What price do you pay for freedom?

[Ataraxia]

I don't mean what price do others pay for your freedom, I mean what price do you pay for freedom?

 

Take that any way you will...

[LeftArmOrthodox]

Hmm, intriguing.

 

As a British citizen I suppose most of the important freedoms I enjoy are guaranteed by the on-going general sensibleness of successive governments. So that was luck of the draw really, I could have been born in Sudan or somewhere! Beyond that, I guess the price is not committing crime that results in imprisonment, although I reckon that slightly dry answer isn't what you were getting at??

[SevenofSeven]

Seeing one of my Sons join the Forces is a high price to pay for any Mother, Father and family, especially into today's world.

[Suited hippy]

32% of my income.

[TheOtherScott]

Several hours of sleep every long weekend due to Ontario's lax fireworks laws, taxes, and library fines.

 

And I suppose mental anguish from idiots who think we're in a police state because there are police.

[Salty]

Sometimes I feel like its my sanity

[AliTheDrugDealer]

32% of my income.

 

This.

 

Also the house I owe for my education.

[Machete]

The social contract. (This is much more apparent to those who have spent substantial time in developing countries, like yourself.)

 

And coexistence with other "free" people (i.e. compromise). Because I'm from the free city of Braavos.

[Zorch]

The price includes:

 

• Some very non-trivial fraction of my income
  • ...and the time required to earn enough disposable income to give me the freedom to do the things I want to do
• The results of a capitalist economy: great high-end goods/services(because that's where the profit lies), declining in quality as the potential for profit goes down:
  • See: health care(among other industries) in the United States of America
• Acceptance of the fact that not everyone will use their freedom responsibly, but that this is a lesser evil to suffer than having my own freedoms restricted.  This includes:
  • The folks who were setting off their leftover fireworks until 11:30 PM on July 5th
  • Random acts of bigotry, obnoxiousness, and things that are generally deplorable but not illegal
  • Individuals that will use said freedoms to stoke others' fears and/or manipulate people

[Ataraxia]

The price of freedom for me is enduring the social backlash of non-conformity.  For example, in many places a homosexual must endure tremendous and often life-threatening social backlash if they are to continue freely being who they are.  To bend to that social pressure, for me, is to give up your freedom in exchange for comfort and security.  I think Machete's videos also speak to this.

 

I have to be stronger to survive some situations if I insist on being free.  For example, if I want to go somewhere where I am endangered as a result of my different (but petty) physical and genetic characteristics, my sex, my linguistic background, etc., then I have to be able to take care of myself.  If I bend to the social pressure and don't go where patriarchy wants to crush me, especially if I give up reactively as opposed to rationally, then for me that is a loss of freedom.

 

I have to be ready to not make as many friends.  I have to be ready to go it alone if people will not support me in my non-conformity.  I have to be ready to lose my job if I don't think it's right to do what I'm told.

 

In short, the price of freedom for me is:  social backlash, danger, discomfort.  The need to be strong and the heart to take care of yourself.

 

I think of Ben Franklin.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."  (Well, I don't know about the "deserve" part...)

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

[Ataraxia]

I also like this one:

 

"...that not only the Love of Liberty, but a thorough Knowledge of the Rights of Man, may pervade all the Nations of the Earth, so that a Philosopher may set his Foot anywhere on its Surface, and say, 'This is my Country.'"

[Machete]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."  (Well, I don't know about the "deserve" part...)

 

 

That's the thing though. By choosing to live in a society, by compromising to respect every other individual's freedom, by acknowledging a government's legitimacy and authority over its populace, one has already technically given up some measure of individual liberty, no matter how negligible, in exchange for order, safety, and not having to worry about falling victim to roving packs of marauders like in Mad Max, The Book of Eli, or Fallout 2 - Man's "state of nature", in which one lives a life that is described as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Hobbes). If what Ben Franklin said is true, technically anyone who lives in a society, and/or under a government, is deserving of neither liberty nor safety. Theirs' were much simpler times.

 

I also like this one:

 

"...that not only the Love of Liberty, but a thorough Knowledge of the Rights of Man, may pervade all the Nations of the Earth, so that a Philosopher may set his Foot anywhere on its Surface, and say, 'This is my Country.'"

 

To frame this another way:

"To Rousseau's mind, the origin of civil society itself can be traced to an act of deception, when one man invented the notion of provate property by enclosing a piece of land and convincing his simple neighbors "this is mine," while having no truthful basis whatsoever to do so." (Sparknotes)

[Ataraxia]

Yes, that is part of a debate that has been going on for a long time.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

 

Another one by old Ben:

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."  And I generally agree with that.  To be free, I think popular virtue is more important than law enforcement.

 

I also like Stirner's retort to Proudhon:

"Is the concept 'theft' at all possible unless one allows validity to the concept 'property'? How can one steal if property is not already extant?... Accordingly property is not theft, but a theft becomes possible only through property."

[Machete]

And the thing about virtue that makes it so difficult to define and generalize is that it is subjective, and although different cultures share common similarities we maintain different stories from which we base our ethical systems. You hear a lot of people making arguments against religion and how they are responsible for wars, but without a religious background what would be our basis for morality? Without the cultural myths and stories telling us of courageous, virtuous heroes, and evil monsters we would be nothing more than beasts - apes who learned more efficient ways to kill each other. And, contrary to what Nietzsche said, God isn't dead yet. We still generally praise people like Mother Teresa and detest people like Hitler on the grounds of moral virtue taught to us by religion. I mean there is nothing inherently morally wrong with murder. Modern law still constantly seeks justifiable ways to do it (self-defense, war, etc.). However, religions have long ago condemned the reasonless killing of another human being, probably because people just wantonly killing each other, like in Man's state of nature, would eventually result in the end of the human race, which would not make sense in the long-term survival of the species.

 

Law enforcement should, in theory, be based on popular virtue. But there is no popular virtue that exists in the world. The fact that there is a US Constitution shows that the founding fathers did not trust us enough to act "virtuous" and to not be assholes, and that they would need to leave behind a piece of paper telling us exactly what to do (which we are still constantly trying to interpret in order to suit our own personal whims).

 

Excellent topic, by the way.

[StillWaters]

Not to mention that religion is never the cause of war, it is the excuse. Look at every war that occurred, including the so called "religious" wars, and you will see the real cause of it was something far more mundane, like pride, greed, anger, jealousy, feelings of superiority, display of power, etc. Religion was used to make the decision more attractive to public. 

[Machete]

See also: justification for murder

 

The "East" and the "West" have been at odds way before Islam or Christianity was even established, ever since Xerxes and the Persians crossed into the West to invade Greece. Or even earlier, when Agamemnon united the Greek city-states and sailed east to what is now Turkey. The Western Roman Empire and Eastern Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Turks, the constant war over Jerusalem, it's all an ancient territorial feud; an old Crips vs. Bloods rivalry that may never be settled. Arguably, one of the only people who were able to unite the East and the West was Alexander the Great, who went east and married princesses from modern-day Afghanistan and Iran.

 

Or it could just be a battle between the gods. Who knows?

[Mordechaj]

bodyweight, to stay out of debt.

[SevenofSeven]

My daughter is already shopping around for countries to emigrate to; her aunt moved from GA to London. and my cousin went from NYC to TOR to Tokyo; I lived in FLA for a while, which is a whole other Planet

Australia......that is all.

[LeftArmOrthodox]

My daughter is already shopping around for countries to emigrate to; her aunt moved from GA to London. and my cousin went from NYC to TOR to Tokyo; I lived in FLA for a while, which is a whole other Planet

 

Out of interest, what is the general rationale for your family's exodus, in particular the aunt moving to London? Having been born in and lived in several places around the UK I can't imagine what problem moving to London would solve, other than for work or if you wanted an expensive party lifestyle!

[Machete]

I think living in America is awesome. The absence of Cholera in the tap water, flat roads with minimal potholes where you can go anywhere and not have to take 30 minutes to travel 8 miles, pedestrian lanes, hot running water and showers, air conditioning, and thick, tasty steaks.

[Mordechaj]

I think living in America is awesome. The absence of Cholera in the tap water, flat roads with minimal potholes where you can go anywhere and not have to take 30 minutes to travel 8 miles, pedestrian lanes, hot running water and showers, air conditioning, and thick, tasty steaks.

all of the above can be found in states with sane health care and gun violence levels.

[SimonTemplar96]

That's the thing though. By choosing to live in a society, by compromising to respect every other individual's freedom, by acknowledging a government's legitimacy and authority over its populace, one has already technically given up some measure of individual liberty, no matter how negligible, in exchange for order, safety, and not having to worry about falling victim to roving packs of marauders like in Mad Max, The Book of Eli, or Fallout 2 - Man's "state of nature", in which one lives a life that is described as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Hobbes). If what Ben Franklin said is true, technically anyone who lives in a society, and/or under a government, is deserving of neither liberty nor safety. Theirs' were much simpler times.

 

 

To frame this another way:

"To Rousseau's mind, the origin of civil society itself can be traced to an act of deception, when one man invented the notion of provate property by enclosing a piece of land and convincing his simple neighbors "this is mine," while having no truthful basis whatsoever to do so." (Sparknotes)

 

You missed a key point in the Ben Franklin quote. The word "essential".

 

Yes, we do all give up some liberties to live in civilized society. However, we do not give up our essential liberties. We do not give up freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to own property or the right to the fruits of your own labor, freedom to pursue your own goals and duties in life. 

 

Not all liberty is essential liberty. Because of massive shifts in philosophy there are significant differences between what people now think of as liberty or freedom and what people then thought.

 

Liberty or freedom now is generally thought of as the right to do whatever you want. Essential liberty and freedom then were thought of as the rights necessary to fulfill your duties as a human being. The rights necessary to pursue betterment and advancement as a human being. The "humanities" in university, things like history, art, philosophy etc, are called the humanities precisely because our ancestors in western civilization viewed them as the things necessary to being a complete human being. They were the pursuits that were essential to being human.

[Machete]

"Essential" is relative. The fact that he didn't define what he deemed essential liberty was makes the quote highly subject to interpretation, usually regarding the balance between liberty and security / positive and negative freedom.

[Hong WeiLoh]

I used to have the perfect answer to this in my forum signature: Ezio Auditore's explanation of the Assassin's motto ("Nothing is true; Everything is permitted.").

It sounds like a bad Zen koan, but when you stop to think about the deeper implications, "Nothing is true; Everything is permitted," pretty much covers it all.  

[SimonTemplar96]

I used to have the perfect answer to this in my forum signature: Ezio Auditore's explanation of the Assassin's motto ("Nothing is true; Everything is permitted.").

It sounds like a bad Zen koan, but when you stop to think about the deeper implications, "Nothing is true; Everything is permitted," pretty much covers it all.  

 

Saying "nothing is true" is kind of like saying "this statement is a lie".