Is absolute freedom attainable?

[Stigmata]

I've been pondering this for a few days now. Just thinking to myself, is it possible to attain absolute freedom in a society?

My initial thought was "yes, of course it can." Freedom is what everyone dreams of; a perfect Utopia, where everything is good, and everyone is happy. Everyone would be able to do what they wanted. No arbitrary laws, no oppression, no more being held back. It would be the society to top all others.

Freedom is, well, freedom, and that can't possibly be bad... Can it?

Now, I got to thinking. If you had absolute freedom in a society, where everything was allowed, there are thousands of things that would go wrong. Think of all the murderers, the stalkers, the mentally unbalanced people who would jump on this like nothing else. A free society would be a playground for these people. Within minutes, hundreds upon hundreds of people would be dead, injured, poisoned, or permanently disabled. In a heartbeat, freedom turns to chaos.

Of course, the do-gooders, the samaritans, they would have to do something about this. After all, it's a free society, right? You can beat back these delinquints and have zero repercussions for your actions. And thusly, the saviors of the people fight back the "bad guys", and then all is good.

People would start to rally behind the self-proclaimed "good guys." And these good guys would start establishing some ground rules. They would start with the obvious things: No murder, no assault, no robbery, no -

Hold on. This is starting to sound like a current-day society, right? The good keeping a handle on the bad, enforcing the law, and keeping the innocent safe. And on the other hand, people are being oppressed. The murderers, the aggressors, their freedom to murder and assault has been taken away. Oppression cannot occur in a free society, because to oppress is to take away freedom.

Yet, what we have is a free society. Every day, we are free. Don't believe me? You can go and test it out for yourself. Leave the house and do something illegal. Flash the police, shoot someone, smash a storefront. The police would stop you, they'd keep you from continuing the crime. They're oppressing you; you're no longer free.

Only, you are free. The simple fact that you can perform these illegal acts is a testament to your freedom. And if you look at it from the other side, the oppressive side, you see that these police are using their absolute freedom to oppress you.

The government is using its freedom to allow the police to oppress you, and to allow governmental proceedings to happen. The people are using their freedom to align themselves behind the government, or align against it. The murderers are using their freedom to kill people, and the law enforcement is using its freedom to get rid of the murderers.

The so-called Utopia that we strive for has been around us all along. Every day we are free, yet we are equally oppressed. We are free, yet we are not.

Is absolute freedom attainable? The simple answer is "yes." But due to human nature, freedom cannot exist without oppression. Yet, oppression is a result of freedom. Without freedom, oppression cannot exist. And oppression occurs every day, all around us.

Therefore, what we have is freedom. Freedom to oppress, freedom to rebel, freedom to conform. We are all free.

*****

Heh, this turned somewhat into an essay. Which really wasn't my original intent, but that's not really an issue.

Any thoughts on this?

Side note: I searched the entire forum, and I didn't get anything about this. Sorry if this has already been discussed.

 

[kmack]

Interesting points, I liked it a lot, and yes we are free (within the limits of the Constitution) but we are also subject to punishment for our actions. I'll be interested to see what other people say, good job :thumbs:

 

[burner69]

It's all about *dons grey wig and walking stick* how you're raised!!

If we were all taught from birth to be nice, and everyone WAS nice to us. If we didn't here about how this group of people are bad, these people hate you, and these people are weird, then yes, perhaps we might.

We won't, but potentially we could.

As it stands I think the mass media and religion are the two largest barriers in the way of happiness and total freedom.

 

[burner69]

Interesting points, I liked it a lot, and yes we are free (within the limits of the Constitution) but we are also subject to punishment for our actions. I'll be interested to see what other people say, good job :thumbs:

We're told what we want to do, and given freedom to do certain things.

For example if I wanted to walk down the street naked, which, let's be honest, harms nobody, I couldn't. I'm not free in that respect.

If I wanted to wear a potatoe sack as a t-shirt, while legally I could do it, the population would disaprove, and cause me hurt, because I'm not conforming to the "buy corporate clobber" norm.

If I want to take dru-... no, I'll leave that... don't wanna get in any trouble

If I'm 16, and want to drive a car, have it insured, have it taxed, and am able to drive, I can't, because the law says so.

Such is life.

Not too bad tho is it? :cheers:

 

[Edcrab]

You said every point I wanted to say on reading your title alone.

We do indeed have total freedom to do whatever we want- and because of that society imposes rules, law enforcement and moral guidelines (often in the guise of religion, which is effectively divine law enforcement) to combat those that would abuse their freedoms and worsen the situations of others.

Short of subjecting ourselves to the control of some sort of perfect, infallible leader, this won't change. Perhaps we will be relying on machines to do a lot of our ethical work in the future.

But then again, if we were ruled by some sort of god-like entity that could control and prevent our actions, we yet again remove freedom from the equation. The problem with sentience is that we are sentient and that we are, of course, aware of the fact, and sometimes probably resent it.

 

[Stigmata]

For example if I wanted to walk down the street naked, which, let's be honest, harms nobody, I couldn't. I'm not free in that respect.

You missed my point

I was explaining that in reality, you are free to walk down the street naked. But on the other hand, people use their freedom to say "That isn't normal", or "That shouldn't be allowed", and thus the police force uses their freedom to impose on your freedom to walk down the street naked.

What I tried to get across was the fact that absolute freedom is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it allows you to do whatever you want. But it also allows everyone else to do whatever they want, and in many cases, what one person wants is what someone else doesn't want, and one or both persons will feel the need to impose their opinions on the other.

Basically, we're all completely and absolutely free, but we're bound by other people's inbred and sometimes arbitrary opinions and actions.

 

[Maui]

It's an interesting idea. I heard something similar from some philosopher wondering about "is heaven possible?", and one of his main ideas always stuck with me:

Let's say there is Jack and Mary. Jack absolutely adores Mary - he almost worships the ground she walks on. Unfortunately, Mary thinks Jack talks funny and hasn't had a shower in ages, and so is repulsed whenever he is near. Therefore, they can *never* both be happy. (There were some other ideas tossed around like some God-like entity making Mary love Jack or Jack stop loving Mary, but it was assumed that free choice was an essential component of happiness).

Certainly some parallels there.

OT - Nice to see a thread in the politics forum promoting friendly conversation for once, eh?

EDIT: I guess the parallel I would draw is that by its very nature absolute freedom in the presence of other people is inherently impossible because of the conflicting desires of each party. I guess you came to a different conclusion with the same idea though.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Well, sorry, but I'm glad we have certain laws prohibiting violence. I'm all for total freedom, just so long as your not free to kill anyone at your own leisure. Thats wrong.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

There is indeed no freedom without dependence on an outside factor.
We depend on the police. Criminals depend on not being caught.
Even if all human experience were contained in a virtual reality in which all desires are possible, and all undesirable content preemptively blocked, that false reality is what we would be dependant on.

So, the only way to have perfect freedom would be to be utterly ignorant of the fact that you are relying on ignorance to be free.

I guess it is bliss.

...but even then you would be dependant on something, and constricted by being unaware. I guess the perfect freedom is in fact a balance of freedom and constraint.

The Lockian ideals of life, liberty and happiness, when realized to their fullest extent, should provide the best balance IMO.

Basically all that is required is the end of all crime, and for each person to have at the very least, no want of nutrition, shelter, education and all the other important aspects of healthy life.

So, perfect freedom is perfect health.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

^ My g0t! He's right ...

 

[The Mullinator]

It's an interesting idea. I heard something similar from some philosopher wondering about "is heaven possible?", and one of his main ideas always stuck with me:

Let's say there is Jack and Mary. Jack absolutely adores Mary - he almost worships the ground she walks on. Unfortunately, Mary thinks Jack talks funny and hasn't had a shower in ages, and so is repulsed whenever he is near. Therefore, they can *never* both be happy. (There were some other ideas tossed around like some God-like entity making Mary love Jack or Jack stop loving Mary, but it was assumed that free choice was an essential component of happiness).

Certainly some parallels there.

OT - Nice to see a thread in the politics forum promoting friendly conversation for once, eh?

EDIT: I guess the parallel I would draw is that by its very nature absolute freedom in the presence of other people is inherently impossible because of the conflicting desires of each party. I guess you came to a different conclusion with the same idea though.

Just to comment on that "Is heaven possible?" I thought about that before and came to the conclusion that if heaven existed then it could only exist in a form where every individual who goes there lives inside their own personal heaven where everything they desire occurs. No one heaven would be the same. However I personally don't believe in the existance of any sort of afterlife.

This could also be applied to reality, the only way I can see us living in a utopian society where everyone has absolute freedom without any undesired reprocutions is if everyone lived in their own reality either in parallel universes or some sort of Matrix like brain/computer system.

 

[kirovman]

I believe they have a word for this kind of society....Anarchy.

I think a society needs to reach a balance between individual freedoms, but at the same time have some kind of framework to enforce people to keep their responsibilities...ie freedom as long as you don't infringe on other people's freedoms.

Although you will never satisfy everybody.

 

[burner69]

You missed my point

I was explaining that in reality, you are free to walk down the street naked. But on the other hand, people use their freedom to say "That isn't normal", or "That shouldn't be allowed", and thus the police force uses their freedom to impose on your freedom to walk down the street naked.

What I tried to get across was the fact that absolute freedom is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it allows you to do whatever you want. But it also allows everyone else to do whatever they want, and in many cases, what one person wants is what someone else doesn't want, and one or both persons will feel the need to impose their opinions on the other.

Basically, we're all completely and absolutely free, but we're bound by other people's inbred and sometimes arbitrary opinions and actions.

I was using it to make a, not very well constructed, argument that in reality nobody is being hurt by my nudey venture, and yet people will complain because of the way they've been brought up.
If we can raise kids to be totally against violence, and hatred, but have full respect for people's freedom where it harms nobody else, then we're almost there.

 

[baxter]

The so-called Utopia that we strive for has been around us all along. Every day we are free, yet we are equally oppressed. We are free, yet we are not.

Is absolute freedom attainable? The simple answer is "yes." But due to human nature, freedom cannot exist without oppression. Yet, oppression is a result of freedom. Without freedom, oppression cannot exist. And oppression occurs every day, all around us.

Therefore, what we have is freedom. Freedom to oppress, freedom to rebel, freedom to conform. We are all free.

QFE

Your points are interesting. I would have thought that absolute freedom is a state of mind.
We all live in a society that, like you have pointed out uses its freedom to maintain law and order, without which we would sink into a state of anarchy.

 

[jondy]

It's when social interaction occurs that true-to-definition freedom goes out the window.

That's really the short and short of it

The discussions arise from the compromises we make between the two; total freedom and complete oppression - neither can exist on their own, or society collapses.