"Freedom"

[Fade the Butcher]

We are constantly bombarded with this word. Does freedom have any limits? Is freedom the ultimate good? Why do we value freedom?

[tempus fugit]

"Freedom", "choice", and "rights" are terms that have been coopted from visionaries like the Founding Fathers and applied ad nauseum to issues that ignore exactly with these concepts actually mean.

Basically, if you want to create a movement in pretty much anything, somehow connect it to these terms, go left and hire hippies, soccer moms and minorities, and you'll get whatever you want.

[Ixtab]

B.F. Skinner refutes the idea of freedom in Beyond Freedom and Dignity.

[Billy Score]

Freedom is a cult, a cult of self worship. It throws away the chains of responsibility to other people, to society. It sacrifices higher goals and society for base goals. How is this? Freedom, in the individualist sense of modern times is simply enslavement by the senses, by the self. The "Free" person is free of moral scruples, of virtue, of anything that binds him to good behavior or worthyiness. He is "free" to commit adultery, free to do drugs, free to smoke, free to engage in any kind of foul behavior he sees fit. This is "freedom." Freedom on a national level is a good thing, is a necessary thing for a better future. However the freedom promoted by the UN, by the US, by various Western governments is a foul, evil thing.

[Fade the Butcher]

Freedom is an empty word. It has no positive content. The only reason we value freedom is because of the access it affords us to other goods. If freedom is just a means to an end, then it can at best only be a secondary good, not the good or the ultimate good.

[Kodos]

Why do we value freedom?

Because I have bad memories of middle school.

Are you familiar with the psychology experiments with "guards" and "prisoners".

[Billy Score]

Freedom is an empty word. It has no positive content. The only reason we value freedom is because of the access it affords us to other goods. If freedom is just a means to an end, then it can at best only be a secondary good, not the good or the ultimate good.
How can you have an ultimate "good" from something which is utterly amoral? Also how can anything be beneficial to society as a whole, as a collective, when its very stress is breaking or ignoring obligations and standards set by society?

[Banat]

Freedom is an empty word. It has no positive content. The only reason we value freedom is because of the access it affords us to other goods. If freedom is just a means to an end, then it can at best only be a secondary good, not the good or the ultimate good.

I'd say that no man can comprehend the true meaning of freedom (if it exists at all), but rather views it as an obscure idea which evolved from his own personal experience or input in someone else's denial of "freedom".

In my opinion, in the most primitive way freedom means an unrestricted and unpunished possibility to do anything. But in a more abstract way, freedom ceases to be absolute freedom, because it should be restricted to those actions only that don't restrict "other people's freedom". So, paradoxically, when freedom is unrestricted, it ceases to exist, but if it is restricted, it's no longer "freedom".

I'd say that freedom is an unfulfilled ideal, a negative term (that is, it is defined by something that freedom isn't), and that it is unequally distributed in the society, pretty much the same way as "social power".

[Ahknaton]

The ultimate freedom is the freedom to self-actualise oneself to the fullest of one's potential. This requires freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of expression. The ultimate expression of this freedom is the realisation of one's genius in the form of word and art and work in the world. By "genius" I mean one's artistic, spiritual and personal potential (which may include service to society) to the best of your ability, however you define it.

It has almost nothing to do with freedom of consumer choice and freedom to pursue whatever kind of perverse hedonism takes your fancy. The main problem with "freedom" as presently defined is that it is 100% individualistic. "Freedom" is never talked about in terms of freedom of a collective (e.g. a nation) to be free of obligations towards other groups and declare its "freedom" to pursue its own destiny. Because of this individualistic definition, "freedom" is almost always defined in opposition to the greater good of society, which elevates rebellion (for its own sake) against authority and social norms to the status of some kind of absolute moral good.

Allowing individual economic and political freedom permits technological and scientific progress, since forcing individuals to conform to an orthodox view of the world stifles innovation (this is the classic defense of capitalism in terms of the greater social good).

IMO, freedom of speech and artistic expression should be sacrosanct, with the exception of pornography. However individual economic and sexual freedoms should be balanced against greater social goods.

[Vindex]

I see it as a balance one should have the freedom to pursue there natural talent area, in a positive sense ie artist, doctor, carpenter, music. Be able to disagree.etc But also have a sense of duty and responibility to the greater good of there People.

[Crowley]

Freedom has to be added to another word to make sense, as in freedom of movement, freedom of conscious, freedom of speech. Obviously, there is no such thing as absolute freedom.

[Billy Score]

Yes there is- living as a nomad hermit in the desert/some remote region constitutes freedom in its only true form. With other people, with social relationships, freedom disintegrates (as it must) in order to build society. On one hand you have freedom, on the other you have civilization.

[Crowley]

A hermit has many constraints upon him. Physical, economic, psychological, spiritual.

[Billy Score]

A hermit has many constraints upon him. Physical, economic, psychological, spiritual.
There is no economy if you are living in a cave in the wilderness. There are only the restraints that nature has put upon him.

[Crowley]

Read Walden. Thoreau the hermit labeled one of the chapters of Walden "Economy".

[Helios Panoptes]

The hermit could never be completely free because there will always be an external influence exerted upon him. The only way there would not be is if he had no providers, in which case he would not reach adolescence. He will need to be taught the skills necessary to survive. He will lead his life using the tools that were provided to him by his community.

"Freedom" in the way I use it is the ability to realize one's telos without interference. It follows from the dependence of the individual person upon the collective that his telos must be to improve upon it. Most people seem to mean by the word the right to act arbitrarily without a reasonable, benevolent force intervening on behalf of the collective and with it, the individual.

[OVERWATCH]

Freedom has to be added to another word to make sense, as in freedom of movement, freedom of conscious, freedom of speech. Obviously, there is no such thing as absolute freedom.

Very concise and quite correct.

Additionally, my view of the ideal freedoms would be to strike a happy medium between individual freedom and group welfare.

[Jonathan]

Does freedom have any limits?
It should.

Is freedom the ultimate good?
No. Why is there necessarily an ultimate goal at all?

Why do we value freedom?
Because it is supposed to be the opposite of confinement.

The ultimate freedom is the freedom to self-actualise oneself to the fullest of one's potential.
I don't see how this works. As I've mentioned in another thread, a certain individual might have the potential to be both a great sprinter and a great long distance runner (lets keep things simple for the moment). But only by training themselves and committing to one of those two disiplines can that person reach their full potential in it.

[Petr]

Freedom is an empty word. It has no positive content.
In Thomas Mann's "Zäuberberg", character Leo Naphta indeed argues that liberalism is fundamentally nihilistic/diabolical since it is nothing but negation of something else.


Petr

[sugartits]

According to a television ad I saw for some brand of moisturizer: "Freedom means doing whatever you want, whenever you want. This means having smooth skin from am to pm."

That pretty much summarizes modern ideals of "freedom". Multiple options, multiple choices, minimum obligation. It is also for sale.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Freedom has to be added to another word to make sense, as in freedom of movement, freedom of conscious, freedom of speech. Obviously, there is no such thing as absolute freedom.


I was about to post something similar.

[infoterror]

"Freedom" (http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/future) is just another word, for nothin' left to do...

[Anarch]

According to a television ad I saw for some brand of moisturizer: "Freedom means doing whatever you want, whenever you want. This means having smooth skin from am to pm."

That pretty much summarizes modern ideals of "freedom". Multiple options, multiple choices, minimum obligation. It is also for sale.
Maybe American troops should pull out of Iraq and sell it to them by the boxload. That could work.

[Fade the Butcher]

Your opinion stated as fact.

No. Freedom is a secondary good. Freedom is not an end in itself. It is a means to various ends that contribute to the good life. Some of these ends are legitimate. Some are not. That is why we recognize that freedom must be limited. This isn't a WN argument. All societies, even liberal democratic ones, limit individual freedom to some extent.

Freedom is the ultimate form of good.

This is false. 'Freedom' in the liberal sense is the absence of restraint. It contains no positive content; no account of the good life as such. Freedom cannot be a good in itself because it is merely a condition relative to others; the negation of their use of force. If freedom were the ultimate good (which it is not), then only a lawless society could be perfectly just.

Freedom is a fundamental good because it is the base by which all other factors are determined.

Happiness, not freedom, is the ultimate good. Happiness is the basis by which all other goods are ordered. Freedom is valuable in so far as it enables us to achieve happiness. License, an excess of freedom, is just as as much of a vice as tyranny, a deficiency of freedom. Liberty (a moderate amount of individual freedom) is a virtue. It makes perfect sense to curtail license through legislation, as it promotes misery, not happiness.

Your are arguing the Hobbes perspective that we benefit through the restriction of freedom because a tyrannical ruler can provide for us.

This is a straw man. I have not argued in favor of tyranny (arbitrary personal rule). My political philosophy does not rest upon any Hobbesian state of nature either.

I see it hypocritical that you believe freedom is "secondary" when this whole site is about freedom.

You seem to be a little confused here. The object of Stormfront is to promote White Nationalism, not anarchy.

You have the freedom of speech to express the viewpoint of WN, the freedom express ideas and debate, and the whole point of this site is the freedom of self-determination, the idea that White people should be free enough to decide their fate.

This is nonsense. I cannot say whatever I please whenever I desire in any forum on this site. Neither can anyone else. The purpose of Stormfront is to promote White Nationalism, not individual freedom. This is why there are rules here that curtail freedom of expression and moderators charged with the duty of enforcing those rules. If individual freedom was an ultimate good here, then there would be no basis for censorship. I could curse, post pornography, spam, flame other members, start religious discussion in every forum and so on.

It is not the position of Stormfront, as far as I am aware, that white people should be free to do whatever they want, as the mood strikes. White Nationalism is based on the idea that whites have a duty to promote racial separatism. This in turn is based on on the theory that justice requires we secure white living space on the behalf of future generations of whites. Where has Stormfront ever endorsed the idea that whites should be free to smoke crack, miscegenate, abort their children, and ignore the demands that justice requires of us?

Freedom is not only a good, it is a necessary restriction on governmental power.

If individual freedom is the ultimate good, as you claim it is, then there is no basis for limiting individual freedom through legislation. There could be no rational justification for government. You would have to endorse anarchism.

Government is established to promote the common good of its citizens, that is, their happiness. This is the basis for limiting government power, not any stupid sacrosanct theory of freedom being an ultimate good. The very act of establishing government is an implicit acknowledgement that individual freedom is a secondary good, that individual freedom can and should be limited, in order to promote happiness. There are all sorts of other goods that we value more than absolute individual freedom; that also contribute to our happiness.

If a government wrongs the people, and no one is free to question it, then we arrive in a situation of injustice and a complete failure of a society.

If individual freedom were the ultimate good, then treason cannot be a crime. You seem to be endorsing a very confused account of justice here. Justice would be meaningless if freedom was the ultimate good, as the demands of the absolute freedom of the individual would take precedence over those of justice.

Freedom prevents a monopoly of power.

If individual freedom is the ultimate good, then only anarchism is justifiable. Anarchy, however, doesn't prevent monopolies of power. It facilitates them by destroying group solidarity in the face of potential tyrants. Anarchy leads directly to tyranny, as Plato said, the one extreme leads directly to the other.

For example, communism restricts freedom, because the state determines everything (monopoly of power).

The very act of establishing government restricts individual freedom, as it creates a higher authority that the individual is subject to.

Much in the same way, fascism restricts freedom because power is held by "corporations" (stratified monopoly).

There is nothing wrong with restricting excesses of freedom, as there are higher goods than freedom.

Freedom is the single greatest asset anyone can hope to attain.

This is false. Happiness is the single greatest asset anyone can hope to attain. Freedom is a good in so far as it contributes to happiness, that is, as liberty. There are many other goods that contribute to happiness: health, justice, victory, beauty, truth, knowledge, honor that we value for their own sake.

If you look at the definition of a liberal, it is in fact a good thing.

Liberalism is the most destructive philosophy ever devised.

Don't look at perversions like the NAACP, that's not liberalism.

The NAACP is made possible by the liberal democracy we live in.

The NAACP takes away freedom because it is an organization that tries to monopolize power in order to get rid of the right of self-determination.

The NAACP exists because our liberal democracy recognizes the so called inalienable right of blacks to organize themselves politically to advance their racial interests at the expense of other groups, notably whites. We don't condemn the NAACP because it lobbies for laws that restrict individual freedom. We oppose the NAACP because it is anti-white. The NAACP is one example of how pluralist liberal democracies do not benefit whites. This situation would not exist in a separatist polity.

It both restricts the freedom of Black people (self-determination through synthetic success) and the freedom of White people (loss of opportunity, therefore loss of self-determination).

The NAACP empowers blacks by working to advance legislation that caters to their racial interests, notably anti-discrimination laws like the various civil rights acts and racial preferences in government. The NAACP also files lawsuits in order to get laws they dislike declared unconstitutional. This is why the NAACP, in fact, is so popular amongst blacks.

True liberals were Descartes, Voltaire, Socrates, and many more.

ROFL

Socrates was PUT TO DEATH by a democracy for his association with the oligarchs who had previously ruled Athens after the victory of Sparta in the Peloponnesian War! His greatest pupil, Plato, was the greatest collectivist philosopher of all time. His pupil, Aristotle, could hardly be described as a liberal, still less Aquinas or any number of philosophers inspired by this tradition such as Hegel.

Napoleon was a liberal, the whole napoleonic code was a good thing, and it was a liberal idea (granting many civil rights to peasants).

George W. Bush is a liberal too. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of anti-racists are liberals of one stripe or another.

The Enlightenment was all about liberalism, it was the disintegration of the Church's monopoly on education, and the granting of an education to other members of society.

The ideas spawned and/or inculcated by the Enlightenment (i.e., individualism, egalitarianism, humanism, universalism etc.) have done more harm to racialism than anything else.

Academies in Ancient Greece were liberal institutions.

Are you trying to say that Plato was a liberal now? Aristotle? :rofl

Anything which grants you a right or an opportunity is a liberal institution.

This is false.

Education is a liberal institution because it grants you the right to think rationally, and the right to other jobs, an enhanced standard of living, and power (because that's what knowledge is).

I don't know where you got this idea. Education existed long before liberalism and actually has little to do with it. The first universities were established in Europe during the High Middle Ages, in the heyday of Scholasticism.

Capitalism is a liberal institution and system.

Which is precisely why capitalism is so destructive.

WN stands for liberalism in its most fundamental state.

This is false. White Nationalism is opposed to liberalism at the most fundamental level. Liberalism begins with the theory that the individual takes precedence over the group; that the group is nothing more than an association of freely consenting individualism.

White Nationalism turns this idea on its head. The group takes precedence over the individual. The individual is born into socially and historically situated communities that are not of his creation. The individual has duties to his/her group, not presocial rights against them.

It stands for self-determination, it stands against monopoly systems such as communism.

White Nationalism is not based on self-determination.

WN is one of the ultimate expressions of liberalism, the granting of rights to White people.

This is false. White Nationalism is based on the idea that individuals have a historical duty to future generations that transcends individual rights.

It is not a perversion of liberalism like Feminism or the NAACP that seek to take away freedoms in order to "equalize".

Both feminism and black empowerment are entirely consonant with and facilitated by liberal democracy.

In conclusion, liberalism, and freedom, are the ultimate ideals of human civilization.

Happiness is the ultimate good, not freedom. Freedom is merely a secondary good; one amongst many. In moderation, as liberty, freedom contributes to the good life. We limit individual freedom because we recognize that there are other goods we value more than absolute individual freedom; that neglect of these other goods brings misery, not happiness. Community is one such good.

You cannot be human until you are free.

Humanity is merely a species. It is our ability to reason that makes us human; that is our defining characteristic, not our freedom. Animals are freer than we are.

A tool is not free, yet a person who can think and act outside of "programmed" boundaries is free.

You got this ass backwards: society and its laws that render us free. Tradition doesn't limit our freedom either. It makes freedom possible.

[Fade the Butcher]

You're completely wrong

We shall let the gallery be the judge of that.

This is a very stupid philosophy.

Let's see.

People don't want a car if that car doesn't benefit them. Tell me, what good would having a car be if it had no wheels?

A car without wheels would be dysfunctional as it could not actualize its telos; that is, the transportation of an individual from one place to another. But wait. According to your ridiculous argument, this wouldn't really matter all that much, as transportation is merely a secondary characteristic of the car. It's primary purpose is to increase the 'freedom' of the individual by virtue of his ownership of the vehicle; a fact that would remain unchanged if it had no wheels.

Wheels give the FREEDOM of having a car, because it gives the freedom to span great distances, and this provides satisfaction for the individual.

This is false. I am free to own a car without wheels. I am free to purchase a car without wheels. The wheels of a vehicle, say, those of a nice Jeep Cherokee at Bondy Ford in Dothan, AL do not give me the freedom to possess the car. You are your refuting your own argument here: if freedom was a primary characteristic provided by the car, then the inability of the car to perform a secondary function, that is, transportation from one place to another, would not negate the primary characteristic. I could also replace 'wheels' with any number of aspects of the car such as the motor.

What is a need?

Something that is a requirement.

A need is something required for the FREEDOM to live.

A need is something that it is indispensible for a person or a thing to actualize its telos. The so-called 'freedom to live' has nothing necessarily to do with needs, as nonliving things have needs. Let's return to your little example: the automobile. The automobile needs oil, gas, regular maintenance, wheels and so on if it is to actualize its telos, that is, transportation from one place to another. We can deduce the needs of an automobile once we know its telos. We can deduce none of these things from 'freedom' because freedom isn't the telos of the car. It is merely a secondary characteristic that provides no guidance whatsoever.

Living is a part of freedom.

Wait a minute. Isn't it possible to live in prison? Isn't it possible to live in the most tyrannical of societies?

People argue against abortion, because although it infringes a small right of the woman, it grants the right and freedom of life to a child.

People argue against abortion on demand because it is a repulsive unjust practice. The immorality of abortion lies in the unfettered license of one individual to destroy another member of the community. Abortion is not the negation of freedom, as a fetus in its early stages is physiologically dependent upon its mother.

Abortion is individual freedom taken to its most wanton extremes. That is why it flourishes in the most so called free societies, the liberal democracies of the West. Abortion on demand was illegal in the 'tyrannical' Third Reich and Soviet Union.

You WANT food not for the sake of having it, but because it provides you with life, which in itself is freedom.

I want food, first and foremost, because I have a physiological need for it inherent in my genetic makeup. Your equivocation of freedom with life is silly. Do I have to remind you that you just equated the freedom with wheels? Are those alive too? Furthermore, I do not desire all foods or excesses of foods. I do not need all food in the world in order to live. I do need a moderate amount of food to be achieve happiness.

This is the only correct part of your statement. People want plasma TVs for a good, that good is freedom, which grants pleasure.

People want plasma TVs because they derive pleasure from them and pleasure is seen as an aspect of the good life. In order to acquire a plasma TV, the typical individual usually has to work to earn money. This requires him to adjust his lifestyle in accordance with this desire; which requires him to sacrifice his freedom in order to work for his employer.

Individual freedom is not the end in this case. In fact, freedom is a lower order good that is devalued in order to attain a perceived higher order good. Furthermore, freedom is not always a good. There are excesses of freedom that do not contribute to the good life at all.

Let's look at the lowest level of pleasure, sexual pleasure. People spend hundreds of dollars on hookers because it grants them the freedom to express themselves sexually to another human being without having to invest time in a serious relationship.

People spend money on hookers because they enjoy the pleasure they derive from sexual intercourse with them. This is the end of such transacations. Freedom has nothing to do with it, as freedom can mean any end whatsoever. You could just as easily refer to examining fungus on Chilean rocks in the Andes or foam in the South China Sea.

Investing time takes away from freedom, therefore people get hookers to get more freedom than they had before.

This is bizarre.

Restated: Investing time takes away from (the absence of restraint)), therefore people get hookers to get more (absence of restraint) than they had before.

It is not the absence of restraint that makes men seek prostitutes. It is the sexual pleasure they derive from engaging in intercourse with them.

First of all, separatism and liberalism are not mutually exclusive.

Let's be clear. We are not talking about any kind of separatism. We are talking about racial separatism. I can think of few things more profoundly unliberal than that. If White Nationalists were of the view that individual freedom was the highest good, then they would have no grounds for complaining, as they as they already live in one of the world's freest societies.

But White Nationalists do complain. They reject the liberal societies that surround them? Why? Because liberal societies grossly neglect the collective goods that White Nationalists value; community being the most important of them all.

The freedom of self-determination is separatism.

White Nationalism is not based on Wilsonian liberal self-determination. That's absurd. It rests on a moral appeal to justice, that is, White Nationalists believe they have a duty to future generations of whites to secure white living space.

Granting freedoms is liberal.

We already live in a liberal society. If there was no problem with that liberal society, then we would not be so determined to get away from it.

Therefore, separatism is liberalism.

This is a non sequitur.

Let's imagine that a restrictive dictatorship existed in the US that would contrast with the ideals of Stormfront.

Here is an idea: let's discuss the actual world that we live in, you know, the world that concerns us, not any figment of your imagination.

This dictatorship would shut down stormfront, because the freedoms of Stormfront members to express their opinions are a threat to this state.

Okay. Let's discuss reality now that we have taken a stroll through your NeverNeverLand. Virtually all of us live in liberal societies that actually exist where we are the most ostracized, hated, and persecuted minority extant. We are harrassed, discriminated against, and in many cases imprisoned for our views.

But hey! According to you, we possess the great wonderful freedom to sit here and chatter amongst ourselves all day about all the things we dislike. Guess what? We would much rather live in a society where we didn't have to complain about such things. We would much rather live in a society that embodies all that we value, not liberals like yourself who come here to lecture us.

God this is a stupid argument.

It is a stupid argument to say that the function of a car is transportation from once place to another? I am assuming here that you believe cars are constructed with some other end in mind.

The ABILITY TO DO SOMETHING equates into FREEDOM.

You are now switching on an ad hoc basis in between two entirely different senses of freedom. Is freedom the absence of restraint or is it the ability to do something?

Therefore, the ability to travel some place (granted by a car) means freedom.

The telos of an automobile is transportation from one place to another. Cars are designed with this fundamental end in mind. The freedom of the individual is a secondary concern. The automobile has secondary functions that grant the individual "the ability to do something." The automobile has a lighter, a radio, a CD player and all sorts of other features. The problem with your argument is that this "ability to do something" is not freedom per se, but a very definite thing. A car is not designed to do anything or be anything. It has a purpose, a function, an end.

Your first two sentences in that quote are completely contradictory, because the opportunity and ability to do something equates into freedom.

This is false. There is no contradiction whatsoever in my argument.

Through liberal ideals such as freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of self-determination.

Stormfront IS NOT here to promote liberalism.

There is nothing about Stormfront that is not liberal.

ROFL

White Nationalism is not the enemy of liberalism despite the fact that you've been brainwashed into believing that "evil racism" is the enemy of liberalism.

This begs the obvious question: if liberal societies are so great, then why are White Nationalists endorsing WHOLESALE RACIAL SECESSION from them?? Maybe it has something to do with the widespread belief held by White Nationalists that it is impossible to realize their aims within the context of such liberal societies.

[Fade the Butcher]

Lunatic statement.

Let's examine the definitions of freedom that you have used so far: 1.) the ability to do something 2.) the absence of restraint. Now let's revisit my statement you responded to.

"It provides no positive content as an ethical guide to the good life."
--Deconstructionist

If we possess the ability to do something, then what should be done? If we are free to do as we please, then what should we do? Telling us we should be free tells us nothing substantial. How are we to discriminate amongst the infinite number of ends towards which we could direct our action?

THE GOODS PROVIDE FREEDOM. I'm trying to get this through to you.

Shouting doesn't help you make your point. How does beauty provide freedom?

We still give them the freedom to live, the freedom to listen to music, to read books, and to choose to work.

We deny them access to a whole range of goods that the common public enjoys that does not include freedom.

This is a non-argument.

Hitler was not democratically elected. This is false.

The NAZI party was elected into parliament as the largest party.

Hitler was not elected Chancellor of Germany. He was appointed Chancellor of Germany by President Hindenberg as the head of a coalition government. The Nazis did not gain an electoral majority in their own right.

Hitler didn't create a coup in order to gain power in the Reichstag. Therefore, Hitler was the product of a democracy, but he was not democratic.

This is a non sequitur.

Feminism is the product of liberalism, but it is not a Liberalist ideology (at least not anymore).

Feminism flourishes in liberal societies.

It couldn't be simpler, but you can't get it.

I don't understand liberalism. I honestly don't understand how this morally vacuous ideology appeals to anyone.

Treason infringes more rights and freedoms than it upholds, therefore it is not a liberal act.

If individual freedom is the sacrosanct ultimate good, then there is absolutely no basis for prosecuting anyone for engaging in treason. You are backtracking. Now you are saying that there are limits upon absolute individual freedom which, of course, suggest that there is a higher good.

Any action can grant rights, but not any action is liberal.

LOL

CIA agents acting in South America grant power to small groups of Guerilla warfare soldiers (power is freedom) but these are not Liberalist acts since they infringe on everyone else's freedoms.

Do white women have a right to sleep with blacks? Yes or no.

Anarchy takes away freedom.

I know that. It makes no sense to say that individual freedom is the ultimate good when individual freedom is only made possible by other things. :p

Anarchy takes away the freedom of speech, because when everyone yells no one is heard.

This does not follow.

Anarchy takes away the freedom for a good standard of living.

There is no such "freedom for a good standard of living."

Anarchy takes away the freedom to safety.

What? :p

Anarchy is not a truly liberal ideal.

Anarchism is logical conclusion of this absurd theory taken to its logical conclusion. It's impracticality doesn't reflect upon its theoretical purity.

Socrates was a free thinker.

Where did Socrates say that individual freedom is the absolute highest good?

He believed in enlightening individuals.

Who were these individuals? Plato and Alcibiades? LOL

Since knowledge is freedom, then he was a Liberal.

^^ A testament to your understanding of formal logic.

He did not believe in oppressing everyone else and taking away rights for the sake of a vapid argument of "safety." He questioned "What is justice?" up until his death.

You haven't addressed my point. Socrates was PUT TO DEATH by a democracy for corrupting the youth of Athens, that is, he was a friend of the deposed oligarchs. Is it not counterintuitive that Socrates would have been executed by men of liberal sensibilities if he was recognized as being amongst their number??

Completely wrong.

What is liberalism? Why don't you tell me? I am just a political scientist.

Oh please, this is a stupid argument!

No. White Nationalists believe that justice requires racial separatism. How is that a liberal argument?

I never knew White Nationalists enjoyed being governed by Jews, Blacks, and wanted to hand themselves over as slaves to other races.

Wait a second. Isn't this the sort of liberal society that you endorse; the one we live in today?

In any case, this is more about individual guiding philosophies than about hard facts.

It is about your ignorance of philosophy and political theory, amongst other things. We have already seen the depth of your knowledge of Medieval history.

I can respect your opinion and the guiding principles by which you choose to justify life even though I disagree with thim. A subjective argument has more than one right answer.

A subjective argument has no right answer because any answer is just as good as any other.

[Basil Fawlty]

Freedom is an empty word. It has no positive content. The only reason we value freedom is because of the access it affords us to other goods. If freedom is just a means to an end, then it can at best only be a secondary good, not the good or the ultimate good.I don't think it is an empty word if we first distinguish between freedom and liberty. Freedom I take to be a term that denotes a possibility for human beings - to turn towards or away from the good and so it is the situation of the will (hence the free will - determinism question with which philosophy students are usually tortured with in the first year). Liberty is a more banal conception that denotes lack of external restraint to human action ranging from locomotion to private property.

I think you are crticising liberty rather than freedom as such.

[Fade the Butcher]

I distinguish between liberty and freedom.

Tyranny: An excessive deficiency in freedom.
Liberty: A moderate amount of freedom.
License: An excessive overabundance of freedom.

[Basil Fawlty]

I distinguish between liberty and freedom.

Tyranny: An excessive deficiency in freedom.
Liberty: A moderate amount of freedom.
License: An excessive overabundance of freedom.But these all treat of freedom as something external, i.e. liberty, therefore they are tautological.

[Fade the Butcher]

But these all treat of freedom as something external, i.e. liberty, therefore they are tautological.

Freedom can be used in various senses.

[Eddy]

In general:

Liberty: Freedom to do what the person making the distinctions approves of.

License: Freedom to do what the person making the distinctions disapproves of.

[Basil Fawlty]

Freedom can be used in various senses.Yes, and we've explored some of those senses here. :rolleyes:

But you were criticising conceptions of liberty as opposed to freedom which should be primarily (in the context of this discussion) taken as a condition of the will.