Comments on: The myth of freedom http://armannd.com/the-myth-of-freedom.html/ Things that matter Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:42:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Titus-Armandhttp://armannd.com/the-myth-of-freedom.html/comment-page-1/#comment-510 Titus-Armand Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:40:29 +0000 http://www.armannd.com/?p=77#comment-510 You are right. My definition truly is somehow useless... but yours is essentially wrong - and I believe you have mistaken "freedom" for "rights".Other than another example of the imprecision of the English language ("freedom" has plenty of connotations), we can't really imagine freedom because we don't have too much to compare it to.Being truly free is a purely individual pursuit requiring moment-by-moment, conscious decision-making against the natural order of hierarchical organization. And since most people would rather follow than lead, these self-determining individuals will form a necessary but only occasionally effective minority. So the fact that my definition applies only to a minority of people doesn't render it useless.True freedom - inside of a system - is an unimaginably horrible thing. The freedom to write and think about it is enough...The only true freedom available to us is one of a spiritual nature. Regardless of whether you are religious or not, if your mind is free from hate and you can slow down and smell the roses, you can consider yourself to be truly free.In the physical world, only a state of anarchy could offer total freedom. And we wouldn't want to live in a system like that.Anyhow, the problem with the current democratic freedom is that it means less and less with every passing day... You are right. My definition truly is somehow useless… but yours is essentially wrong – and I believe you have mistaken “freedom” for “rights”.

Other than another example of the imprecision of the English language (“freedom” has plenty of connotations), we can’t really imagine freedom because we don’t have too much to compare it to.

Being truly free is a purely individual pursuit requiring moment-by-moment, conscious decision-making against the natural order of hierarchical organization. And since most people would rather follow than lead, these self-determining individuals will form a necessary but only occasionally effective minority. So the fact that my definition applies only to a minority of people doesn’t render it useless.

True freedom – inside of a system – is an unimaginably horrible thing. The freedom to write and think about it is enough…

The only true freedom available to us is one of a spiritual nature. Regardless of whether you are religious or not, if your mind is free from hate and you can slow down and smell the roses, you can consider yourself to be truly free.

In the physical world, only a state of anarchy could offer total freedom. And we wouldn’t want to live in a system like that.

Anyhow, the problem with the current democratic freedom is that it means less and less with every passing day…

]]> By: Titus-Armandhttp://armannd.com/the-myth-of-freedom.html/comment-page-1/#comment-53666 Titus-Armand Sun, 28 Oct 2007 07:40:00 +0000 http://www.armannd.com/?p=77#comment-53666 You are right. My definition truly is somehow useless... but yours is essentially wrong - and I believe you have mistaken "freedom" for "rights".Other than another example of the imprecision of the English language ("freedom" has plenty of connotations), we can't really imagine freedom because we don't have too much to compare it to.Being truly free is a purely individual pursuit requiring moment-by-moment, conscious decision-making against the natural order of hierarchical organization. And since most people would rather follow than lead, these self-determining individuals will form a necessary but only occasionally effective minority. So the fact that my definition applies only to a minority of people doesn't render it useless.True freedom - inside of a system - is an unimaginably horrible thing. The freedom to write and think about it is enough...The only true freedom available to us is one of a spiritual nature. Regardless of whether you are religious or not, if your mind is free from hate and you can slow down and smell the roses, you can consider yourself to be truly free.In the physical world, only a state of anarchy could offer total freedom. And we wouldn't want to live in a system like that.Anyhow, the problem with the current democratic freedom is that it means less and less with every passing day... You are right. My definition truly is somehow useless… but yours is essentially wrong – and I believe you have mistaken “freedom” for “rights”.

Other than another example of the imprecision of the English language (“freedom” has plenty of connotations), we can’t really imagine freedom because we don’t have too much to compare it to.

Being truly free is a purely individual pursuit requiring moment-by-moment, conscious decision-making against the natural order of hierarchical organization. And since most people would rather follow than lead, these self-determining individuals will form a necessary but only occasionally effective minority. So the fact that my definition applies only to a minority of people doesn’t render it useless.

True freedom – inside of a system – is an unimaginably horrible thing. The freedom to write and think about it is enough…

The only true freedom available to us is one of a spiritual nature. Regardless of whether you are religious or not, if your mind is free from hate and you can slow down and smell the roses, you can consider yourself to be truly free.

In the physical world, only a state of anarchy could offer total freedom. And we wouldn’t want to live in a system like that.

Anyhow, the problem with the current democratic freedom is that it means less and less with every passing day…

]]> By: Davidhttp://armannd.com/the-myth-of-freedom.html/comment-page-1/#comment-509 David Sat, 27 Oct 2007 23:13:32 +0000 http://www.armannd.com/?p=77#comment-509 "Truly free people should be allowed to rape, loot, pillage, slaughter each other in the streets, shoot bears in national parks, take hostages, or do anything else they may want to do, without restrictions. Even with one restriction, my definition of freedom is destroyed." Perhaps, but with that definition, only one person can be "truly" free at any time, rendering your definition essentially useless. Truly free people should be allowed to do anything that does not limit the ability of everyone else to be the same way. Hence the power physical coercion is not a right that truly free people should or do have. “Truly free people should be allowed to rape, loot, pillage, slaughter each other in the streets, shoot bears in national parks, take hostages, or do anything else they may want to do, without restrictions. Even with one restriction, my definition of freedom is destroyed.” Perhaps, but with that definition, only one person can be “truly” free at any time, rendering your definition essentially useless. Truly free people should be allowed to do anything that does not limit the ability of everyone else to be the same way. Hence the power physical coercion is not a right that truly free people should or do have.

]]> By: Davidhttp://armannd.com/the-myth-of-freedom.html/comment-page-1/#comment-53665 David Sat, 27 Oct 2007 23:13:00 +0000 http://www.armannd.com/?p=77#comment-53665 "Truly free people should be allowed to rape, loot, pillage, slaughter each other in the streets, shoot bears in national parks, take hostages, or do anything else they may want to do, without restrictions. Even with one restriction, my definition of freedom is destroyed." Perhaps, but with that definition, only one person can be "truly" free at any time, rendering your definition essentially useless. Truly free people should be allowed to do anything that does not limit the ability of everyone else to be the same way. Hence the power physical coercion is not a right that truly free people should or do have. “Truly free people should be allowed to rape, loot, pillage, slaughter each other in the streets, shoot bears in national parks, take hostages, or do anything else they may want to do, without restrictions. Even with one restriction, my definition of freedom is destroyed.” Perhaps, but with that definition, only one person can be “truly” free at any time, rendering your definition essentially useless. Truly free people should be allowed to do anything that does not limit the ability of everyone else to be the same way. Hence the power physical coercion is not a right that truly free people should or do have.

]]>