Expansive Freedom: Inside Out

This is a forum for discussing philosophical theories of government and social structure. It is not a venue for partisan rants or plugging favored candidates.

Re: Expansive Freedom: Inside Out

Postby BadgerJelly on October 7th, 2020, 11:36 am 

Charon Doogles -

I can state the basic idea. Maybe I just jumped in too quickly, too far down the line?

If every human being lives on an equal level for several generations it has no real bearing on ‘freedom’. The orientation of ‘freedom’ is born on the back of human groups and how they relate to the world at large.

Whole generations of humans over vast swathes of time who know nothing other than living in the hypothetical I outlined above (a society of equality in confined boxes with strict rules - Eloi-like if you wish) are living in a ‘freedom’ of a different order/age than we are. We can look at them and say, “That’s not TRUE freedom!” with open distain ... but it is to look past the possibility of our own hoodwinked lives when all around us has a human mark on it that covers up the world.

In the idea of this Expansive Freedom I’m taking a look at the gains and losses: the shifting landscape of human-life as a part of the world (or ‘about the world’ - using ‘about’ as a preposition of place meaning in/on/parallel to/a part of/apart from).
Last edited by BadgerJelly on October 7th, 2020, 1:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5720
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Expansive Freedom: Inside Out

Postby charon on October 7th, 2020, 11:51 am 

Vat -

will your prospects of inward clarity and freedom from turmoil be good?


Yes, very, because we're not talking about some useless passive state, it's explosive, dynamic. You'd do something about it, not just sit there and suffer. It's the person in turmoil who gets conflicted about things.

Or eating poor-quality processed food that ends up playing havoc with your blood sugar and cognitive abilities?


If you were clear, which is a highly intelligent state, would you eat such food?

If we cannot maximize our well-being, that is a constraint. On freedom.


Then maximise it, get rid of the turmoil.

If we live in a culture where half the population must live their lives in a cloth bag and can be beaten or even killed if they refuse the cloth bag, what are their prospects for "inward freedom"?


Then probably you accept the cloth bag, but be quite clear about it. I know what you're talking about. You didn't see that I edited my post to keep it shorter. After 'In other societies it may not be so' I originally put 'You wouldn't have much fun if you're a woman in Saudi'. But I took it out.

We don't see the point of the inner freedom. It encompasses the whole of life, every situation. If things go bad, which happens all the time because we live in such a rotten world - created by ourselves - then that state of mind will act, not to change society and all that intellectual guff, but to do the most intelligent thing under the circumstances. Even if that means dying.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Expansive Freedom: Inside Out

Postby charon on October 7th, 2020, 12:03 pm 

BadgerJelly » October 7th, 2020, 4:36 pm wrote:
In the idea of this Expansive Freedom I’m taking a look at the gains and losses: the shifting landscape of human-life as a part of the world


That's right, it's just an idea. And, yes, you're looking at gains and losses, etc, but - as I said before - you're not going beyond that. You're staying in a small room saying 'a bit more freedom here, a bit less there' but you're not going outside to the fresh air!
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Expansive Freedom: Inside Out

Postby charon on October 7th, 2020, 12:30 pm 

Apparently we're missing one thing. The turmoil of the world is the extension, the outcome of, our own turmoil. People in turmoil produce a world in turmoil. The two are the same, identical. Do we see that? If we were all good people would the world be in turmoil? Obviously not, so the world is our own destructive creation.

So a person who is clear in themselves has no relation to the world, right? They don't belong to it even though they have to live in it. So when the world throws something crazy at them, like a war, what will they do? Obviously they'll act from that freedom, from that clarity. It might be that they die, but so be it.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Expansive Freedom: Inside Out

Postby TheVat on October 8th, 2020, 10:36 am 

BadgerJelly » October 6th, 2020, 9:08 pm wrote:

...feeling of freedom is actually restricted by the self-imposed impression that freedom is a matter of available choices, material wealth and/or some social prejudice. See what I mean? Maybe I’ve taken too light a view of how other people itemise freedom ... so I guess more ‘refinement’ (I don’t wish to say ‘definition’) of the term is required - my use of ‘freedom’ was meant in a broad sense without any intent of honing in on particular colloquial uses and/or used in reference to ‘laws’/‘rules’ as humans weren’t born with a moral rulebook to reference...


I think it's possible, in principle, to arrive at a more objective concept of freedom, looking across the anthropological spectrum. One item might be the scope to get around what you called self-imposed impressions. IOW the ability to step outside cultural norms and recognize the true range of one's choices. A similar metric might be awareness of what rules can be broken -- without harm to one's well-being or that of others. (e. g. it's okay to run a red light at 3 am, if you're in a small town in the American plains) Some actions, however, we are not free to do even if we could get away with them at no legal cost. We seek well-being and that includes a sense of a virtuous self.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7757
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Expansive Freedom: Inside Out

Postby charon on October 8th, 2020, 4:00 pm 

...

I wonder what the relationship is between freedom and choice? Obviously if one is not free to choose what one wears or eats that is an incursion on your quality of life because such things are fairly personal. But life isn't so simple, often there is no choice.

In a situation where there's no choice - i.e. things aren't in the shops or something is simply unavailable (the pandemic has presented that in various ways) - does it mean one is less free? If, say, you can't go to your favorite restaurant for a meal any more, does that make you less free? Or does intelligence take over?

Intelligence says 'I can't do this, there's no arguing with it so we'll just do something else'. To me, that's freedom. I don't know if you see what I mean.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Expansive Freedom: Inside Out

Postby BadgerJelly on October 8th, 2020, 9:46 pm 

Okay, guess I’ll have to bend to the will of those who’ve bothered to post here :)

Maybe it is necessary to better get into the nitty gritty of what I’m having trouble thinking about.

Biv -

If I’m going to go into the individual freedoms as you’ve outlined maybe it would may more sense to you if what I’ve been saying is about he net-freedom. ie. if 50% of people are free then this is more freedom than only 30% being free - how this would relate to actual population numbers rather than proportions is something that opens up MANY interesting aspects of how limitations are imposed, refined and/or morph (one particular point of interest for me here would be ‘conformity’ - my previous reference to ‘norms’).

Charon -

On an individual basis it looks fairly reasonable to equate ‘choice’ with ‘personal freedom,’ but in the larger scope of things (humanity at large) I don’t see these as being related that much at all. I say this because ‘choice’ is often confused with mere ‘possibilities’. As I’ve tried to highlight before - badly - the ‘recognition’ of the options open to us is more about ‘freedom’ than only attending to ‘what we can see,’ the mere ‘choice’ (we’re ALWAYS free to choose). The ‘choices’ are defined by ‘norms’ (as in, sets of ‘viable’ options and/or lawful/taboo items) and to understand that nothing is stopping me from punching random people in the street allows access to understanding what and where the limits of social convention are imposed by myself and by ‘others’.

All this would lead into a discussion about ‘rights,’ ‘justice’ and other parcelled off concepts that are not really focused on the kind of magnitude I’m trying to encapsulate (the whole span of human existence and how limits have imposed upon our sense of freedom both positively and negatively - hence the question of looking at what we’ve left behind and the kind of price we’ve paid for our expanded freedom for some and how/if we can reclaim, in part, such alienated perspectives from past eras). Not to mention the movers and shapers of history and how at certain points in human history the impact of individuals on humanity has waxed and waned in differing ways (the question of population and effective communication across generations and in the lived generation of said ‘individuals’).

When it comes to the ‘social contract’ I think of it as an idea born out of the degradation of natural human attitudes - meaning the ‘social contract’ is recognised as it begins to conceived of in a political argumentation. Breathing life into certain conceptions gives a sense of angled solidity to an organic item that expresses itself in a variated manner. We’re always prone to cut up, measure and atomise out thoughts so as to better understand and open up a universal means of exchanging ideas. But there is a danger in such deconstruction because giving such rigid definitions removes the whole.

Note: I’m prone to zoom in and zoom out a lot more than others. My general interest is in the larger picture though so I tend to only use focused concepts to better paint a picture of the whole landscape. The landscape in question for me here isn’t ‘freedom’ it is how humanity has played out across time and the benefits and deficits accumulated degrees of loss, sacrifice, the social adjustment to growing populations and the people on the fringes who have - across time - been bigger or smaller players due to how they ‘fit’ into societies.

Just to preempt ... there are NO hunter gatherers left today. We cannot observe their lives because they’ve either been effected by modern humans and/or those remote to us are now so remote that we purposefully compare them in the only way we can - in stark contrast to our own ‘norms’. I’m interested in unveiling our preconceptions and conformed/domesticate lives.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5720
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Expansive Freedom: Inside Out

Postby charon on October 8th, 2020, 11:01 pm 

Badger -

if 50% of people are free


Yes, but what do you mean by free?!! Free to do what?

On an individual basis it looks fairly reasonable to equate ‘choice’ with ‘personal freedom,’ but in the larger scope of things (humanity at large) I don’t see these as being related that much at all. I say this because ‘choice’ is often confused with mere ‘possibilities’.


That's right.

The ‘choices’ are defined by ‘norms’ (as in, sets of ‘viable’ options and/or lawful/taboo items) and to understand that nothing is stopping me from punching random people in the street allows access to understanding what and where the limits of social convention are imposed by myself and by ‘others’.


That's right too, choice is always limited, not only externally but by personal preferences, character, and so on.

there are NO hunter gatherers left today


Ah, you haven't seen women in the shops on sale day :-)
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Expansive Freedom: Inside Out

Postby BadgerJelly on October 9th, 2020, 12:36 am 

Note: Just finished writing ... was meant to be brief and succinct ... it is what it is though! Haha! :)

Thanks for posts btw. Even though I’ve failed to bring the discussion to where I’d have liked the replies have mostly helped me to realise what I’ve not said and what I need to deal with before moving forward.

I’m happy to concede the discussion in the hope of eventually getting to a number of points that cover what interests me most. Maybe the example of the pandemic will help.

It doesn’t take too much thought to see that people are at odds with each other in terms of what they deem to be ‘just’ and what their ‘personal rights’ are (*Biv - see below). The net valuation of all these distributions is brought into one whole yet amalgamates in clumps across the physical world due to how able communities of human are to communicate and distribute information - the agricultural revolution as an example of one way of life subsuming another over a reasonably vast period of time (the speed of the spread quickening as populations boomed and cultural interactions mixed into one generally ubiquitous ‘whole’ that could be argued to encompass the globe in with one particular schism between the periods of the onset of agriculture and the loss of estrangement of the peoples of the americas. The sedentary onset of life running parallel to purposeful agriculture on a grand scale.

Now to look to your own situation. You are free to stand up and begin to beat to death anyone and everyone within reach. These people are free to defend themselves as best they can, and would perhaps gang up and beat you to death. If you kill someone in your free act it is ‘justly so’ and those that may beat you down and kill you is also ‘just’ - if you escape and live to repeat the same free acts over and over, resulting in the deaths of many people over your life time, then it is ‘justly so’. The issue after this becomes what ‘personal rights’ people are entitled too regardless of any supposed ‘law’ (meaning enforcement of conformity above freedom to act as one please - often something cloaked as a way to ‘protect the public,’ but which is effectively governmental rule put before ‘personal rights’).

Now we’re getting into the politics of the matter - the purpose/use of governance. In terms of the pandemic what role so people think the government should play? The answers will be varied not identical. Other general views will be pretty much the same - such as the personal right to walk down the street, to think what one wishes to think, to attempt to communicate with people and to generally consent to anything that may seriously threaten their existence (in terms of some axe wielding maniac not being allowed to chop you up, rather than some unfortunate/naive act which results in your untimely death - a wall collapsing on your head or being struck by lightning).

For the pandemic we’re not talking about people killing people, we’re talking about people dying due to a virus. As much as I would like to say that people should be made to wear masks and distance themselves from others, I just cannot do it. For me this is a VERY clear violation of ‘personal rights’. I should also add that I don’t believe people should be legally bound to wear a seatbelt or helmet either - but they should be a choice for anyone in a vehicle who doesn’t wilfully consent to be in the vehicle (children, people arrested and such cases).

In terms of ‘freedom’ I don’t honestly see how ‘personal rights’ can be equated with ‘freedom’. Freedom is limited by the imposition of ‘law’ established by social conformity to generally agreed ‘personal rights’ (being that which limits me from murdering others or treating them as I please to suit my personal needs/wants). The social contract is a theory that appropriates some idealised version of a typical human behaviour in a complex social setting (‘complex’ in this case meaning populous and stratified).

The current political landscape to talk of ‘freedom’ is superficial as it’s only framed in colloquial use as the freedom to disagree and act against perceived impositions. It is not at its heart anything more than an expression of systems of ‘law’ at conflict with ‘personal rights’. Nevertheless both of these are clearly distinguished in expression yet identical in formulation. The conflicting part is the individual adherence to how these express and play out in completely differing manners for many people, and the perceived ‘conformities’ of governance distorting the world. We all too often end up punching ourselves in the face and then blame others for our injuries calling our wrath against them ‘justice’ and screaming about ‘freedom’ we, at the core of the matter, refuse to even face for fear of losing identity within a mass of human bodies that have - quite ironically - grown further and further from self-realisation as the image of world we create has cut off humans from humanity for the sake of safety above and beyond any serious requirement to live in the world.

As for ‘pandemic’ the issue in the prefix (pan-). A global crisis requires a global perspective. We don’t have that yet as we’ve only just begun to reinvent our position in a cosmological sense and we’re still scrambling to unwrap the messy edifice we made to get us to where we are today. Basically I don’t see a way forward without taking several steps back/out from our current facade of civil society as opposed to humans living in the world - strangely enough the onset of the pandemic has highlighted this matter and has already begun to drive us backwards (The Plague is a rather fitting tribute to an ongoing disease that is only ever realised when a crisis shakes things up a little - fully realised? Not that I can see tbh).

Anyway, ominous/obnoxious twaddle aside (yeah, I know what I sound like sometimes :D), asking about ‘freedom’ related to an endless multitude of possible variables is interesting enough but I just don’t find it to be very practical. If the discussion is purely about how the expression of a ‘social contract’ is translated into a justice system, then that is nothing more than an item of wilfully handing over responsibility to the government so we can all live like little children. As far as I am concerned any government should serve to assist people from the tyranny of axe wielding maniacs and little more - the rest is our responsibility and it appears we gave up so much so early on to live in ‘comfort’ that we’ll have to suffer a whole lot more to regain our lost footing (but as is the current ‘norm’ we’re already dulled enough - domesticated - so as to look for a loophole to avoid pain and dream of lands of beauty given to us for zero labour and with no regard for our own mental composition as a fault we’re both burdened and blessed with).

One thing I wish to make clear here - and I’m willing to take flak for it - ‘personal rights’ are generally thrown around by people today so as to bludgeon others into submission. It is not really about people having the ‘right’ to do this or that and then crying when others block their path. It is your ‘right’ to take on responsibilities and live with the consequences (just of otherwise), and then adjust/learn as best you can without falling foul of your own duplicity in the form of denial and self-destruction. Personal rights are not weapons for beating other down in political discourse, they are impositions we can work with or ignore at our own peril. They are not taken away, but they can so easily be handed over or dropped.

When personal rights are discarded a void in humanity is left open and is quickly filled in by political institutions that impose upon the landscape of the world masking us from it. This is not a bad nor a good thing, it is just the way things are. The concern I would have here is whether or not we’re in danger of covering over the world too much, and how mass populations and communication may exponentially increase the layers we’ve built up between humanity and the world.

* Biv - It may be helpful to refer back to a previous thread where some people just couldn’t see what I was talking about and others took some time to remove their assumptions and just carefully probe at the meaning. I’m referring to the thread ‘The use of hypotheticals’ - something that some refuse to contemplate from the title alone! Here it is pretty much the same dynamic underlying my thoughts. That is, to accept that a personal ‘default position’ is not the same for anyone else and, more importantly, to understand what baggage we bring to any line of thought and ways of playing with this by annihilating our preconceptions as much as possible and wilfully causing ourselves distress by reimagining the item at hand so as to reveal the hypocrisy of human thought , AND to see this hypocrisy as a partial boon through its single-mindedness and discordancy - we are a ‘confused’ species because we can be ‘confused’ in so many ways that we’re not even fully conscious of. Avoidance is certainly one safeguard against immediate personal destruction.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5720
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Expansive Freedom: Inside Out

Postby BadgerJelly on October 9th, 2020, 1:05 am 

Charon -

Yes, but what do you mean by free?!! Free to do what?


Free to eat bananas. As in ‘a realised possibility that isn’t infringed upon by current societal norms or ideas applied by governance and/or traditional beliefs and stigmas.

Note: 100% free isn’t possible for humans. Also, ‘freedom’ is an item of thought not ‘being free to’ in the sense of ‘freedom to’. Freedom as ‘ability to do something’ isn’t the same as Freedom as an item of interest nor a comparative measurement across time and cultures. ‘Freedom’ as in it is an expression of humanity brought into conception - an emergence from not an innate idea encoded in our bodies. Much like ‘history’ is not merely a ‘way of looking at the past’ as it is a representation of a perspective of how humans can view the world. A lens if you want ... like I’ve said before either what interests me is too subtle or too obvious. So-called real world examples of this (one particular instance and location) don’t really serve my interest if they are regarded as isolated from the world. I know a lot of what I write looks like word salad. Some bits are because certain things are harder to get across in an articulate form. Especially when they are dead-ends, I haven’t yet recognised, or threads of potential intrigue. I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, just enjoying exploring and sharing something that might interest someone. The very process of ‘talking’ or ‘writing’ to some ‘other’ is helpful to me. I can write more plainly but such writing doesn’t serve my purpose ... that’s just the way it is. In the past if I have put things more plainly others say ‘so what?’ ... then I respond ‘because of a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j ... etc.,.’ and unsurprisingly not everyone much interest in the majority of those items so I’ve settled on going at little bits piece meal but with an overarching reasoning behind them I can neither articulate well enough yet nor really find it important to do so anyway.

Anyway, enough of the biographical drivel ... I would be interested to go into Truth and Facts in epistemology forum if you fancy that? I think there might be more common ground there in terms of working from correspondence theory? You do seem to me to have been expressing an odd mixture of idealistic views and purely relativistic views too (or more accurately, more ‘personal’ expressions).
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5720
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Expansive Freedom: Inside Out

Postby charon on October 9th, 2020, 8:02 am 

Free to eat bananas.


Assuming there are bananas. But does the absence of bananas make you less free? You can eat something else, can't you?

Why do you talk so much?
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Expansive Freedom: Inside Out

Postby BadgerJelly on October 11th, 2020, 4:41 am 

charon » October 9th, 2020, 8:02 pm wrote:
Free to eat bananas.


Assuming there are bananas. But does the absence of bananas make you less free? You can eat something else, can't you?

Why do you talk so much?


It doesn’t matter ... I wasn’t talking about eating? I was talking about nothing in particular ... bananas was just a random example of ‘something’.

I speak so much for the reasons I said above. What is more strange than the amount I write is your need to ask a question about a post that contains the answer within it:

I know a lot of what I write looks like word salad. Some bits are because certain things are harder to get across in an articulate form. Especially when they are dead-ends, I haven’t yet recognised, or threads of potential intrigue. I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, just enjoying exploring and sharing something that might interest someone. The very process of ‘talking’ or ‘writing’ to some ‘other’ is helpful to me. I can write more plainly but such writing doesn’t serve my purpose ... that’s just the way it is. In the past if I have put things more plainly others say ‘so what?’ ... then I respond ‘because of a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j ... etc.,.’ and unsurprisingly not everyone much interest in the majority of those items so I’ve settled on going at little bits piece meal but with an overarching reasoning behind them I can neither articulate well enough yet nor really find it important to do so anyway.


See? Or do you require some extra reasons?

‘Concise’ comes some way down the line for me. When I write I am sometimes told to be more brief and sometimes told to say more. Some people grasp what I say enough and others don’t. I certainly don’t write to please anyone.

I do tend to splurge out replies with enough armour to repel any frivolous attacks, but some people just love to insist there is some fault of their own imagining and usually refuse to offer any kind of advice/solution that isn’t much more than a childish insult or some weird ego battle.

And can speak plainly. What happens then is people say ‘So what?’ And then I write more, and they say ‘Whhaa?’ Or merely ‘Okay’ and any chance of a discussion stops. So I don’t post on forums with much purpose other than to engage with people who’ve given me something in the past and/or who I respect. Mostly though, its just me doing what I want to do. The writing has to be dense at some point as there is nuance everywhere in every subject.

Anyway, tell us about whatever it is you wish to here - preferably with as much nuance as possible. Bombast is also welcome in my book ;)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5720
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Expansive Freedom: Inside Out

Postby charon on October 11th, 2020, 5:14 am 

I wasn’t talking about eating?


I know you weren't.

See? Or do you require some extra reasons?


I read it before. You're missing the point.

I'm trying to point something out. Unfortunately it keeps missing the mark. Freedom isn't 'out there', it's a state of mind.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Expansive Freedom: Inside Out

Postby BadgerJelly on October 11th, 2020, 9:14 am 

Charon -

And? Try and say a LITTLE more please.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5720
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Expansive Freedom: Inside Out

Postby charon on October 11th, 2020, 11:30 am 

There's nothing more to say.

Freedom isn't the independence of being able to go where you want, choose what you want. It's the state of mind you do it in. What's the point of being able to wander freely if the mind is crippled?
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Expansive Freedom: Inside Out

Postby BadgerJelly on October 11th, 2020, 12:11 pm 

charon » October 11th, 2020, 11:30 pm wrote:There's nothing more to say.

Freedom isn't the independence of being able to go where you want, choose what you want. It's the state of mind you do it in. What's the point of being able to wander freely if the mind is crippled?


If you don’t wish to show your working I won’t force you.

Bye
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5720
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Expansive Freedom: Inside Out

Postby charon on October 12th, 2020, 9:29 am 

Badger's gone potty :-)

There is no working, the answer's implicit in the question. What's the point of having all the things a person could have and yet be miserable?

This applies whether you're nomadic or sedentary, makes no difference.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Expansive Freedom: Inside Out

Postby BadgerJelly on October 20th, 2020, 11:51 am 

This might help develop the discussion:

https://cactus.dixie.edu/green/B_Readin ... iberty.pdf

I think mturtle might find this more or less something that grabs their interest?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5720
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Expansive Freedom: Inside Out

Postby BadgerJelly on October 22nd, 2020, 9:32 pm 

For context (from Berlin’s work above):

Almost every moralist in human history has praised freedom. Like happiness and goodness, like nature and reality, the meaning of this term is so porous that there is little interpretation that it seems able to resist. I do not propose to discuss either the history or the more than two hundred senses of this protean word recorded by historians of ideas.


Same for me. Not interested in arguing over the finer details as stated.

Men are largely interdependent, and no man's activity is so completely private as never to obstruct the lives of others in anyway. `Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows'; the liberty of some must depend on the restraint of others. `Freedom for an Oxford don', others have been known to add, `is a very different thing from freedom for an Egyptian peasant.'

This proposition derives its force from something that is both true and important, but the phrase itself remains a piece of political claptrap.


I agree here as well. The idea that there are ‘different’ kinds of freedom is drivel.



Biv -

And now the KEY point of agreement I have with Berlin which you seem to have suggested you may disagree with(?):
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5720
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Previous

Return to Political Theory

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests