‘Why should I (or anyone) obey anyone else?” “Whyshould I not live as I like?’ ‘Must I obey?’ ‘IFT disobey, may I becoerced? By whom, and to what degree, and in the name of what,and for the sake of what?”
Does this connect back to our idea of freedom? Can people still be free if there are other people who have authority over them? Can people be free and safe from harm without some type of authority keep other peoples "freedom" in check?
plans entail rules;a rule does not oppress me or enslave me if I impose it on myselfconsciously, or accept it freely, having understood it, whether itwas invented by me or by others,
Knowledge and understanding allows us to accept and find freedom in situations that otherwise may limit our freedom. If we accept the limitations on our freedom, we are giving it away freely, therefore again, making us free.
f life he has invented for them, he will, on this definition, havesucceeded in liberating them. He will, no doubt, have made themfeel free
Is feeling free the same as being free? Just because you have been forced into one way of life and come complicit to it does not mean you are actually free, even if you don't know what freedom feels like in any other form.
Only in the name of some value higher than them-selves.
Just because they value this thing higher than themselves, does it make it right to use this thing to control them and their freedom. Are they right in valuing this thing over themselves? Did they come to value this thing of their own free will or was this a notion passed down or brain washed into them throughout generations?
But if I no longer feel attached to property,
Reminds me of Buddhist concepts of non-attachment?
Have not men hadthe experience of liberating themselves from spiritual slavery,or slavery to nature, and do they not in the course of it becomeaware, on the one hand, of a self which dommates, and, on theother, of something in them which is brought to heel?
Can we limit and impact our own freedom? (Question from earlier in the passage) Is nature an outside force or a force within ourselves that limits our freedom/takes some control over our actions?
not freedom from, but freedom to
Were our definitions one or the other, or were they both? Our definitions included both, both our freedom to have free will and make our own choices, but also freedom from other people encroaching on our safety, etc.
Since justice demands that all incivi-duals be entitled to a minimum of freedom, ail other individualswere of necessity to be restrained, if need be by force, fromdepriving anyone of it,
Laws/government exist to limit some freedoms in order to protect our freedom
declared thatat the very least theUberty of religion, opinion, expression, praperty, must be guaran-teed against arbitrary invasion.
Another definition of freedom
the belief that the freedom that men seck differs accordingto their social or economic conditions, but that the minority whopossess it have gained it by exploiting, or, at least, averting theirgaze from, the yast majority who do net.
Not only do people gain freedom at the expense of others, some knowingly and purposefully doing harm to others, many once attaining freedom find themselves ignorant to the fact that not all people have the same benefits that they do. They find themselves so content in their own lives they forget to question if all people have the same conditions as them.
f my lack of materialmeans is due to my lack of mental or physical capacity, then 1begin to speak of being deprived of freedom (and not simpiyabout poverty) only if 1 accept the theory.' If, in addition, Ibelieve that I am being kept in want by a specific arrangementwhich I consider unjust or unfair, I speak of economic slavery oroppression.
Interesting concept and point that whether or not one's state of poverty deprives them of freedom is dependent on the condition by which one fell into poverty. Is there truly a clear line between other people impacting you being an infringement of freedom and things you yourself have done not impacting it? Or can one take away one's own freedom?
But to tell stories about freedom that include theseactions is to tell a different story about freedom’s practice altogether, one ex-ercised by many more of the inhabitants of our complex and violent world.
To broaden the definition of freedom, to understand and accept ideas of freedom beyond are limited idealized notions of freedom, is to give more people access to freedom, is to acknowledge more peoples free will and ability to take action for themselves.
f freedom is not anational proclamation that declares Black emancipation from slavery butrather Black freedom from national proclamations of formal liberty,
Spoken and written freedom vs. lived and actualized freedom
“the unfree nature offreedom” in che nineteenth-century post-emancipation Caribbean, studyinghow freed people navigated the challenges of an emancipation within dimin-ished visions of possibility.
While freedom was gained in some aspects, people were forced into another world where their freedom was limited, just changed the way it was limited.
theseuglyfree-domsemphasizemodesofagencychatmaynotofferdesiredorhoped-forvisionsoffreedom,whilestilldemonstratingfreeaction.
Freedom is not merely the idealized, broad, "all encompassing" definitions but also exists in smaller actions and choices that impact people day to day.
All forms of actually existing freedom are nonideal,either partly produced out of domination and violence, or inseparable fromtheir remainders and losses.
Are any forms of freedom truly free? By trying to define and assign freedom do we only highlight the fact that their are those without freedom? Is freedom something that only exists when there is an absence of freedom elsewhere?
“theonlypurposeforwhich powercan rightfullybeexercisedoveranymemberofacivilizedcommunity,againsthis will,istopreventharmtoothers.”
This fits in with what we discussed in class about the reigns of freedom only extended so far as long as it does not impact the safety of others.
Some categori-cally exclude violence from freedom and thus ignore a range of problemsencountered in its practice,
Suggesting the freedom is removed from violence is ignorant not only to freedom being used as an excuse to enact violence, but also to the fact that many people's freedom was attained through violence.
They derive fromparticular moments and iterations that often cannot be replicated in othercontexts, even when they are guided by similar principles
More evidence for the idea that the definition of freedom is contextual?
She pointstofreedoms overlookedbecausetheyeitherdonot takeplaceincelebratedspacesofpublicfreedom, becausetheactionsmayseemtooinsignificant,orbecausetheBlackwomenexperimentingdonotconformtowhitenedimagesofuniversalpersonhood.
People have different types of freedom based on their own struggles and life experiences. There are steps and levels of freedom and while one person's type of freedom may be perceived as insignificant to another, it may still be an extremely powerful and are stepping stones for people to be able to fight for the kind of freedom others have.
Encounterswith ugliness can instigatenewwaysofper-ceiving practicesof Politicalviolence traditionallyconceivedasimperceptibleorunfitforatcention,asAdorno demands.
Being face to face with the people society has taught you to think of as lesser than or not as worthy in the world of ugly freedom forces you to face the "ideals" you were presented with. By interacting with groups that have been excluded under the reign of freedom you are forced to question the "truths" you may have once lived by.
sreconfigured:individualfreedomdoesnot stopifoneharmsanother,countering whatJohnStuartMillwouldclaimtobechelimitoffreedom’sexpression.Rather,throughgun carryingandanti-masking,individualfreedomisnowexpressedbytheverycapacitytoharmanother.
Is this the current context of freedom and is it something we can or should just accept? How can we work against this version of freedom if it is something we disagree with?
Eviction, as the freedom of landlords to remove nonpaying tenantsfrom their property, draws from freedom as ownership and as the capacityto make a profic in a free market, two of the central tenets of liberal freedomin capitalism.
Does freedom include right to own property? And how does that apply here? The landlord has a right to their property and who they allow to live at their property. Do the people who rent the property also have a right to somewhere to live? Does them not being able to pay hurt the freedom of the landlord?
nti-maskprotestorsrejectedthePreeeedeadlynewvirus,andialdii ihespreadofthedeadly.andsocialdistancing requiredtostop|Saninciindividualfreedomagainstgovernmentpdidsoasaprincipledstanceofinmeihealthrecommendations, nameternalism.
Again going back to the idea of one person's freedom impacting other people's freedom. Can the people who didn't wear masks really claim they are expressing their right to freedom when it endangered many other people? The people not wearing a mask, in many cases, indirectly and directly took away others freedom. By spreading the disease, it forced people into quarantine and took away many immunocompromised people's ability to leave their houses. Does one type or idea of freedom have the right to take precedence over another person's definition of freedom?
revealed in physical form the effects of capitalismand imperialism.
If you feel the need to hide the effects your system has on your people, you are doing something wrong.
Ugly freedoms rely on those formative accounts whilearguing that chose harms and exclusions are not only the violent effects offreedom but can also be considered free practice.
Defining freedom in a way that validates them and their actions, rather than defining freedom as something that applies to all people.
his freedom entrenchespoverty and inequality across the globe, while impelling people to rejectsupportive relations with others, condemn public life as domination, andstructure their lives as a series of capital invescments.
Back to the question of whether or not capitalism really creates freedom for all people?
Capitalism’s economic exploitation is justifiedas an engine of freedom for individual and global prosperity, and imperialcontrol of other states is understood by its practitioners to bring freedomto unfree peoples.
Does capitalism allow freedom for everyone under our class's different definitions?
Slaverywasthebasisforfreewhiteinstitutions,aeitprovidedhisfellowenslaversthefreedomofmastery,prosperity,andleisure,includingtheleisuretowritetreatises onliberty.”
Is one of the rights of freedom leisure? And again can it be real freedom if it impacts other peoples freedom? In class many people's definitions felt that an very important part of freedom was that one's own freedom could not negatively impact another's freedom.
iolent and world-destroying actsof dispossession were practiced by the founders as freedom: the freedom ofsettlers to take land in order to instantiate a new government, the freedomto cordon off native territory by labor, treaty manipulation, murder, and fiatin order to exercise independence.‘
intense contradictions within ideas of "freedom". One groups idea of freedom may directly oppose and even take away another groups freedom.
Freedomisanotoriouslycon-testedconcept,asitsmeaning continuouslyshiftsindifferent historicalmo-ments.
We discussed this in class. Is Freedom a universal truth that exists within our world or is it something that changes through time and historical context, or, as someone brought up, is it something we define for our own motives and benefits? That last definition could definitely be applied to the thoughts of American soldiers in the Philippines.
Itisaninalienableright thatcannotbegrantedortakenbyothers,
if this is true then why do American people/soldiers (many times throughout history) feel they have the right to "grant', or more appropriately, force 'liberty" and "freedom" on to other people? If it can't be given?
heFlag thatMakes himfree.
(the flag - cry of freedom)
American soldiers deciding what freedom is? How can torturing people be showing them freedom?