What does it actually mean to be free, and what is the legitimate role of government in a free society?

Well, thats a hard question to answer, because people's definition of "free" varies.

I would have to say that in the ultimate utopian free society there would be no role for government at all. Like the old cliché goes, a government is a neccesary evil, but only because of the irrational behavior of some human beings.

Until that utopian society is within our grasp, we will have to accept some form of government, to ensure that society doesn't fall into chaos and violence. But that should be the only role of government in a free society (and who here wants to live in a society thats not free anyway) - to ensure people don't harm other people, either physcially or economically.

Of course then you could argue that the government shouldn't provide healthcare, education and a range of other subsidies in a free society - but, and I am surely not the first to point this out on this board, I think that it would be counterproductive to a peaceful society, if society didn't help insure that people get and education and doesn't have to go around starving in the street. Then you could of course discuss the degree to which the government should help these people, but I won't go into that discussion here.

It is certainly not the legitimate role of any government, be it in a "free" society or not, to legislate on moral or religious issues.

A free society sadly doesn't exist anywhere in the world at the present time, and I am not holding my breath, but I have hope that some will see the light eventually. Holland is a good example of a country that has come far in terms of personal freedoms, but libertarian financial conservatives would argue they still have a long way to go.

Could you explain what you mean by this just a little further? Laws against murder, theft, and fraud are considered by many to be "moral" issues.

Many people may consider these to be moral issues, and thats fine, but thats not how I see them. I see the laws protecting people from harm to be in the best interest of society as a whole, if we use human hapiness, freedom, wealth and economic growth as a measurement, and I believe they can be based on simple logic reasoning. Furthermore, seeing as we lack a universal moral code (I think it is impossible to have such a thing), morals are everchanging, and the predominant moral code will always be the once shared by the majority of people.

If governments then are allowed to legislate based on the morals of the majority, as they do today, they will interfere with the lives of the minority, as we also see today. According to my morals any government is unjust and without valid authority to decide over me (or others for that matter), so to have the government dictate specific moral values using laws should of course not be allowed, unless of course there is selfevident rational reasons as to why these laws should exist. That I accept the government even exists is an example of me suppressing my own moral beliefs by reasoning, because I believe that without some form of organized control, society will be a worse place for everyone, even if the idea of government is immoral.

Well, then let's look at an example - say, laws against lewd behavior in public. Said behavior, one would think, doesn't cause "harm", in the sense that assault and burglary cause harm. Therefore I think most people would classify these laws as "morals legislation". But are they illegitimate?

This is my favorite definition of freedom: .

Freedom is being able to choose to do something without constraint so long as it does not interfere with the rights/freedom of others. The Federal Government's sole job is to protect the natural and Constitutional rights of its citizens. It is not responsible for telling people what is wrong or right and has no business penalizing someone for not conforming to the majority's moral view, at least not on a federal level. State and local government have a longer leash on their power and, so long as they do not violate their state or the National Constitution, they are within their legitimate relm. Now to answer to some previous posts.

You could look at it that way, or you could look at murder as another person violating someone else's natural right to live or theft as someone violating another's right to own property. These are considered moral issues, but they are as much legal and rights-oriented as they are moral...if not more.


No, because generally, these laws are local ordinances or town/city laws. The smaller the government, the more of a roll it should and does have in morality issues. Federal "lewdness" laws however, are illegitimate.

CP

I don't know how you would classify "lewd" behavior, but as long as a person isn't using violence, isn't threatening other people or otherwise harming anybody directly in any way, then yes laws against it would in my opinion be illegitimate.

In Iran its considered lewd behavior for women not to wear a headscarf and clothing covering most of their body, while here in Denmark public nudity, while extremely uncommon, goes unpunished, because very few people care enough to be offended by it. That somebody is offended by something is in my opinion no reason to ban it.

Of course, if someone is targeting specific people or groups, like minors, and act towards them in a sexually offensive way, that should of course be prohibited and punished, since I would consider that as causing physical harm or being a statement of intent to cause physical harm.

Freedom to me is the ability to live one's life without intervention from other humans.

Government and laws can be a means to protect freedom. The interaction of humans is regulated to maximize freedom. As the human population increases, humans become more dense and the need for rules to manage the masses and preserve freedom may become an increasing infringement of the freedom they should be protecting.

Freedom should be the underlying rationale for all laws. If this concept is vacant, we are left with a bunch of rules based upon belief systems, majority rule, short term solutions to someone's interest group, or an adman's ability to sell an idea by appealing to people's greed or belief system.

People do not value freedom nor strive to protect it if:

1) They do not believe it exists.
2) Do not value other's freedom, only their own.
3) Personal gain is valued above freedom

Those exceptions encompass a lot of people. It will always be a challenge for those of us who do value freedom highly to overcome the masses of humans who do not.

I don't disagree, that in the United States local authorities technically have the power to enact laws relating to moral issues and that they indeed do so, but they have no special legitimacy to do it - there is simply nothing that can give them that, short of total agreement from everybody affected. Local ordinances may reflect the opinion of the majority in the area (but not neccesarily), but that is in my opinion irrelevant. The majority has no special right to decide over the minority - I certainly haven't signed any document where I live, that gives the people in "power" the right to decide what I can and cannot do. Some will talk about the inherent social contract, but it's not like you have anywhere to go if you don't accept that social contract.

I don't live in the United States but my country also has a constitution granting me certain rights and limiting the government in its actions (or rather granting them certain powers over me). I see constitutions as both a tool of good and bad. Constitutions both gives me rights (not that I should really need a constitution to have right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness), but they also put limitations on me in terms of saying what power the government can have over me. I ask: why does a document give anybody power to come into my home a dictate what I can do, when I in fact don't agree with that document, and furthermore I haven't harmed other people in any way. Somebody tells me what gives them that right, other than the right they take by means of force?

This is also the reason I don't like politicians in general. People that wants power to decide what people can and cannot do just doesn't seem to me as good people, although I am sure there are a few of them that truely means well.

Freedom is being able to behave lewdly. Freedom is also not being subjected to the acts of other humans which cause damage. A person's lewd behaving in a sexually explicit manner can be psychologically damaging to minors. Hence we have laws prohibiting sexual behavior in the prescence of minors.

There are people who consider sexual acts to be a privacy issue. Displaying lewd behavior is being rude and an invasion of their privacy. Privacy can be damaged and hence, it can be protected via laws to prohibit lewd behaviour in a public place.

This gets right down to the heart of the matter, I think. The reason we have any debate at all about laws and policies is that there is no absolute agreement about what causes harm and what doesn't. There is also no agreement on what degree of freedom may be restricted in order to prevent such harm.

I once saw something on a church sign (of all places) which taught me something about the paradox of freedom. It said something like Freedom is the right to do the correct thing. Clearly, to whoever put up this sign, obedience to a moral authority came before considerations of minimizing the restrictions on the actions of individuals.

I try to take what I think is a more realistic view of things. I do not have, nor do I expect, absolute freedom. If nothing else, the laws of physics prevent me from doing everything I want to do. People are going to restrict my freedom, too. The important thing is to come to some balance between the minimal restriction of my freedom and the maximum reduction of harm to others. There will never be a perfect balance, and there will always a lot of struggle one way and the other. We do the best we can.

The government should have no say whatsoever to personal freedom. NONE, its not their job, and until we have a government that doesn't, we'll never be completely free. This means everything that concerns the participants, like prostitution; its the personal choice of the two people to engage in the activity. The government has got to stop creating a moral standard for people because everybody's moral standard is different, just look at the Nazi Party. Of course, this will never happen because America isn't ready for it and the world will end before we are.

What does it actually mean to be free, and what is the legitimate role of government in a free society?

To be free, is to be able to do what you want. In a societal sense, this means you you can do what you want, without having to face Penalization from an authority. Complete freedom by that definition, has never existed, in any society containing more then one person. Through out history, what have had instead, are varying degrees of partial freedom.

Obviously, complete freedom is a bad idea, because (along with a great deal of other things) it allows people to murder without fear of punishment. Freedom must be limited, and as such, man must be governed.

On the otherhand, complete authoritarianism inevitably clashes with the desires and inclinations of the individual. Therefore, lack of freedom can lead to unhappiness.

In conclusion, freedom should not be restricted, as long as it does not harm others, and as long as it does not clash with ones own freedom (physical drug addiction, takes away ones own freedom).

If you don't mind me asking, oh Left-Handed one...How does physical drug addiction restrict one's personal freedom...Second of all, why is it in the Government's interest to protect people from themselves? I have to know how you would answer those questions in order to make my point.

CP

How does physical drug addiction restrict one's personal freedom?

It often threatens to give you the death sentence, if you do not follow its commands. Withdrawal can kill you. Also, extreme drug addicts often resort to violent crime, in order to get the money needed to buy more drugs, so this issue as a whole, is not purely about the addict, and the addict alone.

Second of all, why is it in the Government's interest to protect people from themselves?

Stability is imperative to a governments survival, and it is therefore in the interest of every government on Earth to maintain it. Also, Democracys are directly responsible to the people, who of course want to feel secure. Also, governments are made up of people, and people generally have a certain degree of morality about them.

Isn't it irrelevant if withdrawal can kill you? After all, it was your own choice to take the drugs to begin with, and if you die from it, so be it. That is your right. People may also resort to violent crime to get money to buy expensive cars, but we don't ban expensive cars, do we?


The survival of government is not a goal in itself. Just because something is in the interest of a government, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do by any standard. The people who wants to use drugs apparently only wishes to feel secure to a certain degree, and its not the role of government, democracy or otherwise, to make them feel secure if they don't want to. Only when drugaddicts impose on the rights of others should they be limited in their freedom, just like we don't allow greedy people to steal money for the expensive car that they want.

Isn't it irrelevant if withdrawal can kill you? After all, it was your own choice to take the drugs to begin with, and if you die from it, so be it. That is your right.

An addict loses the freedom of choice, as soon as he starts taking the drug. Many things in life are addictive, but not many will kill you if you stop using them.

People may also resort to violent crime to get money to buy expensive cars, but we don't ban expensive cars, do we?

An extreme drug addict, can think of getting high and nothing else, and as such, has no morality. An addict is like a starving person, whose sole purpose in life is to eat. The desire to buy a car, doesn't compare to that at all, and statistically speaking, you'll probably find that while most drugs are taken by the poor (who can't afford them without resorting to crime), most expensive cars, are owned by the rich. These things ruin peoples lives, and the lives of others. Opium destroyed China.

The survival of government is not a goal in itself. Just because something is in the interest of a government, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do by any standard. The people who wants to use drugs apparently only wishes to feel secure to a certain degree, and its not the role of government, democracy or otherwise, to make them feel secure if they don't want to. Only when drugaddicts impose on the rights of others should they be limited in their freedom, just like we don't allow greedy people to steal money for the expensive car that they want.

This was a separate argument from the one pertaining to drug addiction. If I understood him correctly, ConservPat was using his question: "Why is it in the Government's interest to protect people from themselves?" , in order to take a stab at my statement that: "Obviously, complete freedom is a bad idea, because (along with a great deal of other things) it allows people to murder without fear of punishment. Freedom must be limited, and as such, man must be governed. " Statement".

Neither will most drugs. Sure, it may be hard to quit, but its far from impossible. Still, its irrelevant how hard it is. By starting to use dangerous drugs the individual implicity acknowledges, that their future "freedom of choice" may be severely hampered by their urge to continue using drugs. Not my problem.


I disagree. Some drug addicts may have no inhibitions about what to do to get their needed drugs, just like some psycopaths have no inhibitions killing other people because it feels good, but I hardly think its a general tendency. I would like to see links to sources that can prove otherwise.

Furthermore, if drugs were to be legalized, they would be much much cheaper, and thus drug addicts wouldn't need to resort to crime to finance their habit, just like very few alcoholics here in Denmark need to resort to crime to fund their habit (beer is extremely cheap here). I truly see nothing bad about legalizing drugs. Its a fact, and we all know it, that everybody who wants to use drugs has no problems getting their hands on them, so we are only wasting valuable ressources imposing the morals of the majority onto the minority, without any visible effect, other than an in increase in prisonpopulations (funded by the taxpayer).


Well, in my utopia there would be no need for government and totally freedom would exist (of course in my utopia nobody would hurt other people). As I see government, in its most basic form, it is just another way for some people (the people in power) to impose on the rights of others, without fear of retaliation. Sure, they may impose on individual rights of people in a way that is accepted by the majority, but I don't subscribe to the idea that the majority should decide what I can or cannot do.

Until we as a society reach that utopia, I think government should do everything it can no to impose on what I and everybody else do. It's simply none of its business.

EDITED FOR SPELLING

I've been reading and re-reading this topic all day, so here's my attempt at a decent explanation.

To me, being free means that you are free to engage in your pursuits of life, liberty, and prosperity. By being in society, you agree to give up absolute rights in order to possess basic civil rights and minor restrictions upon you(i.e.-lewd conduct laws, state liquor blue laws, etc.) Government's role is at the federal level, to protect you from foreign threats, as well as to make sure tha the states do their job and do not infringe upon yours. Likewise, the state and local government act in such a way to protect your property, as well as to ensure the well-being of all citizens as best they can.

Neither will most drugs. Sure, it may be hard to quit, but its far from impossible. Still, its irrelevant how hard it is.

My Uncle was almost killed when he withdrew from alchohol, and now his brain is permanently damaged. Any addictive drug can kill when overused, and there are always going to be overusers.

By starting to use dangerous drugs the individual implicity acknowledges, that their future "freedom of choice" may be severely hampered by their urge to continue using drugs. Not my problem.

Well, i'm quite sorry to hear that you don't care.

I disagree. Some drug addicts may have no inhibitions about what to do to get their needed drugs, just like some psycopaths have no inhibitions killing other people because it feels good, but I hardly think its a general tendency. I would like to see links to sources that can prove otherwise.

When i'm speaking about this, i'm more or less talking about extreme addicts. Such addicts are so hooked, that their sole goal in life is to get high, and nothing else matters to them. They are therefore, amoral.

Furthermore, if drugs were to be legalized, they would be much much cheaper, and thus drug addicts wouldn't need to resort to crime to finance their habit, just like very few alcoholics here in Denmark need to resort to crime to fund their habit (beer is extremely cheap here). I truly see nothing bad about legalizing drugs. Its a fact, and we all know it, that everybody who wants to use drugs has no problems getting their hands on them, so we are only wasting valuable resources imposing the morals of the majority onto the minority, without any visible effect, other than an in increase in prisonpopulations (funded by the taxpayer).

Cheaper drugs cause less violence, but also cause increased abuse. Plus, getting extreme addicts off the streets, can prevent crime, as extreme addicts are liable to commit crime. Rule of law (while not being all powerful), also does intimidate potential users somewhat. It means everything must be done in secret. In the very least, it prevents advertising.

Well, in my utopia there would be no need for government and totally freedom would exist (of course in my utopia nobody would hurt other people). As I see government, in its most basic form, it is just another way for some people (the people in power) to impose on the rights of others, without fear of retaliation. Sure, they may impose on individual rights of people in a way that is accepted by the majority, but I don't subscribe to the idea that the majority should decide what I can or cannot do.

Until we as a society reach that utopia, I think government should do everything it can no to impose on what I and everybody else do. It's simply none of its business.

Society will never reach Utopia, as human nature simply wont let it do so. Government will always be needed to protect the people from eachother. On top of being neccessary, government is also inevitable, and unavoidable. An anarchical state, on top of being in constant chaos, is woefully easy to conquer, and cannot fight an army.

To be free, is to be able to do what you want. In a societal sense, this means you you can do what you want, without having to face Penalization from an authority. Complete freedom by that definition, has never existed, in any society containing more then one person.

How can anybody really speak on it. There is so much that is not taken into consideration in a debate like this. Just look at the world currently, and maybe how much different it might all be if someone else was calling shots in the white house...

Basically, I am not free of other peoples actions, and why they commit such actions is well, a complete mystery to humanity. Its almost a wondrous magical adventure of magic and adventure, if I can quote something with no one really knowing it.

To me freedom is what you make of it. Plenty of individual humans have supported full heartedly social institutions that others would despise, and then take turns pointing their innocent fingers until someone sends out the tanks. I find the whole situation degrading and more or less appoints the notion that sexual reproduction or offspring would be a serious offense in regards to my conscious cognition of reality, or perception. I find the whole idea of religion morally wrong.

If I do not agree with how others have appointed life for me, well I can leave or basically end up in jail or on the streets. I appreciate the aspect or attempts at making survival a more civil entity but at the end of the day if you by into that you most likely will end up taking drugs.

I have my western heritage names and my social security number, and thanks to my central nervous system or my physiology, I know of and can vote for people that want to do things with money, or more aspects of my bondage that I can devour at the local mini mart.

I really see a giant collection of mutants mutating, by any names you may want to give the collection of things, it all seemed odd to me when I was an ignorant little child, but now I know so much more and it all adds up. I need to work for a pension, so that I may try to escape the old peoples home, when I can no longer work.

Sometimes I think freedom is the illusion that forces some of the rituals of certain sects of Buddhist thought. The whole idea of trying to bypass being part of the physical or natural world. I think like our advances in primatology its more of the same, stacking boxes to get the banana, it makes so much sense really if you think about it. Ignorance is not bliss, and well, what is freedom? I wonder maybe in like a few thousand years if humanity is still around what our culture or society on a whole will have evolved into. I would like to think that at some point people could stand at 100% knowledge of the natural world, or universe, which would include people or life as we would know it then, and then ask these questions. Right now, I think its an endeavor to explore facets of ignorance really.

I know that we as a society will sadly never the required level of enlightenment.. that's why I called it an utopia. The problem with not being able to fight an army wouldn't be a problem though, if the whole world shared my vision.

Then we would only have to worry about alien invasions, but they will probably be killed of by a virus (computer or biological - take your pick).