Freedom exists in both North Korea and USA

Post Reply New Topic

North Korea: They'll kill and torture you.

USA: They'll imprison, ostracize, fire and make fun of you.

One is free to choose what level of the inferno one will be in.

Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here!

In other words, there is only hell and the human race lives in hell.

You can argue till the cows come home regarding how much freedom there is in the USA, and many have many times, but to the extent of my knowledge, there is absolutely no f*****g freedom in North Korea.

This.

There are reports of some North Koreans resorting to cannibalism due to famine. Perhaps the OP sees this as comparable to being made fun of, hmm?

One is free to choose the consequences of the actions one takes whether we're in the USA or NK. If this is false, then we're nothing but marionettes on a string or robots programmed.

USA:
There are laws against stealing.
I'm free to steal and can choose whether or not to steal.
I suffer the consequences of my stealing which may be prison time.

NK:

There are laws against leaving NK.
I'm free to leave NK and can choose whether or not to leave NK.
I suffer the consequences of leaving or not leaving NK.

The question we ask is if we are free or not and how free we are. Answer: Everyone is free. The question we all should ask is what are the consequences for exercising said freedoms. Another question, what is the extent of the amount of say and representation on what the consequences shall be of our said actions?

So if I put a loaded pistol to your head and say "gimmie your wallet" I am NOT depriving you of freedom?

The fact that you have the "freedom" to choose me murdering you means that you still have "freedom"?

I will have to revise some things I have said here because it is too simplistic. IMHO, these are the ways freedom can be constrained. 1. We can be turned into no more then puppets or robots. In that way, freedom can be taken away. One becomes no more then a husk (Mass Effect). 2. The laws of physics constrains our freedom. Example, people can't fly without some kind of artificial craft (airplane, helicopter). Before then we were constrained. 3. Ignorance. Ignorance can take away our freedom. If one doesn't know the choices we have then one is not free to choose something he doesn't know he can choose.

To answer your question. I would still have freedom. I can still choose not to give the person the money and get shot. If I know martial arts and can disable the person with the gun then maybe I can choose to disable the person with the gun. Or, I can choose to give the money and a. he lets me live or b. I get shot anyway.

If I was put into chains or even handcuffs I would still have some freedom but my freedom would be curtailed. If I knew a trick to get out of the handcuffs then I can somehow use the trick to get out of them. If I did not #2 and #3 would constrain me. In fact, having freedom is really not black and white in certain cases. There can be degrees of freedom or degrees of not having freedom.

In NK, I am free to say anything I want against the leaders but the consequences would be dire. If I was in a coma in NK then I would not be free to say anything. If the leaders made me into a husk using advanced technology then I would have freedom to go against the leaders. If I was in NK and was raised by wolves in the forest and knew nothing of modern civilization then I wouldn't be free to go against the leaders of NK since I would know nothing about them and NK itself but I would be free within the bounds of the forest.

Freedom and not having freedom is dependent upon whatever constraints exist or does not exist.

There are those out there who when committing a crime say they had no choice or freedom to choose. This is not true. One does have choice but one may only have a choice between negative outcomes and circumstances that exist.

The concept of freedom is extremely vague and ambiguous. One can fight for better circumstances and outcomes but to say fight for freedom makes no sense especially if one is one already is free meaning freedom is not constrained by the three things I stated. All one is doing is fighting for the removal of the negative consequences and circumstances.

North Korea's judicial system employs something called the "three generation" rule. If a person is found guilty of "crimes against the state", not only are they punished, but also their parents, children and potentially grand-children (if their parents are not alive to punish). Guilt by association is hardly consistent with being punished only for one's own choices.

It seems to me, you just want anarchy and that honestly wouldn't work. Sorry you can't do anything you want without consequence- thats not how life works.

Laws are in place for good reason.

You misunderstood what I said.

I never said I wanted anarchy. Re-read what I said. What I am saying is let's call a spade a spade and cut all the abstract rhetoric out that is vague, ambiguous and open to interpretation. The argument I'm making is the only difference between what ppl call a free country and what ppl don't consider a free country is one of consequence.

In essence, except for the three constraints stated everyone is free to do a - z but each nation and/or different parts of the globe has differing consequences for for said actions. Constraints 1 -3 can be applied to actions a-z in different ways by different levels.

Example, in the USA I can loudly scream that "Obama sucks!" A boss who's company I work for can fire me and can just claim that I'm not a good fit for the company anymore or let's say I'm a guy who goes to Chik-fil-A and yells about discrimination against homosexuals and I put it on youtube. I can be fired from the company I work for that is not Chik-fil-A. These are possible consequences of my actions.

In North Korea if I say the leader of NK is an as*hole I can be put in a labor camp, fed only salt and corn and/or executed.

Either way, I am free to do these things no matter what country I live in. The only difference is the consequences of what I choose to do with my freedom.

If I think and therefore I am and I am therefore I think then am I not free? For me to not be free 100% I would have to not think and therefore I am not. The only way this would hold up is if one is a puppet or like the husk in mass effect. Even within the constraints of 2 and 3 I am therefore I think and I think therefore I am.

So, another argument I am making is for one to not be free is to lose the thing that gives one free will. Unless one is a husk, puppet or a robot then one has a will therefore one is free and therefore the only difference between NK and USA is but of consequences of using that will.

At most places I've worked, you'd be more likely to be fired for saying something POSITIVE about Obama (or Clinton in the day).

point taken

Oh, I love your avatar.

So, a condemned person may choose to go to the gallows placidly or screaming at the executioner. I have always felt that such nihilist definitions of freedom, while not incorrect, are just trite truisms and not very enlightening.

When most people talk about freedom in relation to comparing different societies, it seems plain to me that they are not talking about freedom in the philosophical sense, but in a socio-political one. Just because the definition of "political freedom" is ambiguous (I sure agree with you there), it does not mean that you can substitute the philosophical concept, and then claim a new insight into the original problem. The concepts belong in two different debates - so I would say that you have fallen into a category error.

[PS - I'm not trying to be argumentative or unfriendly, I just enjoy debating]

I get what you're saying and it looks like your right. This is why I love wrongplanet. I actually can get real logical and intellectual insight into where I could be looking at it wrong.

Thanks!

I have enormous respect for that - sadly, the difference between a "debate" and a "conflict" seems to be missed by far too many people. If only there were a "one word, one meaning" rule - it sure would make life easier!

I have found that one of the best reasons to study debating, logic and rhetorical techniques is not so that I can win arguments with others, but so that I can more easily spot my own false leaps of logic.