What is Freedom?
A totally free individual can do as he /she wishes once they do not break the law or infringe on the freedoms of others .
Individuals will often sacrifice what they feel is their idea of personal freedom for the sake of duty as in accepting a position as a means of supporting a family , they’re may not be totally happy with such but see it as a duty as a feeling of personal freedom has to be sacrificed for the greater good .
The only true freedom is inner freedom , prisoners in concentration camps , prisons and others in what would be deemed dire situations have come up with some of the most remarkable scientific, artistic and literary works , one only has to look at the likes of Hawkings trapped in a body yet free in mind or Einstein whilst working as a patents clerk and coming up with ideas that changed the world
A totally free individual can do as he /she wishes once they do not break the law or infringe on the freedoms of others
Your definition presumes that any law is appropriate to freedom. To clarify, if there is a completely tyrannical law, you definition hasn’t precluded it from a state of freedom.
My definition is slightly more basic. A free person is not interred with by another. If maximizing freedom in a population is the goal, then it becomes necessary to interfere with those specific acts that interfere with others. Especially, freedom is the first part of your definition and maximizing it in a population requires the second part of your definition.
I think I might have heard something like this in the movie the pursuit of happyness:
I would like to think freedom is the right to pursue happiness in life so long as it doesn't infringe on other's right to do the same. I know it's not a rigorous definition, but it sounds nice.
Freedom is a word used to describe an object. Liberty and independence are words to describe the united state people like to feel but accidently call freedom. The rules of free describe a person conduct as being done without cost or self-value. Which is almost impossible. This is why the word free describes objects, ever notice that the First Amendment does not say freedom of grievance? Grievance is a united state of speech, press, and religion.
I'm not entirely certain what you mean by 'society', but I'm going to treat it as though it's calling out a series of interpersonal interactions (rather than some institution). Hopefully that still gets at your question...
With respect to freedom I think of it more as a state of existence, rather than as something with a particular function. It calls out the relative exercise of power between persons, such that saying someone is free is calling attention to their relative position towards those they interact with as characteristically non-constrained by other agents.
Claims about freedom, though, do have a role and this is to negotiate between interests which are perceived as being in competition (and which may actually be). Claims to freedom are assertions of one or more agents' interest against the real or imagined competing and constraining interest of one or more other agents; the function of such a claim is generally as a socially defensive negative claim. Claims against freedom are similar, but generally function as a socially offensive positive claim over and against the interest of others.
You can't quell freedom without giving someone the freedom to quell the freedom of others and decide what freedoms people should have. So you can either have freedom or you can have an oppressed population with those lording over them free to do whatever they want. Those who write the laws always end up being above the law and the worst abusers in society.
Freedom means you can do whatever you want. When you are truly intelligent then what you want to do is what is logical and what is logical for your own self interests also coincides with what is best for civilization as long as you have a real civilization to coincide with, because civilization produces more than anyone can on there own.
Death threats aren’t illegal if they are unrealistic. That’s why internet threats by strangers are completely legal. They are impotent.
If I saw you face to face and said “Next time I see you, I’m dropping an ICBM on your house”. You might be able to get low level harassment, but no crime derived from the threat itself. At least in my state.
Unlike real life threats, internet death threats have the entire evidence chain laid out for the prosecution team as long as the guy like Andy is willing to give them deleted ones etc. And I know Andy is the type of guy who'd be more than happy to do that to protect the likes of a user like you at the sake of the legal innocence of a user like factmachine
What is Freedom?
Without context, it's kind of meaningless.. If I'm free to do everything, then I'm not really free to do anything..
So, in terms of WHAT I'm LEGALLY free to do, I like the context the Bill of Rights conveys.. It tells us what we're FREE to do, by telling the government what it CAN'T do. I'm good with that.
Are you free to go buy a soda? Does it say the government can’t stop you?
Hello again, A:
Yes.. Yes it does.. The 4th Amendment prevents the government from curtailing your movements.. You HAVE a right to move around at your pleasure.. The 4th Amendment also prevents them searching you or your house, and your 5th Amendment right to due process of law should make it easy to STOP them..
Hopefully, you're not suggesting that because sodas aren't mentioned in the Constitution, they can pass any law about soda they choose..