FDR's four freedoms...

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
Freedom of Religion
Freedom of speech
Freedom from want
Freedom from fear

Does this sound a bit like doublespeak to you? By putting "from" in after freedom, he completely takes away the actual meaning of freedom. It actually turns the meaning of the word around, and it becomes sort of an anti-freedom. Like, for instance, if I put in "freedom from speech", would that be a freedom?

People do this kind of shit A LOT today, especially people like Brent and the leftists. They talk all about freedom and liberty and don't have a clue as to what the concept means.
 
Orwell's concepts put forth in 1984 with regard to language were lightyears ahead of his time.
 
The common, colloquial definition of freedom is largely defined in terms of "freedoms from." One of the biggest problems with libertarianism is the adamant refusal to acknowlege the importance of such.

Society itself is founded on the need for freedom from fear and uncertainty. Security, we call it today, and stability.

Without freedom from fear and want for the majority, all of the other freedoms are moot. You can't successfully preach tolerence and the rule of law to starving people.
 
religion and speech are good things that we should be free to use and practice.... fear and want are bad things that we should be free FROM experiencing. I see a tempest in a teapot here.
 
And by changing TO to FROM you completely change the meaning. It's like having a completely different word there.

Not really.

If someone is 'freed from slavery' or 'freed from a trap', that doesn't negate the concept of freedom.

You can be free to, and free from. The 'dom' prefix merely means 'the state of'.
 
I see a tempest in a teapot here.

In this case maybe, but kudos for WM for challenging the commonly accepted meanings behind words....
 
AnyOldIron said:
I see a tempest in a teapot here.

In this case maybe, but kudos for WM for challenging the commonly accepted meanings behind words....
Click to expand...
Agreed. This is actually a topic of more potential substance than any other we've hashed over recently. This is, perhaps, where we can get into the real differences between what "liberals" and "conservatives" believe.
 
I have no wish to have freedom "from" fear. It is just such rhetoric that gets our actual freedoms curtailed. By promoting "fear" of something they can change law to protect people while curtailing other freedoms.
 
Damocles said:
I have no wish to have freedom "from" fear. It is just such rhetoric that gets our actual freedoms curtailed. By promoting "fear" of something they can change law to protect people while curtailing other freedoms.
Click to expand...
Oh yes you do. You just don't phrase it that way.

You do want the rule of law: that's clear from your posting history. And that, Damo, is what "freedom from fear" really means. It means the assurance -- not certainty, but confidence -- that society can protect your interests and rights from those who would violate them.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Oh yes you do. You just don't phrase it that way.

You do want the rule of law: that's clear from your posting history. And that, Damo, is what "freedom from fear" really means. It means the assurance -- not certainty, but confidence -- that society can protect your interests and rights from those who would violate them.
Click to expand...
No, Freedom "from" fear "frees" us from being afraid of being attacked by say, "terrorists"...

This type of rhetoric takes freedom away. I do not with to be free of fear.
 
Damocles said:
No, Freedom "from" fear "frees" us from being afraid of being attacked by say, "terrorists"...

This type of rhetoric takes freedom away. I do not with to be free of fear.
Click to expand...

Rhetoric is nothing but a tool. It does not take freedom away. In fact, it is incapable of acting in and of itself. It might be more appropriate to say that this kind of rhetoric is used by those who you feel would take our freedoms away. But that claim in and of itself does not in fact make it clear that what you claim is happening. I would offer that most people do wish to be free "from" fear and that is the reason that the rhetoric works so well. In fact, what you are really arguing about and are trying to get to is the place where you take up the discussion about how much fear you wish to be free from and what government's role is in keeping you free from that fear. I would simply ask you if you have insurance and how much and for what??? Most people believe that they have less to fear if they have insurance, therefore unless you have another reason for having insurance such as a state law that requires it, your purchase of insurance indicates a desire to be free from fear.

The advertising industry in America generally believed to have been fathered by Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays is based on the near universal desire to be free from fear.
 
Prakosh said:
Rhetoric is nothing but a tool. It does not take freedom away. In fact, it is incapable of acting in and of itself. It might be more appropriate to say that this kind of rhetoric is used by those who you feel would take our freedoms away. But that claim in and of itself does not in fact make it clear that what you claim is happening. I would offer that most people do wish to be free "from" fear and that is the reason that the rhetoric works so well. In fact, what you are really arguing about and are trying to get to is the place where you take up the discussion about how much fear you wish to be free from and what government's role is in keeping you free from that fear. I would simply ask you if you have insurance and how much and for what??? Most people believe that they have less to fear if they have insurance, therefore unless you have another reason for having insurance such as a state law that requires it, your purchase of insurance indicates a desire to be free from fear.

The advertising industry in America generally believed to have been fathered by Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays is based on the near universal desire to be free from fear.
Click to expand...
Rhetoric is the first step.

Look.... How many times do I hear that Bush is taking our Freedoms.... I agree. And he does it through this type of manipulation.

He calls on security to get you to give up your freedom, many go right ahead and do it.

I would prefer to face some danger and keep my freedom than to be "free from fear"...
 
Damocles said:
No, Freedom "from" fear "frees" us from being afraid of being attacked by say, "terrorists"...

This type of rhetoric takes freedom away. I do not with to be free of fear.
Click to expand...
That is only one way in which the phrase can be used. Yes, that sort of rhetoric is reprehensible. Will you stop using any phrase misused in political rhetoric? Your ability to express yourself will suffer greatly in very short order.

Freedom from fear meant, when FDR used it, freedom to feel secure in your own home and in your rights. That meaning is as valid as it ever was. In fact, it is the most fundamental of all freedoms.
 
Agreed. This is actually a topic of more potential substance than any other we've hashed over recently. This is, perhaps, where we can get into the real differences between what "liberals" and "conservatives" believe.

Ornot, check out the 'property rights are not natural freedom' thread... you might like that.....
 
It is just such rhetoric that gets our actual freedoms curtailed. By promoting "fear" of something they can change law to protect people while curtailing other freedoms.

What are 'actual' freedoms and how do they differ from 'false' freedoms?

Who adjudicates which are which?
 
AnyOldIron said:
Agreed. This is actually a topic of more potential substance than any other we've hashed over recently. This is, perhaps, where we can get into the real differences between what "liberals" and "conservatives" believe.

Ornot, check out the 'property rights are not natural freedom' thread... you might like that.....
Click to expand...
LOL! I've been avoiding it, not wanting to get sucked in. Time is at a premium for me and will be through November, likely. What, you want me to forego my quips and bomb mots for the sake of one lengthy, well thought out post?

:shock:
 
OrnotBitwise said:
That is only one way in which the phrase can be used. Yes, that sort of rhetoric is reprehensible. Will you stop using any phrase misused in political rhetoric? Your ability to express yourself will suffer greatly in very short order.

Freedom from fear meant, when FDR used it, freedom to feel secure in your own home and in your rights. That meaning is as valid as it ever was. In fact, it is the most fundamental of all freedoms.
Click to expand...
So, the big government is going to keep me safe in my home? It is the same. I prefer to be less secure and more free.
 
AnyOldIron said:
It is just such rhetoric that gets our actual freedoms curtailed. By promoting "fear" of something they can change law to protect people while curtailing other freedoms.

What are 'actual' freedoms and how do they differ from 'false' freedoms?

Who adjudicates which are which?
Click to expand...
Each adjudicates according to logic and knowledge. If the government is going to save you from something that you can save yourself from they are overstepping and actually removing freedom. It isn't rocket science.
 
Damocles said:
Each adjudicates according to logic and knowledge. If the government is going to save you from something that you can save yourself from they are overstepping and actually removing freedom. It isn't rocket science.
Click to expand...
Who is this "you" you're speaking of, that can save [your]self from some hypothetical something? If the govenrment steps in to save other people from something that I might save myself from, that is not necessarily overstepping anything. The government might be curtailing my freedom, yet increasing the freedom of most people. I accept this as a reasonable principle. In fact, I accept the principle as axiomatic.

Being a member of the "elite" is not a sin, so long as one doesn't demand that everyone else be held to the same standard. I am not, after all, a common man. The reasons why and particulars wherefor are immaterial at this juncture.

It is less burdensome on me to sacrifice some small portions of my liberty for the greater good than it would be for the proverbial least common denominator of citizens to live up to what i am capable of. Or you, Damocles. Or Prakosh -- who I know undestands this principle, probably better than I. Or most anyone else among the regulars here, almost all of whom are college educated and privileged.

Just as the Flat Tax is inherently regressive, a flat standard of competence and "self-reliance" (sic) is inherently elitist and unfair. People differ from one another in their abilities, preferences and weaknesses. This simple fact is the single most fundamental observation one can make about human society and political necessity.

Sociey should burden the exceptional more than it does the ordinary. The exceptional can afford it, to put it in market terms, and they -- we, quite honestly -- are likely to achieve despite the added impediment. The inverse does not hold. QED.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top