Definition of a free country

Originally posted by kmax87
...freedom is more than a news poll...

Freedom is the absence of force. No if, no but, no maybe. Force being the only force that counts i.e. physical force.

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.

No. Not at all. A country where your freedom of expression, right to stand and vote in an election etc. is suppressed or restricted, is not free.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
"My definition of a free country is one where it is safe to be unpopular."

How adequate is Adlai Stevenson's definition of a free country?

I think Greenland is pretty free.

In fact, I never ruddy hear of it.

That's freedom, my boy! 😀

-m.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
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.

Sure, it's about how elastic it is.

Originally posted by FMF
No. Not at all. A country where your freedom of expression, right to stand and vote in an election etc. is suppressed or restricted, is not free.

A country where you're free to vote away another's freedom? your definition is so shot through with contradiction it's no wonder you can't see that your censoring of the work place is in fact a suppression of freedom of expression.

Originally posted by Wajoma
A country where you're free to vote away another's freedom?

The freedoms I listed define the 'free country', in my opinion. If people "vote away" these freedoms then it does not meet the definition of 'free country' any longer.

Originally posted by FMF
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.

This is a post which encapsulates the classic liberal democratic ideal, but it doesn’t address the reality of freedom in the wider context.

These conditions don’t exist in isolation, even in a system where the individual is endowed with those rights and liberties you refer to this alone won’t prevent the emergence of oligarchies harmful to the welfare of society as a whole, nor do you take into account whether the general the population has the capacity to be intellectually developed enough to arrive at rational judgments without being swayed by special interests.

I think Palinka made a good point by identifying the distinction between institutional restraints and other forms of restraint existent in society; I’d personally favor proactive government when it is appropriate, whether in the promotion of social justice or national security, in the end congenial freedoms we all hold in high regard must be put into their context.

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.

Wajoma is dwelling on hyperbolic extremes, but in theory at least there isn't much in his posts to disagree with. The merit of particular policies and political agendas can't be determined by the number of people who express support for them, nor can we allow the biggest and loudest crowds of people dictate the terms by which society is governed.

True freedom would involve freedom from the tyranny of the mobs.

Originally posted by generalissimo
True freedom would involve freedom from the tyranny of the mobs.

You can't agree with me and then go on to say things like this!

Also, saying that THE Freedom requires A freedom is a bit strange.

Originally posted by mikelom
I think Greenland is pretty free.

In fact, I never ruddy hear of it.

That's freedom, my boy! 😀

-m.

Yep, it reminds me of the thread I started on Greenland. I suggested that conservatives abandon ship around the world and all head to Greenland to be free of the central planning meddling statists. There we would be free to kill ourselves with freedom!!!

It's the only way to go!! 😵

Originally posted by Palynka
You can't agree with me and then go on to say things like this!

Also, saying that THE Freedom requires A freedom is a bit strange.

Its easy to look at these phrases and construe a meaning more radical than what was orginally intended, but nevertheless, what is it that offended your sensibilities?

well, a little poetic license never does anybody any harm.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
"My definition of a free country is one where it is safe to be unpopular."

How adequate is Adlai Stevenson's definition of a free country?

Stevenson should have said, "My measure of a free country..." since that is more of a test than a definition.

Total freedom is the ability to do precisely what you want, subject only to laws of physics like gravitation, etc. Giving most people such freedom is a disaster and destroys themselves and many around them in a supernova of megalomania.

I prefer to define the word Liberty which describes the condition where we mutually agree to interfere with one another as little as possible.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Its easy to look at these phrases and construe a meaning more radical than what was orginally intended, but nevertheless, what is it that offended your sensibilities?

well, a little poetic license never does anybody any harm.

The concept of True Freedom (caps or no caps) is in direct contradiction of everything I've argued for here.

Originally posted by generalissimo
These conditions don’t exist in isolation, even in a system where the individual is endowed with those rights and liberties you refer to this alone won’t prevent the emergence of oligarchies harmful to the welfare of society as a whole, nor do you take into account whether the general the population has the capacity to be intellectually developed enough to arrive at rational judgments without being swayed by special interests.

For me freedom is not 'freedom from stuff happening that I disagree with'. Freedom is about being able to participate without restraint, although - as I think everyone agrees on this thread - freedom in this respect is never absolute in the real world. I believe that freedom is about participation and process, and not about preordained outcomes.

Your definition of 'free country' seems to be one upon which you want to project or impose your personal preemptive definitions of 'harmful' and 'welfare' and 'interests' and 'rational' and 'intellectual capacity' and 'citizens being swayed' by ideas that you disagree with. For you, your definition apparently has to accommodate your personal perception of 'subversive' and 'preservation of the quality' and 'perimeters set by unelected people' and the need to suppress 'free speech that is dangerous to the authorities' and so on.

You clearly state your "respect" for these prescriptions even though - in Cuba, for example - they are not tested at the ballot box and people go to gaol for seeking to change them. [see page 2 of this thread].

You also appear to be seeking to build in, preemptively, prevention of freedoms of association and freedoms of action on the part of others that you might not agree with at some point in the future. This is something that you would presumably seek to repeal later [on account of it being a restraint on your freedom to participate in democratic mechanisms, of course] if you were to become a successful and influential businessman wanting to 'sway' people with your ideas and your exercise of freedom of speech.

Sounds to me like your instincts are those of an authoritarian, generalissimo. I thought the same when I read your contention on page 2 of this thread, that Cuba's essentially unelected government suppressing the liberty of those of its citizens who disagree with it or seek to participate on their own terms, makes it a 'free country' as long as the dictatorship considers their own untested definition of "egalitarian conditions" is threatened.

Originally posted by FMF
The freedoms I listed define the 'free country', in my opinion. If people "vote away" these freedoms then it does not meet the definition of 'free country' any longer.

Then there are things people should not be able to vote on in a free country for if they are to vote them away the country is no longer free.