Does "freedom" mean unrestrained impulse, or influencing outcomes through wise choices, or a bit of each?

Question

Our founding fathers spoke of "liberty", Lincoln said the world had never arrived at a good definition of it. My generation assumed that the first stage of freedom--lack of restraint or coercion by government over personal choices and economic activity-- had to be backed up by the individual taking the responsibility for outcomes and consequences through self-discipline and wise choices. But some people in every generation put responsibility aside, defining "freedom" as living by the impulse of the moment, doing as they damn well please regardless of the consequences to themselves or anybody else. Nearly everybody has sex and raises a little Hell without making too big a fuss about it, but a few carry on these activities with little responsibility and restraint, ignoring all generally-accepted standards of behavior. Living purely by impulse and self-indulgence, they leave it to others to clean up their messes. Agree? Disagree? Speak up!

Answer 1

The definition of Freedom our Forefather's were working with assumed one person's freedom ends where someone else's nose begins. IE you have the right to walk down the street, but not to walk down the street shooting people, because you would be impeding on the liberty of those you shot. We are free but not anarchists.

Answer 2

Our founding fathers spoke of "liberty", Lincoln said the world had never arrived at a good definition of it. GOD GAVE YOU FREE WILL TO MAKE CHOISES.
My generation assumed that the first stage of freedom--lack of restraint or coercion by government over personal choices and economic activity- THAT IS THE WAY OF MANKINDS THINKING. IT IS NOT GOD'S WAY OF THINKING. THE GOVERNMENT IS ONLY HERE BECAUSE GOD ALLOWS IT TO BE. IF HE WANTED TO, IT COULD TUMBLE BY AN ENEMY TOMORROW.
had to be backed up by the individual taking the responsibility for outcomes and consequences through self-discipline and wise choices. THIS IS GOD'S WAY BEING RESPONCIBLE.
But some people in every generation put responsibility aside, defining "freedom" as living by the impulse of the moment, doing as they damn well please regardless of the consequences to themselves or anybody else. Nearly everybody has sex and raises a little Hell without making too big a fuss about it, (acceptable sin of breaking of God's laws.) But, a few carry on these activities with little responsibility and restraint, ignoring all generally accepted standards of behavior. AGAIN THIS IS THE WAY OF THE WORLD WHICH WILL PAY DEARLY ONE DAY FOR THINKING THAT WAY.
Living purely by impulse and self-indulgence, they leave it to others to clean up their messes. Agree? Disagree? Speak up! I AGREE AND I DO NOT WANT TO BE JUDGED BY THOSE FREEDOMES to do wrong.

Answer 3

I disagree with the premise that we need to clean up anyone's messes. The people that get into trouble must be forced to dig their way out of it or suffer for it. The problem is that the government unjustly steals money from us in the form of income tax to fund the people who mess up their own lives. I understand that they have to do this for children that are victims of adult misbeahvior, but as for the adults out there, their bad behvior should be their own problem. Think about it, perhaps the government is responsible for this behavior by allowing the safety net. People can think, "at the very least they can't watch while I have to live on the street, so I can do anything I want." If that net wasn't there, maybe people would be more repsonsible . . .

P.S. Liberty is freedom from all group oppression, not just government. Religious institutions, Boards of Directors, businesses etc. can oppress individuals too

Answer 4

First off, you can never achieve freedom in the truest sense of the word (unrestrained impulse/actions/whatnot) because of the chaos it would create.

Second, the founding fathers spoke of 'liberty' from the British and the ability to tax themselves accordingly.

I disagree with the nasty side of your generation. Living purely by impulse is simply animalistic and we are supposed to be the smarter animals here. We have a conscience and whatnot, don't we?

My definition of freedom: Free will to choose what to believe in/what to do/ what to say but with the enough intelect to measure the consequences and accept them. Freedom is supposed to be for all. So the issue of when is there too much freedom arises. The freedoms of one individual end and must be contained when the freedoms of another begin.

Answer 5

Freedom and Responsibility are diametrically opposed concepts. Freedom implies choice, whilst responsibility denotes consequence. Your question suggests that freedom should always be connected to consequence, but these two entities effectively cancel each other out. Freedom in its purest form makes consequence irrelevant.

Answer 6

Could you ever have a truly free society? Everyone acted as they wished in their own best interest, or at least what they perceived to be in their best interest. One person's free actions could limit the freedom of another. For a govt to provide freedom, it must ensure your rights to do whatever it is you wish to do with your freedom, which means it also can't make laws against it. If it can't make laws, it cannot ensure rights. The only way to be truly free is to be completely and utterly alone.

Answer 7

The first amendment is about both, both rights and responsibilities. There is the right of freedom and the responsibility of freedom.