Relationship between Freedom and money
I have always been interested in the word Freedom and how I think the amount of financial resources a person has can have a significant effect on how much freedom a person has.
From wiki their are two definitions of freedom the first being the philosophy definition of freedom which is Freedom means self-determination, autonomy, and spontaneity of a rational subject, the absence of submissiveness and servility.
The second is political freedom which is Political freedom is the right, or the capacity, of self-determination as an expression of the individual will.
In the last few years I have come to the argument that you can't have freedom unless you have resources to actualize those freedoms. Where resources is usually financial.
So when addressing philosophy definition of freedom of self determiniation and absense of submissiveness, it really means being your own boss and being able to financially support yourself. To be free and be in a free country also means that you can relocate to wherever you want. So I would argue that people living in poverty are the people who have significantly less freedom then more affluent people.
When addressing the political definition of freedom I dont think countries were two parties rule the country is not real political freedom. Absence of choice is not political freedom. An example is in the current Fiji Elections there are really only two parties and because we also have one vote by race their is only one party to vote for in my communal vote. The real political freedom is when you control part of parties agenda's which needs financial resources. Classic example is that in the US more then 90% of elections are won by the people that spend the most in their campaigns.
One other definition of freedom, that is not mentioned above is freedom of the mind which should not be contrained by financial factors. But it does as financial resources are used for marketing, promotion of liesure activities, divide and rule arguments, effects what people are thinking about. So a significant number of people are always occupied, angry or thinking how they can get want they want. So real freedom of the mind could be argued is to be able to think where the only limiting factor is thoughts abouts basic necessaties.
I am not arguing that the current situation is bad as I enjoy the benefits of the current freedoms that we enjoy, it's just interesting how their is a disconnect between the perceptions of freedom compared to the actual freedoms that we enjoy.
From wiki their are two definitions of freedom the first being the philosophy definition of freedom which is Freedom means self-determination, autonomy, and spontaneity of a rational subject, the absence of submissiveness and servility.
The second is political freedom which is Political freedom is the right, or the capacity, of self-determination as an expression of the individual will.
In the last few years I have come to the argument that you can't have freedom unless you have resources to actualize those freedoms. Where resources is usually financial.
So when addressing philosophy definition of freedom of self determiniation and absense of submissiveness, it really means being your own boss and being able to financially support yourself. To be free and be in a free country also means that you can relocate to wherever you want. So I would argue that people living in poverty are the people who have significantly less freedom then more affluent people.
When addressing the political definition of freedom I dont think countries were two parties rule the country is not real political freedom. Absence of choice is not political freedom. An example is in the current Fiji Elections there are really only two parties and because we also have one vote by race their is only one party to vote for in my communal vote. The real political freedom is when you control part of parties agenda's which needs financial resources. Classic example is that in the US more then 90% of elections are won by the people that spend the most in their campaigns.
One other definition of freedom, that is not mentioned above is freedom of the mind which should not be contrained by financial factors. But it does as financial resources are used for marketing, promotion of liesure activities, divide and rule arguments, effects what people are thinking about. So a significant number of people are always occupied, angry or thinking how they can get want they want. So real freedom of the mind could be argued is to be able to think where the only limiting factor is thoughts abouts basic necessaties.
I am not arguing that the current situation is bad as I enjoy the benefits of the current freedoms that we enjoy, it's just interesting how their is a disconnect between the perceptions of freedom compared to the actual freedoms that we enjoy.
posted by George at 9:14 am
1 Comments:
There was a discussion on our TV recently on happiness, and the outcome was that it's not about money, though a serious lack of resources is a constraint to happiness (and freedom of course). I regard my life as moderately free, just enough resources to do most of what I want in our city. There is a lot of freedom in Australia, e.g.to say what you think. Freedom to be tidy or untidy! Dress up or dress down! One bug re freedom is always about immigration and bureaucracy, those sorts of constraints!
W.
Post a Comment
<< Home