Freedom and Liberty

Can we discuss the historical meaning of the words "freedom" and "liberty"?

From what I can tell, it meant self-determination. The FREEDOM to self-govern.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
youtube.com/watch?v=IlnzIHmI0fE
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

SHALL

NOT

Exactly. The Colonialist fought for their freedom to self-determination and thus determined their right to bear arms.

I'm not asking about the RIGHTS the government guarantees. I'm asking about the historic meaning of freedom.

Depends on who you're talking to. Right-wing thinkers will generally take the view that freedom means to be free from coercion, that as long as no one is forcing you to do anything then you are free. Left-wing thinkers take a more utilitarian view of freedom, they generally believe that freedom is having the most options available to you as possible.

That's the simplest way I've ever heard that explained.

Again, that seems to be different interpretations of "self-determination" if I'm being honest

>most options available to you
Seems like that will always come back to the "bake the cake" debate. No?

Freedom is a social construct used to justify the violent power relations of the elite. It is a lie that bind's the loyalties of the serfs in 1st world nations to their economic overlords against the third world.

Pretty much. For the left, coercing a few individuals into performing an action so that the majority may have more options available to them is justified. For the right, such action is not justifiable.

You can also see this in the way both sides talk about "rights". For the left-wing, rights are synonymous with entitlements, if you have a right to something then that means that it is the government's job to ensure you have access to that thing. For the right-wing, rights are merely something that the government cannot prevent you from doing.

Agreed. There can be no freedom under communism. Capitalism therefore remains the better system.

where do I learn more? You seem like you'd have a good resource.

>violent power relations of the elite
u wot m8?

But Capitalism makes you a slave to the dollar. What's cheapest, how do I make more money. There's nothing beyond your own individual wealth.

>there's nothing beyond your own individual wealth
absolute retardation

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

I'm sure someone else has talked about it in length, but I haven't read or heard it from someone else, it's just an observation I've made.

In practical capitalism this is true. As we have seen it in the real world, this is what happens.

Capitalism and Communism are two sides of the same globalist coin. They were both named by Marx

huh. Fair enough.

On a side note though, since we're Starship Troopers posting right now, have you read it? I'm almost finished with it and unironically find myself agreeing with it's logic.

Oh, and one more thing. You can see it in this very thread in the arguments about capitalism vs. communism. Capitalism is right-wing because you have the freedom to choose your employer without coercion. However, communists believe that since you'll starve if you don't have a job, you don't truly have freedom and thus some people must be coerced so that the majority may enjoy other economic options, making them left-wing.

You should write a book/pamphlet/essay or something. I've never seen the political "spectrum" explained quite the way you have and it's a very effective way of looking at and explaining things. You have a gift, user.

I quite like the society Heinlein envisioned, and I agree with much of it as well. The biggest issue I see is that without warfare the military service doesn't do much to earn the privilege to vote, so how do you make it so that "Service Guarantees Citizenship" without having to resort to constant warfare? If that little problem could be solved then I'd have no problem with the vision Heinlein had.

Well that's why they made the training so difficult. They wanted to weed out the ones that weren't committed. It was about having combat experience exactly as much as it was the willingness to put the needs of the many ahead of the needs of you as the individual.

Chapter 12 when he's at O.C.S. talks about that.

also, I've had a concept of a "military Olympics"

Militaries send their troops into a designated area and fight it out Battle Royal style.

>in practical capitalism this is true
I haven't bent every ounce of my being, every second of my time and every one of my options towards the pursuit of profit so you are objectively wrong.

It's really nothing new. Actually come to think of it I think there was a Steven Crowder video that touched on it (keep in mind that Steven Crowder is very much a right-wing conservative)
youtube.com/watch?v=IlnzIHmI0fE

but there are those who have. And they are usually the ones that end up at the top.

Why do companies outsource? Why do they create products that are bad either in quality or health concern wise? Why did big agriculture create the unhealthy "food pyramid" when they knew it wasn't true? It was about profits. It was what would make them the most money for the least amount of work/investment

Still, I never really heard it that way before.

>Crowder
I watch him a little bit during the election but he was too "basic bitch conservative" for my tastes. I was already beyond him by the time I started watching, but he made some entertaining content. His series on Detroit is pretty good.

>but there are those that have
The fact that many people don't disproves your statement
>There's nothing beyond your own individual wealth.
Not all companies outsource. Not all companies make china-quality goods or poisened ones.
>big agriculture created the food pyramid
what absolute rot.

>what absolute rot
This is something that's happened. I'm sure you've heard about oil companies paying off scientist to say that the lead in gasoline wasn't a problem. I'm sure you know that tobacco companies payed doctors to say that cigarettes wheren't a health issue. What makes you think that could be any less true that you dismiss it out right?

As for the rest, capitalism will always end in runaway individualism with no intelligence or loyalty. There's endless examples to this. I'm not saying communism is better, but to say capitalism is the only other option and the best one is just false.