Freedom DOES include the freedom to murder someone. However, as Locke noted in his Second Treatise, the freedom to harm others is the one freedom we give up in order to live in a society and maintain our other freedoms.

Freedom to grow wings? That's too far into the philosophy of the word. That's like "freedom to own a Mercedes." Freedom means the liberty to behave as you please without social restrictions -- it doesn't mean ignoring the laws of science and demanding the impossible.

I would say all freedom is good. Is the society that allows you to have the freedom to murder “bad”, or is the person who knowingly takes the life of another “bad”?

I put bad in quotes because it is really a word based upon perception. For example, I don’t believe all murder to be bad nor do I believe a society that accepts murder to be bad. I just consider it natural.

Also, like many words, there are multiple definitions for freedom. Of course people will have varying accounts of what they believe freedom to be, because they are usually just talking about different aspects often associated with the word. So, to define freedom, you must first define the construct to which you are applying the word.

Not too hard really.

Depends on the kind of freedom you're looking for, but I suppose The Netherlands is a good contestant as well. Even though it's probably the nightmare of every puritan American. ;)

Of course, freedom does include the freedom to murder. Thats why some freedoms are bad. Locke admits that in the second treatise, that some freedoms have to be given up for the preservation of the other ones. If they were not the social contract would fall apart - but if you really want to go far into that argument read Nozick. Nozick argues that because you consent via the social contract to not murder, in order to preserve your other freedoms, you are actually free if you murder and are then put in prison for it. Its a classic argument - you can be forced to go to jail and still be free according to him. Now, I'm not saying jail is bad, but what I am saying is that it deservingly makes some people unfree. Nozick is so far to the right of any sensible person that he claims you're still free in jail, as long as you agreed to the social contract (i.e. as long as you ever particpaed in the state in any fashion).

As for the freedom to grow wings it may not fit your definition of freedom, but thats simply your definition. There is no definite right or wrong on this one. Freedom may mean the liberty to behave as you please without social restrictions to you, but most philosophers would disagree with you. Hayek, Berlin, Skinner, Mill... fair enough you may believe they're wrong, but its a bit much to simply slap down a definition and then say its correct. A bit of justification wouldn't go amiss.

Sorry, but I think Hayek agrees with me. Freedom and liberty are about social constructs and restrictions, and he too does not take the definitions to their abductio ad absurdam meanings -- such as sprouting wings.

______________________________________________
Justice, like liberty and coercion, is a concept which, for the sake of clarity, ought to be confined to the deliberate treatment of men by other men.
______________________________________________
Liberty is an opportunity for doing good, but this is only so when it is also an opportunity for doing wrong.
______________________________________________
...the argument for liberty is not an argument against organization, which is one of the most powerful tools human reason can employ, but an argument against all exclusive, privileged, monopolistic organization, against the use of coercion to prevent others from doing better.
_______________________________________________
What a free society offers to the individual is much more than what he would be able to do if only he were free.
________________________________________________


And, correct me if I'm wrong but Mill also analyzed personal freedom vis-a-vis the social order/ government.

I think any of these thinkers, would only admit that "freedom" includes the freedom to sprout wings on a reductio ad absurdam level, and that to utilize the word in meaningful discussion, we must realize its utilitarian use is limited to the social context.

Have you ever heard of Canada? The country with legal gay mariages and pot available by prescription?

And the freedom to kill seals with government money? Yeah, I heard of it. ;) All places have issues.

Well, I meant with my last reply that:
-There are a lot of people in Usa: bad, mad, insanes, avaricious... etc. but good, nice, sanes, generous too how in the rest of the world, but their presidents are so avaricious as I said.
-I dont know why they attacked with the help of Blair and the stupid Ansaaaar (as Bush calls to Aznar)(I must say the andalusien people dont like this president he is Fascist (like franco and mussolini) but the north people are fascist and ...)
-In the news (Public Spanish TV (La primera por si hay un español que lo lea) and A3) they say good things about USA, but the spaniard arent dumb, and we know what is happend.


I must say I have got friends from USA and they arent dumb or avaricious how is the usa person stereotip.

I hope not to hurt anybody with my words.

Shaide

I didn't say they would all think liberty meant the ability to fly, simply that they disagreed with you. Hayek, for example, thinks freedom is the ability to act without coercion, which is different from simply being able to do what you like without social constrictions. For example social constrictions might be taken to mean the more Millian tyranny of the majority, which Hayek would certainly not have thought of as coercion. Skinner would view liberty as the ability to positively actualise yourself and your goals (freedom to, not freedom from, thats the key), which certainly doesn't mean the ability to fly yet also doesn't mean simply the absence of social restriction. Mill might be taken in some readings to conform with your definition, but only if you ignore the fact that for him liberty was also a means to do something, not simply something to be gained in itself.

Basically, the sprouting wings thing is just an example of why you have to be careful when drawing up a definition so it doesn't become absurd. I didn't say that all those guys thought that, just that they thought differently to you.

Umm actually Shaide, Bush is Republican, not fascist.

The stereotype for an American is Greedy and Stupid? That's really disturbing. People gotta stop judging solely based on the media.

Posted by Shaide:
"-In the news (Public Spanish TV (La primera por si hay un español que lo lea) and A3) they say good things about USA, but the spaniard arent dumb, and we know what is happend."

Umm would you care to specify on that. I'm sure exactly whats being referred to or implied in that statement.