Definition of a free country

Originally posted by Palynka
What are those conditions?

A situation where one has the ability to act or speak according to one's inclinations or desires without external constraint.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
A situation where one has the ability to act or speak according to one's inclinations or desires without external constraint.

These conditions are hardly objective, there is no country in the world where such situation actually exists, my point was precisely that you will always have external restraints.

Like I said, one's opinion will ultimately depend on whether one approves of the tradeoff between individual liberties and whatever a certain political framework is offering. Would you say that Cuba's freedom (or lack thereof) is for example more justifed than Iran's freedom (or lack thereof), or America's freedom (or lack thereof)? would you be capable of answering this question without slipping in terms of approval somewhere along the line or judgments about the validity of a particular system and the principles is it grounded on?

Originally posted by generalissimo
These conditions are hardly objective, there is no country in the world where such situation actually exists, my point was precisely that you will always have external restraints.

Like I said, one's opinion will ultimately depend on whether one approves of the tradeoff between individual liberties and whatever a certain political framework is offeri or judgments about the validity of a particular system and the principles is it grounded on?

Surely however it could not be denied that more constraints exist in Iran or Cuba than in the US or Europe. This is what I mean by "objective".

Naturally one will likely be more willing to countenance certain constraints if one approves of the ideological priorities of the society, but I don't think this invalidates the use of the term "free" as a descriptive term. An Iranian fundamentalist might agree with me that Iran is not a free country. The difference is that he might approve of that lack of freedom.

I don't think Adlai Stevenson would have claimed that the US was a totally free country, or even that total freedom was achievable. Nevertheless, he obviously thought that the term was useful and definable. I think he was right.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
"My definition of a free country is one where it is safe to be unpopular."

How adequate is Adlai Stevenson's definition of a free country?

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"

--Patrick Henry.

I think freedom is often sacrificed at the hands of those who proport to keep us "safe".

Hello Patriot Act!!

Originally posted by whodey
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"

--Patrick Henry.

I think freedom is often sacrificed at the hands of those who proport to keep us "safe".

Hello Patriot Act!!

The famous line from Ben Franklin conveys the same sentiment: "Those who will give up liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither" (or words to that effect).

But this thread was specifically asking about the adequacy of Adlai Stevenson's conception of freedom. What do you think of that?

Originally posted by Teinosuke
A situation where one has the ability to act or speak according to one's inclinations or desires without external constraint.

There are always constraints. For example, if one's inclinations and desires are destructive, then you won't be able to act without external constraints. Or if you reveal banking information of others or use inside information to tell friends what stocks to buy, etc.

Originally posted by Palynka
There are always constraints. For example, if one's inclinations and desires are destructive, then you won't be able to act without external constraints. Or if you reveal banking information of others or use inside information to tell friends what stocks to buy, etc.

Yes, I know. Freedom is never absolute in the real world. That's because it has to be balanced against other goods, other values. That doesn't mean, however, that it's undefinable. Similarly, no society is wholly equal, but that doesn't mean we can lose hope of using the word "equality" meaningfully.

Originally posted by Palynka
There are always constraints. For example, if one's inclinations and desires are destructive, then you won't be able to act without external constraints. Or if you reveal banking information of others or use inside information to tell friends what stocks to buy, etc.

What I've found interesting on this thread is how you rather uncontroversially said this at the beginning:

"I hope I'm not going to ruin the point of this thread, but I guess that depends on what you mean by "free". Most of the times the terms "free" or "freedom" is used as an adjective of support (i.e. support for the ability to be safe while being unpopular), rather than a proposition about a feature of countries. To say country "X is free because of Y" seems to be equivalent to saying "I approve of Y"."

...and generalissimo picked up this ball and ran with it, and in doing so came up with a kind of aggregate definition of a "free country" - citing you as he was at it - that would be absolute music to the ears of every despot and tyrant and oligarchy and national security state the world over, while at the same time being abject anathema to freedom advocates and human rights activists the [same] world over!

Originally posted by Teinosuke
Yes, I know. Freedom is never absolute in the real world. That's because it has to be balanced against other goods, other values. That doesn't mean, however, that it's undefinable. Similarly, no society is wholly equal, but that doesn't mean we can lose hope of using the word "equality" meaningfully.

Good points.

I like the idea that the constraints that you have in mind are not only the institutional ones but also the ones imposed by one's peers. In that sense a country is not automatically "freer" the closest you get to anarchy.

Originally posted by FMF
What I've found interesting on this thread is how you rather uncontroversially said this at the beginning:

[b]"I hope I'm not going to ruin the point of this thread, but I guess that depends on what you mean by "free". Most of the times the terms "free" or "freedom" is used as an adjective of support (i.e. support for the ability to be safe while being unpopu ...[text shortened]... anathema to freedom advocates and human rights activists the [same] world over![/b][/b]

I think you're being a bit unfair to what he said...

Institutional constraints can be imposed to avoid non-institutional constraints (peer to peer constraints, economic constraints,etc.) . Our systems of law impose institutional constraints on individuals yet I think ex-post I'm able to live less constrained because I live in a country with a decent judicial system. The very idea that it is safe to be unpopular requires protection from the rule of law (although like Teinosuke said, that's not the end of the story).

In that sense, the way you weigh the impact of the two types of constraints is crucial in determining which country is freer...for you. A libertarian would disagree with a communist on which of the two type of constraints matters most in leading to a free society, although we can agree that both would think it to be "free" in completely different ways.

So I'm skeptical about the possibility of an objectivity of the definition, even despite Teinosuke's good points above.

Originally posted by Palynka
So I'm skeptical about the possibility of an objectivity of the definition...

Well then, while you are skeptical about the possibility of an objectivity of the definition, people can and should fill the vacuum you seem to favour, dismiss generalissimo's dictator-friendly fig leaf, and strive for - advocate and support - systems that endeavour to not suppress their personal liberties and restrict their freedom of speech, thought, action and assembly... for subjective reasons if needs be. Hell, why not? The citizens of Cuba do not have the freedom to modify the definition of freedom that their government imposes on them. Cuba is not a "free country".

Any definition of a 'free country' that is so fudged that it essentially applies to any and all countries is more an exercise in counting angels dancing on the head of a pin than a realistic effort to find realistic ways for humans to both do what they want and live together successfully. 😀

Originally posted by FMF
Well then, while you are skeptical about the possibility of an objectivity of the definition, people can and should fill the vacuum you seem to favour, dismiss generalissimo's dictator-friendly fig leaf, and strive for - advocate and support - systems that endeavour to not suppress their personal liberties and restrict their freedom of speech, thought, ac ...[text shortened]... find realistic ways for humans to both do what they want and live together successfully. 😀

I didn't say otherwise. That I think it is preference-based doesn't mean I'm happy to accept a majority vote all issues. I prefer certain values above a majority rule.

Originally posted by Palynka
I didn't say otherwise. That I think it is preference-based doesn't mean I'm happy to accept a majority vote all issues. I prefer certain values above a majority rule.

So, for you, is Cuba a free country?

Originally posted by FMF
So, for you, is Cuba a free country?

Outside of the context of this thread I'd have no problem in expressing my disapproval for Cuba by saying they are NOT a free country.

In the context of this thread (which explicitly attempts to pin down what a "free country" is) I'd have to say that you have to be more specific about what you mean by "free country".

Originally posted by Palynka
Outside of the context of this thread I'd have no problem in expressing my disapproval for Cuba by saying they are NOT a free country.

In the context of this thread (which explicitly attempts to pin down what a "free country" is) I'd have to say that you have to be more specific about what you mean by "free country".

You say Cuba is "NOT a free country". Why?