Talk:Freedom (political)
From Academic Kids
The article says: "In most Western democratic societies, key freedoms legally protected by the government include:" With the only list of freedoms directly under this sentence and no notion of liberties in the rest of the world, it is implied that the right of freedom is something typicly western, and that things are different in the rest of the world. This is politicly highly incorrect, and should certainly be changed.
- Although "politically highly incorrect" appears to be a value judgement – and thus intrinsically non-neutral – I believe
- you have a point here. As a matter of pure fact, things relating to freedom may or may not be thought of and acted
- upon differently at different points in time and space. This seems to suggest that one should attempt a description
- of the topic via a historical approach, starting from known beginnings. This should help to keep things in perspective,
- showing actual differences and changes without falling into ideological traps.
- As far as I know, the notion of political freedom became important for the first time among the Hellenes around the
- time of the Persian wars (at the very beginning of the fifth century b.C.). It was then a development of the very simple
- and practical idea of personal freedom, which was just the state (worth even fighting for) of those who were not the
- slaves of some other person. I believe that all the subsequent relevant facts can be described as the long and varied
- history of this basic Hellenic notion: how it periodically desappeared and was then rediscovered, changed and applied
- to political institutions in various parts of the world.
- The lack of such perspective – and the consequent paucity of references – is what makes me very unhappy about the
- article. Although I am no specialist in the field, I might consider an attempt to start writing a new one along the lines
- hinted above. Comments welcome. Mario 17:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Trying to get the ball rolling on this article. Here's one man's observation: "Christian liberty is not the freedom to do what we want, but the freedom to do what we ought." – Martin Luther (See [1] (http://www.life.1stbaptist.org/SER051798-50.htm) for a citation.) <>< tbc
I know you will grant me freedom to apologise for the three "e" article! I had followed a wrong link without noting it, of course Wikipedia had an article on freedom :-) --Gianfranco
Can anyone explain the difference between freedom and liberalism? That should be put on the article. --TakuyaMurata
To my mind, the sentence about human rights and freedom does not sound quite right (even though that may be on account of my immersion in a German-language environment). Most elemtents of the expression "freedom", e.g. freedom of speach, freedom of thought and freedom of action (the latter with the restrictions named by John Stuart Mill) are indeed unremovable cornerstones of "human rights." The expression "human rights", includes, however, also some rights which have nothing do with freedom, e.g. the right to sufficient food, good healtcare, education etc. pp-- even though some of them may be indispensable, if a person wants to enjoy his freedom (as Rawls points out). The clash exists thus, as far as I understand it, not between freedom and human rights (as conservative politicians would have it), but between human rights and freedom on the one hand and economic, political and social lawlessness (e.g. by non- or pseudo-democratic organisations like the WTO or mulinational corporations who stand above any country's law) und enslavement on the other side. Maybe this should be included in the article. User:Josef Eichhorn
It seems to me that this paragraph at the top of the section on Forms of Freedom...
Another common distinction made between kinds of freedom is the difference between "freedom from" social and political ills (which, some argue, is really more accurately described as safety or security), and "freedom to" do what one wants (for which some consider the term "liberty" more precise).
...has either inverted the common conceptual meaning of "freedom from" and "freedom to", or is just unclear. When I think of "freedom from" (liberty) I think of a lack of restraint allowing one to pursue what one wishes, while "freedom to" means having one's way regardless of circumstances. It's the difference between no one physically stopping you from trying to obtain a Ferarri vs. transcending or overturning all natural limitations on obtaining one. I think the original paragraph could be rewritten for clarity because as it stands it seems to say the reverse. What does anyone else think? Ubernetizen 21:42, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Why liberalism?
This article looks OK to me. My only concern is that it is listed under liberalism. There are other broad political trends that uphold freedom of one or another sort. Shorne 20:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Liberalism
I do not see any problem to list this article under other ideologies too, but one cannot deny that freedom is an essential element of liberal philosophy. --Gangulf 20:45, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- So are lots of other things that are not listed. The problem is that the list gives the impression that liberalism holds a special claim to freedom that other ideologies do not. Shorne 20:58, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
