free, and a country where less than 50% agree with you is not free.

...freedom is more than a news poll...

Originally posted by kmax87
..finally evidence of a dry sense of humour...unless of course you sincerely belief that the minute you have even the smallest swing to a majority in popular opinion on any particular belief, that somehow a concept of fair and equitable rights for all (which would be the benchmark for freedom in my book) would by process of mob rule, suddenly crumble.

So for you the lines is not 50% kmax? When is a majority a majority in kmaxzhakistan?