There is no freedom on this planet. For anyone. It is an illusion.

 

The problem with freedom of action is that some people would use it for malicious purposes. Criminals, terrorists, various loons...

However, freedom of speech implies freedom of action, without physical violence - let's call it the civilised way to discuss and resolve troublesome matters...

Niight!

 

agree!! however this is easier said than done.
it is easy to lose your head in the heat of the moment, a lot of times the freedom of speech leads to violence, i'd say maybe even war.

one of things i like about Audiosex is that it lets me practice that, debating with someone with a different POV without getting physical or personal.

 

In an ideal world, people accept facts and sound arguments and have empathy for eachother. But there are cynical people of low intelligence and morale who just don't care, because of hate, greed and stupidity and they do real damage in the real world.

Spoiler: Omae Wa Mou Shindeiru

 

.

 

Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2024

be grateful. because you can at least speak freely(kinda)...
where I live, we do not have that either

 

I suggest you study up on freedom of speech.
Once you understand why it is important independent of other freedoms I think your question will answer itself.
Regardless, to imply that the importance of freedom of speech might in some way rely of freedom of action seems to indicate that you have not studied the topic at all.

On a tangent:
Any social freedoms we have are not inherent in our existence, but GRANTED to us by the society in which we exist.

All alone in nature you have the "right" to do anything you are physically able.
Nature will let you know when you overstep.

Within a group, the group is what approves rights and enforces rules.
As an introvert and fairly self-sufficient loner I find groups offensive, but I also admit and accept that I can not survive long without the support of others, and the restrictions that come along with that relationship.

At 13 I didn't accept that. At 17 I understood and accepted the idea, but only at around 22, separating from the military did it become a concrete idea in my head and something to prevent me from too much resentment.

So, while we might bitch and whine about our lack of freedom / loss of freedoms, keep in mind that it's the price we pay for not starving to death or being eaten alive.
We have formal methods for determining what "rights" we sacrifice and to what degree, via elected officials. Yes, many are idiots and many corrupt, but in most places they don't kick in your door, rape your wife and daughter and chop off your head.

Keep things in perspective.
It's good to be motivate to fight for freedom and against "those bastards", but bad to grind yourself and everyone else down with pathological adolescent vitriol.

 

Last edited: May 1, 2024

absolute freedom for everyone at the same time can't be achieved by definition. your freedom to enslave someone requires that the people you enslave lose most of their freedoms.

freedom of {speech|action|whatever} is an optimisation problem. how do you maximise freedoms for as many people as possible? usually, that means compromising the most extreme of freedoms for the most extreme of people.

don't allow billionaires to command private armies, don't allow the pope to determine what everyone does on their sundays, de-democratise violence.

 

Freedom of action = The Purge. And it would happen very quickly!

 

it's dangerous, when around 66% people are irresponsible dumbasses without moral values and basic wit,
what kind of freedom are you feeling lack of?

 

correct.

not correct.

in forums for sure, not in real life. you have obviosuly never tried it to use communication in real life to change society or organize physical work.

the problem is correctly described, but this is not caused by the freedom of speech or the missing "freedom of action", this is simply the difference between t heory and practice.

depending on how exactly one asks the question, one answer could be "well, it may exist already and you just don knwo about that."

in most constitutional states the written law about your "freedom of action" works like that: the individual may do anything - unless it is expressely forbidden by a law.

(even in china or current iran there is no law saying "you may only do what you are allowed to. your "actions" are simply not regulated at all there.)

for example it is forbidden to block the streets for fun, steal from your neighbour or kill your wife.

there are few other bans which might look useless or arbitrarily to you - or even to the majority - but even they are often reasoned well.


beside that, you might want to consider "speaking" to be an "action", too. no idea why you make a difference these two things?

 

Last edited: May 1, 2024

From a neurological perspective there is not Free Will at all. Just a little Free Won't. So talking about freedom of action is rather pointless. Genetics are the big player on political ideology, so it will determine a lot of your actions in life. You'll choose who you breed with based on compatible inmune systems that can give your child better chances of survival, and it will be done by smelling the right combination of pheromones not a by rational ponderate choice. There are multiple examples that proves that freedom of action is already constrained a lot at birth. Is the reality what gives you a very narrow frame where you can act, the question is: can you tolerate that level of determinism? Because it's really there.

 

When I see most of the comments, a kind of fear and refraining from taking action is implied. Most of the comments talk about the negative aspects of action and somehow trust the law they breathe. Many of you think that when there is freedom of action, it leads to disorder for various reasons and you somehow allow your legislators to decide your destiny.

Why doesn't anyone talk about the positive side of freedom of action? Read all the laws, most of them are related to prohibiting people from more freedoms and actions. Most laws do not say that you are free to do something. The rules say that you must not do this or that. Freedom of action has many positive points and it is not necessary to wait for permission from legal authorities. When you see a defect or weakness somewhere, you can directly take action and fix it instead of waiting for the government authorities to assign a task for you.

 

Think about it like this:

"Speech" is 'thought expressed', (through the medium of vocalization); and though itself is the impetus of "action". So protecting "free speech" is like protecting your balls and allowing them to hang freely for healthy function, for the sake of being able to having kids. But policing actions is about ensuring that you're not actually a rapist at the same time.

 

We did not come to this planet to be free but to learn how to make more conscious and harmonious choices (under endless stream of restrictions and pressures), which we are totally free to do at any time even if it sometimes only means to chose how to think or feel about something (such as your question) ;-)

 

that is exactly what happens when you try it, but you need to experience it yourself.

i am in germany. 20 years ago we legalized and "liberalized" prostitution, private energy services, private public transportation, and high frequency financial product trading.

each of these new freedoms have in the end only led to less freedom for the majority: higher costs for energy, lesser public transportation, flatrate brothels full of third world slaves, and better options to invest you capital into gambling instead of production of goods. now we have more money laundering, tax fraud and corruption than ever before.

i tried to explain that above: written laws in man ycountries do mostly not need to say what you may do, because you may do whatever you wish, unless a laws forbid it. for example in germany that is regulated in article 2 of the constitution.

we need examples to discuss that, otherwise it is a bit too abstract.

some people might think that heroine dealers should be killed to fix that. would you make killing people someone doesnt like legal?

the what if drugdealers think that you should better die? will they also be allowed to kill you? and if yes, does that raise or lower your freedom?

and who has the higher chance to kill the other one first. the billionaire with his private army or you?

or should there be a law which allows you to kill others but not the other way round? and who decides that?

or should we have no laws at all? and who decides that? if there are no laws?

how can we agree upon giving up the current society order and replace it with nothing? are 51% enough to decide that or does everyone has to agree?

what if we make an agreement about rules between you and me, which are regulating who has to do the dishes tonight. did we break the nonexsting law that there may be no laws by that?

given that it can exist, what if we live in a perfect utopia anarchy but then suddenly a majority wants the constitutional state back? are they allowed to found it?

what makes you think that the absense of written laws will enable you to do what you want?

you can not do most of the things which are legal today for various reasons.

can it be that you forget that you neighbour, the drunk neonazi with 20 guns, can now also do what he wants? and the bank of america. and the scientologist. and putin and osama bin laden.

OMG and your kids. very bad idea.

 

Last edited: May 1, 2024

Useful information for everyone; this guy (first kicked out years ago with Foster as nick) is a troll. Discussion-provoker style.
Reported four times now until they kick you again.

How do you like that for action?

 

If somehow it is NOT Foster, he is just as bad.
It seems obvious in reading his replies here that he knows exactly what he is doing.
The wording shows too much understanding of the topic to justify the stupidity of the statements.

While a degree of forgiveness and understanding can be granted to a "true believer" in something (be it UFOs, Bigfoot, or celestial beliefs), no leeway ought be given to a fraud, con artist or troll.
LIGHT THE TORCHES!

[P.S. I also really hate that these trolls are usually SMARTER than me... in certain ways, at least.
I am pretty good with concepts, but trolls tend to be very good at compiling half-truths and presenting deceptive scenarios. It's like being a very good liar, which I suppose it IS.
And they are so f*cking diligent, as if they have nothing else to do. Which I suppose they don't.
But i think others here have made good and interesting points, and in good forums, this is usually what makes the trolls' efforts a bit useless.
The whole internet is a BIT like that, for those who know how to separate the wheat from the chaff, but for those who don't ... Well it's a bit scary to think about.

 

Last edited: May 2, 2024

we should explode this guy or remove his freedom of speech or something. these threads are annoying

 

Everyday, everywhere, at all times everyone has freedom of action.

It is perhaps the most singular hardest thing to remove from a sentient something without going to wasteful extremes.

You might not like the actions available to you and you might not like the repercussions, but you always have choices.

So stop being a big pink pussy cat and do something.

You aren't talking about freedom of action you are talking about freedom of consequences unless they are the ones you want and that's not the same thing. Every once in a while some people start with very little power and do use their freedom of action to make some very big changes Sargon of Akkad, Attila, TimurChin, Ying Chuliyang, Lui Ji, Napoleon Bonaparte and the list goes on and on and on... They didn't have shit, they literally started from the bellow the sewer and not one day goes by where one of there ideas about how humans should live together does effect everyone on this planet.

Cheers