The problem is to define ``freedom''.

Freedom from coercion? How can a government get funds?

Absence of cost or consequences? Violence will prevail.

``Freedom from want''? needs coercion of the producers to pay the indolent.

All of nature demonstrates the only freedom is to die. If one wants to live, one must compete and win at the expense of some other. But, there is profit - the whole is grater than the sum of the parts- it's not a zero sum game.

John, I prefer basics first. But you indicate moral positions primarily, and that is part of the condition.

Social freedom, freedom from other's demands? But by conforming to other's demands people get or can get greater quality of life. But this denotes a specific sense of freedom, that is autonomy. Is autonomy freedom or simply isolation?

An interesting question. I wrote the below with this in mind a couple of years ago. Its not academic, but it came to mind while writing more academically… https://medium.com/an-inspector-calls/freedom-7b9d8216f48b

Stanley Wilkin

If we are to stop war, then some form of governmental ability must be present (coercion). So, the freedom is the freedom to move (people and money). So, have totalitarian, theocracies, republics, etc., and the federal not interfering as they have done in the Mideast and nearly everywhere, (with many wars resenting the interference) but allow people and money to move from one form of coercion to another.

David,

A good summing up and the point established seems to be that freedom involves both choice and independence. Does it? We can choose to be with others, and that does not mean limitations on choice.

We have will only through the negation of others' will?

There are other freedoms, John, then environmentally based ones.

Stanley Wilkin

such as?

OK. Suppose we take an action, any action, is it freely chosen? Bear with me.

If we have a thought is that freely chosen? Is freedom, consisting of choice, genuinely Freedom. If freedom is independence can we make choices with independence only? If I write an essay how much is my choice alone? I think I simply reflect others.

Any thought without following action is meaningless. Have all the thoughts you wish, if they are not followed by action, they are meaningless. Those kind of `freedoms'' are irrelevant.

Freedom to think, John? A Buddhist monk does not disclose his thinking. Different environments require different responses.

The cultural heft of stating what you think or acting according to your thoughts I suspect is culturally based and comes with the development of literature.

Stanley Wilkin

So, freedom in the political sense has no bearing on laws.

John some bearing.

quote:

Is man in his thinking and acting a spiritually free being , or is he compelled by the iron necessity of purely natural law?

The Philosophy of Freedom.

The basis for a modern world conception.

Rudolf Steiner. Chap.1

The use of spiritually is of its time, and autonomy is more useful nowadays.

Stanley, I think in contributing to this discussion it is important to establish that in a liberal democracy, freedom is a fundamental right that is enshrined in law and upheld by the government. It is the freedom to think, speak, and act as we choose, free from government interference. This freedom allows us to express ourselves, to pursue our dreams, and to live our lives as we choose. However, with growing authoritarianism, this right to freedom is threatened. Authoritarian governments often restrict freedom of speech and expression, limit access to information, and can even impose curfews or other restrictions on the population. This can lead to a cycle of repression where the people's right to freedom is further limited over time. The threat of authoritarianism should not be taken lightly as it can have a devastating effect on freedom. It is important to recognize that freedom is not only a right but also a responsibility. We must be vigilant in defending our rights and ensuring that they are not taken away. This means standing up for ourselves and for the rights of others. At the same time, we must be mindful that freedom is not an absolute right. It is important to recognize that there are certain boundaries and limitations to our freedoms. We must be aware of the potential for misuse and abuse of our freedom, and be willing to take action when necessary. This can include protesting against policies that infringe on our rights or speaking out against injustices. Ultimately, freedom is a precious right that must be protected and defended. We must use our freedom responsibly and be mindful of the impact that it can have on our society. We must also be aware of the potential for authoritarianism and the threat it poses to our freedom. Only by taking action and standing up for our rights can we ensure that our freedom is protected.

A good response, Peter. But authoritarianism creeps out of all corners and sometimes we do not see its nature.

You are absolutely right, Stanley. Authoritarianism can often be insidious and not always easy to recognize. It is important for us to stay informed about the policies and practices of our governments and to be aware of the potential for authoritarianism. We must also be willing to take action when we see evidence of authoritarianism. This can include speaking out against unjust policies, protesting, and raising awareness about the consequences of authoritarianism. Ultimately, it is only through collective action that we can protect our freedom and ensure that it is not taken away from us.

Peter, you've seen my work on medical bodies. Most societies, especially in the West, give extraordinary powers to members of the medical profession based on the idea of the realistic basis of their knowledge. The giving of extraordinary powers based on assumptions of knowledge, almost magical in its process, by governments functions as a policing from the government and control. The construction of professions contains within themselves authoritarian assumptions.

Peter,

Doctors in Britain are involved in policing society, bringing order to society. I am looking into that. They are one of the 5 authorities and their range of social powers are enormous. I question why this should be so. Healing people does not require power.

Stanley,

Thank you for bringing up this important issue. It is concerning to think about how certain professions are given extraordinary power and how that power can be used to control people. I think it is important to look at the underlying assumptions that are made about these professions and how that might be allowing governments to exercise authoritarian power. Your work exploring how doctors are perceived as authorities in British society is especially interesting and could provide some valuable insight into this issue.

"Healing people does not require power"- a factual and smart observation there.....

Peter, it does. In liberal UK, with its focus on individual freedoms, some people have the power to control the individual.

Although many years ago, in Robert Graves 1st World War book 'Goodbye to all that' he writes about a newspaper proprietor who himself wrote an article for his newspaper about how the rich were treated differently to the poor in lawcourts. In a case of homosexual sexual soliciting, then a crime, a working class boy was jailed for a year and a rich man told he needed to contact the court once a week. That was all. Probation, really.

My work considers factors in class and colonialism, both of which have affected views of human individuality and nature. Even when I was young class remained a determinant in the UK, and doctors were then and now from a specific part of the upper classes, or later upper middle classes with a subsequent view of their own exceptionality. Anyway, the working class boy because of the article had his sentence suspended and was put into the care of a physician, probably a psychiatrist as homosexuality as the consequence of the monotheist religions was considered a mental illness (Jesus in fact said nothing on the matter and although homosexuality tends to be condemned by Islam it was rampant in Muslim society several centuries ago). Turing was forced to commit suicide because of the treatment he received for homosexuality after WW2.

Now this is not about homosexuality but about medical control of people who practised this. In 1967 homosexuality was not a crime in the UK, taken off the register in a more liberal age. But it remained an illness in psychiatry until 1973. Thereby people could be forced into hospitals by psychiatrists (they had this right by law) when the law of the land said they had committed no crime.

These are issues that concern me. Class plays a powerful role in physician rights.

The Philosophy of Freedom

The basis for a modern world conception.

Rudolf Steiner

First published. Germany 1894.

Is man in his thinking and acting a spiritually free being, or is he compelled by the iron necessity of purely natural law? (Chap one. Conscious Human Action. )

Spiritually should be changed today as autonomy. Clearly Steiner was involved with modern ideas of consciousness in order to answer his question,

Stanley Wilkin

I have explored the complex notion of “freedom” in the chapter of my book on Understanding human life (2022), untitled Predestination versus human liberty. I distinguished freedom in ancient civilizations, freedom in monotheistic religions and philosophical and political freedom. This overview shows great differences between the concepts, despite the fact that they all seem valid in their respective social contexts. Even more importantly, the paradigms that allow the definition of specific forms of freedom are not erased by later paradigms, for they persist in human memory.

Each of these forms is intimately bound up with the culture and religion of the peoples considered, and it seems hard, if not impossible, to find a universal definition of the term. In fact, freedom is a continually renewed process, not an absolute, unattainable state. The process recycles elements of the earlier concepts of freedom, transforming them so as to adapt them to the latest world-view that is taking root. This requires a response to the problems posed by the new world-view while trying to circumscribe them in a new concept of freedom. At the same time, however, the need to adhere to the world-view will turn the aspiration to freedom into a desire for submission.

You will find more details in the joint file.

I hae also examined in another chapter How and why to restrict freedom.

Daniel, I will read as much as I can of your work on this but as I am sure you have looked at, the new Russian developments are interesting as they propose 'freedom from responsibility', which after all is as much a freedom as freedom involving responsibility-that is democracy.

Stanley Wilkin

I think you are speaking of Putin's freedom to invade Ukrainia ...

Yes, you could say that but that is linked to power. No, I meant Russian people's desire not to be involved in politics thereby having no responsibility for what happens in Ukraine and what their government does. My point is, whether we like it or not, these too are freedoms.

We are free (we say) therefore we are responsible. Or someone can say I am not political, thereby I am free from responsibility. Or God is responsible for all events and actions, therefore I am free from guilt and conscience. I know that this is a different kind of freedom from the freedoms we routinely discuss but are they not, in their way, still freedoms?

Still, extreme power is a kind of freedom, of the individual, but one that has a corresponding negative effect on thinking.