Of course, the term "freedom" has already been stretched in so many directions as to be of limited value, so this may not be a strong objection. I'd like to see more use made of the term "liberty", in the sense of freedom to do that which the law does not forbid, a principle which forbids arbitrary command and punishment. The concept of "liberty" thus roughly corresponds to a figure-ground reversal of "rule of law". Liberty is compatible with both narrow and broad ranges of freedom, whether one takes "freedom" to mean "range of permitted actions" or "range of actual capabilities". Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
I have a very simple definition of poverty, which is that it's the opposite of freedom. The US cant about individual freedom is exactly that, and confuses potential freedom of a rich minority with the much more limited freedom of the 99% of the population. Freedom includes freedom from starvation, thirst, and so on. But it also includes freedom to educate yourself, and contribute socially. Having to scramble for cash is not freedom. You could argue that from this point of view, poverty is much more widespread than is usually accepted.
Freedom includes freedom from starvation, thirst, and so on. But it also includes freedom to educate yourself, and contribute socially.
Having to scramble for cash is not freedom. You could argue that from this point of view, poverty is much more widespread than is usually accepted.
This sense of "freedom" has no fundamental connection with "freedom" as liberty. If one happens to be lost in a desert, ones choices will be limited and perhaps horrible, but not because of oppression. "Freedom-from" isn't at all the same thing as "freedom-to" (and "freedom-to" has a limited connection with "ability-to"). Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
