What does it mean for citizens of a nation to be free?

[Derek]

What does it mean for citizens of a nation to be free? Social freedom? Economic freedom? If you feel freedom should be restricted in any area, explain why (and how this restriction would occur: i.e. would it actually accomplish what you wanted). If you feel freedom should be unlimited in any area, explain why. Say as much as you like. 

[opus10no2]

We, as people, need laws.

Laws and governments enforce freedom, but ironically at the same time completely go agains't pure freedom.

Freedom is associated with independance, and humans are - by nature, dependant.

[pianistimo]

i agree with opus 10#2.  if the world were utopia - every child would play in the streets because people wouldn't want to harm children.  but, even though we may have laws in place for pedestrians (taking precidence over cars) - this type of freedom isn't quite there yet.  also, we wouldn't hear about drive-by shootings of young children.

to me, utopic freedom would mean that all children would be happy and healthy. have enough food and water.  that people would truly care about what happens to children.  the smallest components of society.  also, the poor, the aged - they'd have health care and benefits. 

freedom would mean letting go of previously conceived notions about other races.  to be at peace.  to give up warfare altogether.

[ramseytheii]

What does it mean for citizens of a nation to be free? Social freedom? Economic freedom? If you feel freedom should be restricted in any area, explain why (and how this restriction would occur: i.e. would it actually accomplish what you wanted). If you feel freedom should be unlimited in any area, explain why. Say as much as you like. 

I think you can answer this question quite easily by reading Rand, as you have!  She clearly states that the only laws should be those which restrict us from compelling someone else to do something.  Government, in her philosophy, only intervenes when one part of a contract isn't properly upheld, or in cases of violence.

For me personally the two most important freedoms are enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the freedom of speech, and the freedom from religion.  There is a revolutionary idea: the freedom to not be compelled to support, or participate in, any one church, no matter how much that church insists they are the only truth.  That is more important to me, then the freedom of plurality of religion, which we have no matter how much the Evangelicals thump their Bibles and send out anti-Semitic and anti-Islam innuendos. 

Walter Ramsey

[counterpoint]

Freedom is a strange word - when used by politicians.
In politics, "freedom" is used as a universal argument for raising the taxes, for restricting human rights, for fighting wars against other countries.

To be free you need money. If you have enough of it, you can be free even in a country which is ruled by a dictator. In democracy it's the same: only the people with money are free to some extent.

[jakev2.0]

Re: What does it mean for citizens of a nation to be free?

Citizens are free to pursue their own objectives insofar as they don't infringe upon the rights of others (namely: life, liberty, and property). The role of government is to protect these inalienable rights and to deal with issues of national defense.

[ramseytheii]

Citizens are free to pursue their own objectives insofar as they don't infringe upon the rights of others (namely: life, liberty, and property). The role of government is to protect these inalienable rights and to deal with issues of national defense.

Life, liberty and property had already been intoned in England by 1700 (John Locke), but the American spin on it is of course Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

Christopher Hitchens writes:

"Where Locke had spoken of 'life, liberty, and propety," as being natural rights, Jefferson famously wrote, 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'  We differ still on whether this means seeking happiness or rather happiness itself as a pursuit, but given the advantageous social position occupied by most of the delegates at Philadelphia, it is very striking indeed that either notion should have taken precedence over property.  The clear need of the hour was for inspiration... but 'the pursuit of happiness' belongs to that limited group of lapidary phrases that has changed history, and it seems that the delegates realized this as soon as they heard it."

The problem with Evangelicals, the theocrats, is that they want to infringe a certain religion on the rest of the population.  They justify this barbarism to themselves by making arguments such as, "If you found the cure for AIDS, wouldn't you want to spread it?"  Maybe so, but would you also want to forcibly inject people with it, whether they had the disease or not?

We hear such incendiary comments as children are not allowed to pray in schools, and it seems that parents all across the country are not smart enough to realize that 1) their children probably find prayer ridiculous, or 2) no such ban is in place.  The Evangelicals are complaining that children are not compelled to pray in school, and thank God they are not.  These arguments all go to show how incompatible Christianity, especially that putrid peculiar American brand of Evangelism, is with actual democracy and freedom.

Walter Ramsey

[jakev2.0]

The problem with Evangelicals, the theocrats, is that they want to infringe a certain religion on the rest of the population.  They justify this barbarism to themselves by making arguments such as, "If you found the cure for AIDS, wouldn't you want to spread it?"  Maybe so, but would you also want to forcibly inject people with it, whether they had the disease or not?

I, like Hitchens, am disturbed by the primitive practices and distorted views of reality espoused by certain religion people. However, I believe that there is very little disconnect between the ideas of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson.   Obviously, Jefferson and his buddies were secular theists - given current science, I highly doubt a man like Jefferson would be making egregious claims like "dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time" or "the earth is 6000 years old". However, I don't see how the present situation in the United States is a betrayal of their values.

To secular people, the beliefs of Evangelicals are disturbing. To Evangelicals, our beliefs are disturbing. Thankfully, the laws of the United States place very obvious penalties on either parties from lashing out violently against the other.  This means that secular people and religious people in the United States are free to do their thing insofar as it doesn't harm anyone else. Beyond this, we are free to think for ourselves and pursue our own goals.  As strange as hyper-religious Americans are, such dark-aged notions as suicide bombing and gender-apartheid are totally deplorable to them.

The US is a functional society that is built upon differing views. We should be more concerned by outright intolerance of belief rather than the popularity of what we perceive to be bizarre belief.