Freedom To vs. Freedom From

[Robin Of House Hill]

I've been reading The Handmaid's Tale, and came across this quote.

Quote

"In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are given freedom from. Don't underrate it."

If you were guaranteed freedom from harm and freedom from want, what, if any, freedoms to, would you be willing to give up?.  Remember, you will always have food, clothing, housing and everything else you need, as well as being free from being hurt or harmed in any way.  Since we already seem to be willing to give up boarding airplanes in a timely fashion, without being x-rays, patted down, and subjected lengthy delays, in exchange for a limited freedom from harm, what else might people be willing to give up?

[Rippounet]

That's a fantastic question.

First one can wonder about what one would give up, but also about what others/the masses would. Not the same thing because individuals (expressing themselves individually) and masses (acting/reacting collectively) are two different things. Individuals talk much louder than masses act.
Then, one could turn this the other way around and ask just how much harm and want are people willing to put up with for freedoms (real or imagined).

A significant number of people in Western societies willingly give up what little political power they have (by abstaining from voting). That alone is telling.
And yet, I'm tempted to say people are willing to go to great length to preserve theoretical freedom (demoracy, freedom of speech... etc) but very ironically don't necessarily use them. People like the idea of freedom, but don't necessarily understand that the only way to actually have a given right is to use it.

So... I doubt people will be willing to give up much if you present it like that. People hate seeing their rights or liberties go away. If you take them away without them noticing however... Anything is possible.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 I think I'd have an instant mistrust of any promise that guarantees me freedom from harm, as I don't think you can make that guarantee. It's an empty promise at the end of the day. We already have a society that provides us with safety nets in regards to food, clothing and housing. I feel like we are fairly well provided for in instances that might prevent us from earning a subsistence level salary, so I would be fairly loathe to give up other freedoms for added protections there.

I see the airplane example as something we put up with due to circumstance. Due to a horrific event wherein our airplanes were piloted into large buildings, we now tolerate a time delay and a restriction on things we can bring onto an airplane. As I typically might fly 3-4 times a year, this inconvenience is fairly unobtrusive. 

[DunderMifflin]

I would argue that even the airport example is just curbing fear more than its limiting any harm. Presumably if anyone is going to do any sort of terroristic action with planes they would study the current security measures and find ways to circumvent them just as they did last time.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, DunderMifflin said:

I would argue that even the airport example is just curbing fear more than its limiting any harm. Presumably if anyone is going to do any sort of terroristic action with planes they would study the current security measures and find ways to circumvent them just as they did last time.

I agree to some degree, but that game has changed so much that I can't really see how a 9-11 style attack could work now. Not because of the TSA or those particular security measures, but because there's no way that a plane full of people is going to allow a few men with box cutters to take over a plane at this point. 

[TrueMetis]

Course the thing is that those security checkpoints are themselves a significant risk. By clumping up so many people setting off a bomb at a security checkpoint on a busy day could do far more damage than blowing up a plane could. (As Manhole said, taking a plane isn't happening anymore)

[DunderMifflin]

Yeh if something terroristic  happens it's likely going to be something very different than 9-11. While TSA is checking everyone's shoes, the attack happens in some new way that nobody was even looking out for.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Would a person with no strong religious beliefs give up freedom of religion, in exchange for freedom from harm or want?  Would someone with no interest in firearms give up the right to bear arms?  In other words, how easily can people be bought?

[TrueMetis]

1 minute ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Would a person with no strong religious beliefs give up freedom of religion, in exchange for freedom from harm or want?  Would someone with no interest in firearms give up the right to bear arms?  In other words, how easily can people be bought?

Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion so that's very much something I'm not giving up.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, TrueMetis said:

Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion so that's very much something I'm not giving up.

BINGO. I would be scared shitless to give that up, as I would parse that as meaning I would have to practice some form of religion. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

Well, there's a famous old quote on this very question, isn't there.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Often attributed to Benjamin Franklin, but I believe there is some dispute over that. And maybe written in a somewhat different context. But the basic principle applies quite well.

[Isalie]

That's a very convenient argument if you for instance feel like having a gun is an essential freedom.

Americans don't seem all that free to me honestly, unless they are way rich of course, but then those people would be free wherever they lived.

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 minutes ago, Mikael said:

That's a very convenient argument if you for instance feel like having a gun is an essential freedom.

Americans don't seem all that free to me honestly, unless they are way rich of course, but then those people would be free wherever they lived.

Well, as with any famous quote, it is one man's opinion, written down at some point in time. But it is clearly an opinion shared by certain segments of society. Hence, it is one response to the opening question of this thread.

[Isalie]

I was gonna write something, but I need to get my priorities straight and write something else, but I'll say this: I don't really see any evidence of people living by that quote.

[Rippounet]

6 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion

Not necessarily. You can have freedom from religion by denying most religous freedoms.
Give me dictatorial powers and I'll show you.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Not necessarily. You can have freedom from religion by denying most religous freedoms.
Give me dictatorial powers and I'll show you.

I believe (TM, ME, please correct me if I'm wrong) that their point is that the 1st Amendment, with regard to religion, is fairly balanced:

Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

 

Based on this balanced approach there can be no nationally sponsored nationwide requirment to attend "Faith X".  Likewise, Government lacks the power to say, "you as an individual may not practice 'Faith X'".  

That means as individuals we cannot be stripped of our right to be religious or areligious either by being told we must practice "faith X" or we must not practice "faith X".

[Rippounet]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I believe (TM, ME, please correct me if I'm wrong) that their point is that the 1st Amendment, with regard to religion, is fairly balanced:

I can't speak for others but my point was generic, not specific to any given country.
I don't think this conversation is meant to be focused on the US, and even if it is, I think there's an underlying assumption that some constitutional protections may disappear.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

23 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I can't speak for others but my point was generic, not specific to any given country.
I don't think this conversation is meant to be focused on the US, and even if it is, I think there's an underlying assumption that some constitutional protections may disappear.

The possibility of those protections disappering is why I will stand to defend their existence.  People should have the the right to believe as they want to believe, or not.  Government has no business being involved with religion... religion has no business being involved with government.  When they get together bad things happen to religions, to governments, and the people affected by both.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Quote

Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

 

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I believe (TM, ME, please correct me if I'm wrong) that their point is that the 1st Amendment, with regard to religion, is fairly balanced:

 

 

 

Based on this balanced approach there can be no nationally sponsored nationwide requirment to attend "Faith X".  Likewise, Government lacks the power to say, "you as an individual may not practice 'Faith X'".  

That means as individuals we cannot be stripped of our right to be religious or areligious either by being told we must practice "faith X" or we must not practice "faith X".

Except, if you get a SCOTUS with conservative justices (read: Clarence Thomas), you won't have religious freedom, at all.  The Constitution fails to put that burden on anyone but Congress.If the Constitution is strictly interpreted, any governmental entity, other than Congress, could restrict freedom of religion.

[DunderMifflin]

Imo I think humans should always be working towards a place where governments and just authority figures in general are not needed and that any regression from that should be seen as a big loss. I.e freedom sounds great but we can't just let murderers kill anyone they want(unless the murderers are the authority figures, in which case places on the receiving end of drone strikes are fucked)

 In some ways throughout history we have trended towards not as much authority, the decreasing of kings and dictators around the world and such. But in other ways we've trended towards being utterly and completely micro-governed. For example I don't think the Wright Brothers would be able to just take their airplane on the beach and test it today. There'd be some sort of bureaucratic figure telling them they cant do that shit. 

And humans in general are currently living in the "best" time we've ever known as far as health and safety and access to needs and such. I often wonder if that is in spite of governments and not because of them.