Notifications
Clear all

The difference between Freedom and Liberty  

 

The Evil Genius
Admin
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 1857
01/10/2018 7:53 pm  

Webster’s dictionary would have us believe the words “freedom” and “liberty” are synonymous; are they really interchangeable?  Do they mean exactly the same thing? The word “freedom” appears only once in the U.S. Constitution, in the First Amendment:  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”  The word “freedom” is absent from the Declaration of Independence.

The word “Liberty” appears twice in the U.S. Constitution. The Preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  And in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The word “Liberty” appears only once in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And curiously BOTH words are contained in:

Letter of Transmittal to the President of Congress

In Convention.  Monday September 17th 1787.

SIR:

We have now the honor to submit to the consideration of the United States in Congress assembled, that Constitution which has appeared to us the most advisable.

The friends of our country have long seen and desired that the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money, and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities, should be fully and effectually vested in the General Government of the Union; but the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident: hence results the necessity of a different organization.

It is obviously impracticable in the Federal Government of these States to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be preserved; and, on the present occasion, this difficulty was increased by a difference among the several States as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests.

In all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety—perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each State in the Convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude than might have been otherwise expected; and thus, the Constitution which we now present is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession, which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.

That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every State is not, perhaps, to be expected; but each will, doubtless, consider, that had her interest alone been consulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable or injurious to others; that it is liable to as few exceptions as could reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe; that it may promote the lasting welfare of that Country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish.

With great respect, we have the honor to be,

         SIR,

 your Excellency’s most obedient and humble servants:

     GEORGE WASHINGTON, President.

By the unanimous order of the convention.

His Excellency, the President of Congress.

 

A lot more than 11 years separates the Declaration of Independence from the Constitution. Only six of the original signatories of the Declaration also signed the Constitution. There is a philosophical divide as well and perhaps there is indeed a difference between Liberty and Freedom as the terms were understood at that time. In the Declaration of Independence we’re told Liberty is part of a group of inalienable rights conferred upon people by God. “Inalienable” is a profound choice of words—it means something that is not capable of being taken away, abridged, abrogated or denied. So, Liberty is a right that cannot be abrogated or denied. This was self-evident to Thomas Jefferson as God was the source of these rights and no temporal authority was above God. We are then told 11 years later that one of the reasons the Constitution is established to secure Liberty.  81 years after that (1868) we are told that the inalienable right of liberty conferred by God that cannot be abridged or denied CAN be deprived/denied but only through a due process of law.

Does this not so subtle shift mean that had the American Revolution been fought in 1868 all the Monarch of England had to do in order to deprive the colonists of liberty was merely do so by some legal machination? I guess Queen Victoria could have one-upped George the III. And why does the First Amendment use the word “freedom” instead of “Liberty”? Are not the rights listed in the First Amendment among the liberties the Constitution was to secure? And what is too made of the letter to Washington in which clearly the words mean different things?

To the political philosophers of the Enlightenment the words DO mean different things. Prior to the institution of governments and organized societies men lived in a hypothetical state of nature where everyone is free. Freedom is everywhere! Everyone can do exactly as they like however, whenever and to whomever they wish.

Thomas Hobbs informs us in his seminal work Leviathan that: “The life of man” in the state of nature, is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” In the state of nature, security is impossible for anyone, and the fear of death dominates every aspect of life. In this state only survival is paramount thus it is war of all against all. OK so you have total freedom but freedom in this context means license. Someone has something you want so you have the freedom to just take it. And they have the freedom to crease your skull with a club. So Freedom seems pretty scary. Being rational, humans will naturally seek to be rid of fear.

Hobbs addresses this quandary: “Reason teaches us that there are certain natural laws that dictate how a society may guarantee peace. One of these laws is the Right of Nature,” every man’s inborn right to use whatever means available to preserve his own life. Natural law includes our right to self-preservation and forbids humans from taking actions destructive to their own lives. Although war may be necessary for self-preservation, in the state of nature—reason dictates that the first of all natural laws must be that humans seek peace to fulfill their right and obligation to preserve their own lives.

The second law states that in the state of nature “all men have a natural right to all things.” However, to assure peace, men must give up their freedom to do some things. The individual’s transfer of some of his rights to another is offset by certain gains for himself. (Later on John Locke would refer to this as Enlightened Self-Interest, or the sacrifice of a short term gratification in exchange for a long term gratification.) The mutual transfer of rights is called a contract and is the basis for all social organization and collective moral order. Although by contract we give up all sorts of freedoms we possess in the state of nature—such as renouncing the right to kill another in exchange for not being killed by someone else.—we may never give up our natural right to self-preservation, which is the basis for any contract.

So here is the key to the difference between Freedom and Liberty. Freedom equates to license, no boundaries, no restrictions whereas Liberty is among the inalienable rights left over from entry into the social contract. NOW lets go back and look at the language in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and that rather odd letter to Washington.

Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment can now be understood as ANYTHING goes so long as it is merely speech. You have license to say whatever you want. THAT is how it was understood in 1787. And now we can deduce why the word Freedom does not appear in the Declaration—the founders were justifying the revolution not as a desire to return to the state of nature and license but rather as a means to redress a BREACH of the social contract. AH HA! As far as the Constitution is concerned Liberty is referring to your unalienable rights that remain with you as part of the social contract. The government is agreeing to provide citizens with a safe, secure prosperous environment in return for the citizens giving up mutually destructive freedoms, and therefore preserving their individual liberty.  This is also why liberties cannot be abridged--they are part of the social contract government has agreed to. 

Sadly I must argue that the use of the terms in the letter don’t make sense—they should be switched around and THEN it does make sense. What can I say maybe they were in a hurry.


Quote
BigSiameseCat
Founder
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 1156
01/10/2018 10:40 pm  

Great post! One of the reasons that I like this forum is that there are fellow posters who understand the importance of the meanings of words, as opposed to the sedated masses who think only in predigested sound bites, factoids and approved memes. The mental exercise involved in reading complex sentences such as those written by George Washington (His Excellency) is a stark comparison to the childish blather of current politicians.


ReplyQuote
uoSʎWodɹɐH
Founder
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 676
02/10/2018 12:27 am  

It'sallbs  wrote:

liberty

noun

mass noun

The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behaviour, or political views.

No you don't have that

freedom

noun

mass noun

  • 1The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.

    No you don't have that either.

 

Sorry It'sallbs  Your without authority to to make fiat declarations concerning my level of liberty or my freedom to claim it.

My liberty is only limited by the rights of others. As long as I do not infringe on your rights I have the freedom to claim the highest level of liberty.

I ask no permissions through licensing and therefor refuse to recognize any oppressive restrictions on my behavior, or political views.

I have yet to have my freedom to express these beliefs throttled or forbidden. 

When someone produces evidence that my creator cannot continue making

special appearances and endowing those inalienable rights  then and only then

will this country be without liberty or freedoms. 

At that time it will become a country not valuable enough to fight and die for. 

(NOT BEFORE ALL OF US OLD HOLDOUTS ARE DEAD)

Only the incredible accusation industry wrapped in the EDGAR suits of the judicial needs fixing. 

How difficult could it be to rattle a few judicial cages? Those judges are more enslaved than I am..

They have something to lose.  I have only my faith and the product thereof.

They will never out-think my creator..

Blessings, Love and respect from the Honorable Lord Winston McKinney's kingdom.

of heaven on earth. Where he is I am also.  I challenge jurisdiction of all other earthly authorities.

Thank you Jesus for hosting the spirit of my self evident  creator.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=special%20appearance

 

 

 

 

 

I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at the idiots who misunderstand me! Kind mockery toward the well-intentioned and unfettered cruelty toward all would-be prison guards of my creative possibilities. In this way I learn to revel as much in misunderstanding as in understanding and take pleasure in worthy opponents. Making language fluid, flowing like a river, yet precise and pointed as a dirk, contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful verbal dance—a linguistic martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.


ReplyQuote
MG-ɹǝʍo┴
Founder
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 2887
02/10/2018 12:35 am  

Liberty and freedom all depends on which end of a gun your standing on!


ReplyQuote
Uly The Cunning
Admin
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 2676
02/10/2018 12:38 pm  

We have liberties, but they are limited. What we don't have is freedom. The moment one man said to another, I am over you, they both lost their freedom. One must serve the other, while the 'leader' is now chained to the actions of his servant. When a slave would escape a slave master and damage something of someone else's, that slave master would be responsible for those damages. The government is our slave master, and a large portion of their slaves is turning away. Whatever damage we cause will be billed to the slave master, our governments. They attempt to recoup it from the slave, and if they cannot, they destroy him. We are only property of the government in today's arrangement. 

"Remember, you're fighting for this woman's honor, which is probably more than she ever did."
Groucho Marx: Duck Soup (1933)


ReplyQuote
uoSʎWodɹɐH
Founder
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 676
04/10/2018 8:30 pm  

Uly The Cunning wrote:  We have liberties, but they are limited. What we don't have is freedom. The moment one man said to another, I am over you.

 

WE are not all subject to the same limitations.

When you used the term "WE" and interpreted it to include me.

You lost by claiming the authority to limit and or define the freedom or liberty I have.

You may only define your own situation. Not the situation of others.

If you wish to limit yourself as to how much freedom or liberty you have I respect your right to do so.

I understand being responsible for the actions of those who are subordinate to ourselves.

This is why I would never claim authority over you or anyone.

 

I am a slave to the spirit of my father and as a rule slaves have no authority

 

You and It'sallbs both have overstepped the boundaries of your own authority

by claiming I have limits imposed by your  beliefs. 

I would never claim this authority over one or both of you.

 

The only limit to my freedom is myself.

My moral compass will not allow me to limit the freedoms or liberties of others.

I claim, reserve, invoke and exercise the right to all the freedoms and liberties I wish,

and the only limits on these rights are that I don't encroach,or infringe on yours.

or infringe upon the rights of others while in the exercise  of my own.

You cannot limit mine with your words.  Your wrong to even try putting limits on others.

You should personalize your opinions and beliefs and be specific by using I or ME instead of "WE" 

 

I have no juice buttons and this is not a triggered reaction. Only a gentle correction to your claimed authority.

I have no authority myself. I am happy being a slave now that I have chosen the spirit of a dead man as my master.

He will insist that he nor I have any authority over anyone, but also correct anyone claiming the authority to limit

the rights to life, liberty, or the freedom to happily pursue those ends by any part of this spiritual triangle

the Father or The Son or the holy spirit that makes us one. 

Thank you Jesus for setting me free

of those who would always include me.

Come out and be different.

Do not be included.

individual rights are only for individual thinkers. 

We are not all subject to the groups limitations.

Learn HOW to think and you will not be a SUBJECT to the ones who would try and tell you WHAT to think.

Some do it without realizing it. 

Sorry about your limited liberties and lack of freedoms,

but its my belief that no one other than yourselves 

are placing those limitations on you.

 

Love and respect

I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at the idiots who misunderstand me! Kind mockery toward the well-intentioned and unfettered cruelty toward all would-be prison guards of my creative possibilities. In this way I learn to revel as much in misunderstanding as in understanding and take pleasure in worthy opponents. Making language fluid, flowing like a river, yet precise and pointed as a dirk, contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful verbal dance—a linguistic martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.


ReplyQuote
Uly The Cunning
Admin
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 2676
05/10/2018 7:39 am  

I stand by what I said. Your beliefs and faith will not change how you are held accountable by the government. I am not talking on a religious aspect but physical, and in the physical aspect, we are all men with liberties not freedom. Now, if you go beyond the governments, escaping to a place untouched by the powers that be, you will experience physical freedom. 

"Remember, you're fighting for this woman's honor, which is probably more than she ever did."
Groucho Marx: Duck Soup (1933)


ReplyQuote
uoSʎWodɹɐH
Founder
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 676
06/10/2018 5:52 am  

Thanks Uly for the clarification I do agree when put that way.

Its easy for me to fail when trying to understand why others feel limited.

I often forget that many who claim a strong sense of faith make this

claim on the merits of a weekly attendance or erratic observance of religious Dates or events. 

This world is over-run by virtue signalers and self righteous deceivers who do not live totally within the beliefs they claim.

I wake every morning and find sleep every night within my jurisdictional refuge. This does place me outside the system your referencing.

And believe me I totally understand that I am not above the laws of any earthly government, nor am I exempt from them.

If I screw up I face penalties same as  anyone else.

I am unlimited otherwise and in my refuge I need not ask permission.

I am sure you have heard this : I choose to ask forgiveness later rather than permission now.

I take this stance for good reason. I hold that: If what I am doing does not harm those

government officers, then they lack authority to prohibit my actions.

When contracting with the government they will almost always allow you permission, but it comes with a price.

I choose to help my government by  keeping  them out of legal trouble.  I  refuse to offer them the bribe in the first place.

I take away the temptation to be corrupt. 

Sorry for my misunderstanding. 

I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at the idiots who misunderstand me! Kind mockery toward the well-intentioned and unfettered cruelty toward all would-be prison guards of my creative possibilities. In this way I learn to revel as much in misunderstanding as in understanding and take pleasure in worthy opponents. Making language fluid, flowing like a river, yet precise and pointed as a dirk, contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful verbal dance—a linguistic martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.


ReplyQuote
The Evil Genius
Admin
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 1857
11/10/2018 12:06 am  

Thanks Uly. 


ReplyQuote
uoSʎWodɹɐH
Founder
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 676
11/10/2018 2:42 am  

It'sallbs  wrote: 

People only have the authority one gives to them as authority is only really a construct in one's head.

Of course in most countries if you decide to go down a route of peaceful non compliance they will put you in prison.

I educated myself on the reasons for the justification of  prison time. You are correct non-compliance tends to cause one to break out in the color ORANGE.

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5515c656/turbine/os-orange-county-corrections-providing-medical-care-for-inmates-20150327

Unless one cannot afford to come into compliance because of over regulation. There are laws against debtors prison here in the USA. 

Non compliance is not the same as non-consent. The law is clear where JUST authority comes from as well as the lawful purpose of having government at all.

I am not unwilling to comply.  I am unable to comply for financial reasons beyond my control.

At the end of the declaration of Independence it is written:

For the protection of these rights governments are instituted among men,

drawing their just authority from the consent of the governed.

I cannot possibly give the government what I obviously do not have.

I am a man of faith who is but a poverty stricken slave to the spirit of my heavenly father.

By common definition, Slaves have no authority.  How can a person consent just authority when they have no authority?

How can someone come into compliance when the government  regulated their finances to the poverty level? 

This is akin to jailing someone for being poor after stealing all they have..

My government has done this to me, albeit with my clever assistance without their knowledge.

I could not have done it without spiritual help.

They have no Plausible deniability  because what is done is done and cannot be undone.  HA! HA! HA!

I had no choice but to seek political refugee status and waive the benefits of civil regulation.

They screwed up and know it.

They must ignore me as though I do not exist or confess by allowing my truth to prevail in a public court of law.

They will stop regulating me rather than admit mistakes in administrative procedures.

This is why I took a vow of poverty after they took all that I have but my faith.

I chose to give everything to a higher authority because I cannot protect it from the government  regulators.

The spirit of my father in heaven is justifiably the product of the only thing they could not take or disprove. 

He speaks as my public defender while I take the 5th. He has no authority over anyone on earth but me.

But where my flesh is concerned he has the highest authority.

I am not exempt from the earthly written laws nor,

am I above those laws, but because of my new legal domicile

I am not the proper subject of those laws. (the word subject being code)

Subject matter jurisdiction has been waived and given back to my original custodian. (my father got custody of only me)

This country was founded on a principle of civil self governance. 

I have been given permission to be poor forever and I embrace the idea.

I would rather be a happy dignified poor man with morals, than an angry, evil rich man.

we are enslaved to what we own. I own nothing.

Everything in my possession will belong to my father literally and legally for my remaining years on this earth. 

The law says my right to contract is unlimited and there is no restrictions on my interpretation of my freedom of religion.

I interpret that freedom as the freedom to choose the heavenly spirit that will do the lord's work for me personally.

They can pass no laws inhibiting my contract with my father because it does not infringe on anyone else's religious freedoms. 

This is the true meaning of having a personal relationship with your father in heaven. 

As long as I am careful not to infringe or encroach on the rights of someone else, the right 

to claim his protective domicile is mine.

It only protects me from public officers and agents. Not private claims as they are considered  civil matters.

When you waive civil governance and remove consent they will refuse to get involved in civil matters.

Civil matters are your own problems to solve yourself.

Until one party or the other becomes uncivilized and gets physical. 

Then it could be considered a criminal matter.

If you and your neighbor had a dispute and agreed to fight it out and  you both agreed not to involve the civil authorities.

This would be a TRIAL BY BATTLE.  Here in the USA everything is legal in a lawless society.

through out history there have been many different ways to settle disputes and my way was called.

A TRIAL BY ORDEAL. I put myself through extreme poverty for many years to prove

I have no evil motives or bad intent towards anyone.

I want for  nothing of this world but a thorough understanding of my personal purpose.

56years is a short lifespan in these modern times. I have reached that age 56

That was all my father was given and my purpose is to let him have my remaining years.

Like he is picking up where he left off.  In flesh the same age as his was at the time of his death.

Intellect is not intelligence but understanding.  Love and respect to all

 

 

 

I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at the idiots who misunderstand me! Kind mockery toward the well-intentioned and unfettered cruelty toward all would-be prison guards of my creative possibilities. In this way I learn to revel as much in misunderstanding as in understanding and take pleasure in worthy opponents. Making language fluid, flowing like a river, yet precise and pointed as a dirk, contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful verbal dance—a linguistic martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.


ReplyQuote
uoSʎWodɹɐH
Founder
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 676
13/10/2018 3:07 am  
New urban dictionary phrase published.
 
 
Jurisdictionally Blessed
When your heavenly father shows up in a public courtroom and testifies of your exclusively private domicile and permanent residency in his kingdom.
See special appearance.
 
I challenge jurisdiction your honor, as I am the heavenly spirit of the poor man who created the flesh before the court and I assure you he is jurisdictionally Blessed, to be domiciled in my kingdom of heaven on earth.
 
by HarpoMason October 12, 2018

I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at the idiots who misunderstand me! Kind mockery toward the well-intentioned and unfettered cruelty toward all would-be prison guards of my creative possibilities. In this way I learn to revel as much in misunderstanding as in understanding and take pleasure in worthy opponents. Making language fluid, flowing like a river, yet precise and pointed as a dirk, contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful verbal dance—a linguistic martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.


ReplyQuote
uoSʎWodɹɐH
Founder
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 676
26/12/2018 4:28 pm  

LIBERTY= GOD GIVEN AUTHORITY TO MAKE ONES OWN CHOICES.  (REGARDLESS OF WHO  DISAGREES WITH YOUR CHOICES.) (YES SUFFERING AND SACRIFICE IS INVOLVED BECAUSE YOUR STANDING ON WHATS RIGHT,  NOT WHAT MAKES EVERYONE FEEL GOOD.)

  FREEDOM FEELS GOOD BUT HARMS YOU AND YOUR NEIGHBOR. FREEDOM  IS MANS COMPROMISE.  (GOD WILL NOT LITIGATE OR COMPROMISE  WITH EARTHLY AUTHORITIES. ) 

FREEDOM = RELATIVE SAFETY WITHIN YOUR GIVEN SOCIETY TO MAKE  UNPOPULAR DECISIONS. YOU  HAVE THE  FREEDOM  TO LIVE YOUR LIFE AS YOU WISH, UNLESS EARTHLY AUTHORITIES  DISAGREE WITH YOUR CHOICES.

 

GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GOD WILL SHOVE ALL YOUR FREEDOM UP YOUR ASS..

 

L&R

 

 

 

I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at the idiots who misunderstand me! Kind mockery toward the well-intentioned and unfettered cruelty toward all would-be prison guards of my creative possibilities. In this way I learn to revel as much in misunderstanding as in understanding and take pleasure in worthy opponents. Making language fluid, flowing like a river, yet precise and pointed as a dirk, contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful verbal dance—a linguistic martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.


ReplyQuote
Advertisements