Let us define FREEDOM to help resolve other debates...

[Commy]

My question to you is this:

What do you consider to be freedom?

It is simple, it is short, and hopefully it will resolve many things here at Apolyton...

As for me, I will withold my opinion until I have some posts here to comment on...

[St Leo]

Negative freedom is what cannot be taken from you.

Positive freedom is what must be given to you.

The distinction doesn't really exist, any more than the one between 'blow' and 'suck'.

[Spiffor]

Freedom is defined as being whatever Ned says is Freedom.

I'm afraid I don't know the Nedian terminology enough to be more specific but for one thing: Commies (i.e. any person who supports a party left of the Republicans) never support freedom. If a commie is supporting something, then the thing cannot be freedom.

[Japher]

Freedom is the ability to act how you want when you want to so long as it doesn't impede on any one else because we do live in a society.

One type of freedom is the freedom of speech. This means that whenever I want I can say whatever I want so long as it doesn't adveresly effect someone... to an extent.

For example,

I can say "Ming is a bastard."

but I can't say "Ming is an *******"

though this may have something to do with trueisms rather than freedoms.

[Illur]

freedom is France

[Japher]

**** France

Illur should be banned for having such a poopy mouth

[Illur]

that would be oppressing my france of speak

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Japher
Freedom is the ability to act how you want when you want to so long as it doesn't impede on any one else because we do live in a society.

Question: How are you not going to impede on anyone else in a society?

The best definition for freedom is the simplest with no biased altercations. Freedom is simply freedom; having abilities.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Freedom is defined as being whatever Ned says is Freedom.

I'm afraid I don't know the Nedian terminology enough to be more specific but for one thing: Commies (i.e. any person who supports a party left of the Republicans) never support freedom. If a commie is supporting something, then the thing cannot be freedom.

[Commy]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I'm afraid I don't know the Nedian terminology enough to be more specific but for one thing: Commies (i.e. any person who supports a party left of the Republicans) never support freedom. If a commie is supporting something, then the thing cannot be freedom.

If you are refering to the American Republicans, then for the most part, every political party in the world, by your definition, would be a communist-like party...that's a lot of Commies, oh how proud lenin would be...

[BlackCat]

Sometimes I have the feeling that Ned thinks that even American republicans are too far to the left.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Sometimes I have the feeling that Ned thinks that even American republicans are too far to the left.

Of course. If they were all like Ned I'd be having horrible tings done to me.

[St Leo]

True freedom is having a variety of viable options. Your government's job is to ensure that your rights translate into things you can actually use.

[Whaleboy]

i) Freedom is a product of being conscious, is inextricably linked to existential responsibility and is basically a relationship between the ego and the universe.

ii) Social freedom is broadly similar, but assuming the existence of other people and a given society, responsibility and perversity have an effect. Capitalism is a consequence of high-libertarianism here (i.e., Mill Limit for those that remember).

iii) Choice is a consequence of our own choices in life (see previous two). Communism seeks to equalise this by creating a stable and productive (ant colony) society by limiting social freedom.

The notion of "rights" is confused between "ii" and "iii". The former is somewhat contractual, whereas the latter is stupid. If I have a rocket, I have the choice to go into space, whereas one who doesn't have a rocket doesn't have that choice. Rights don't come into it.

"i" is mistakenly thought of as leading to "natural rights", but there's a myriad of equally subjective consequences of "i" that could be called that.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
ii) Social freedom is broadly similar, but assuming the existence of other people and a given society, responsibility and perversity have an effect. Capitalism is a consequence of high-libertarianism here (i.e., Mill Limit for those that remember).

iii) Choice is a consequence of our own choices in life (see previous two). Communism seeks to equalise this by creating a stable and productive (ant colony) society by limiting social freedom.

Why do you consider communism to be inconsistant with the Mill Limit?