Who told you that you were free?

Question:Correct me if I'm wrong: If freedom is defined by everyone's own individual standards, then by definition some/most of us won't be free (example: the person who exercises his freedom to smoke enslaves and encroaches his neighbors with secondary smoke?). If freedom is defined by one standard, then, who's standard should we follow?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: Correct me if I'm wrong: If freedom is defined by everyone's own individual standards, then by definition some/most of us won't be free (example: the person who exercises his freedom to smoke enslaves and encroaches his neighbors with secondary smoke?). If freedom is defined by one standard, then, who's standard should we follow?

Read your Bible. That is why the Supreme Court is wrong to insist on "separation of government and religion. The U.S. was founded upon the idea of FREEDOM as defined in the Bible. Without the Bible, without God, there IS NO FREEDOM. Who defines Freedom? God does.

The last human freedom is the right to decide what an event means to you.
Vicktor Frankle

Lest we forget to the freedom to respect thy neighbor. Freedom gives us the right to contemplate our individual definition to what freedom means to us. Just as if my neighbor gets sick of breathing my smoke, he has the freedom to burn my house down. But freedom comes with the cost of consequence. My neighbor is also Vietnamese and the smell of what shes cooking is terrible. That also encroaches and enslaves me to my toilet and ulcers as I vomit or shut my windows and sweat to death, or not able to enjoy the healthy fresh air.

This is a good question as concerns opinions also. If all opinions are equal, then my opinion that my opinion is better than yours is valid.

We all have the freedom to do what we want as long as it does not encroach on the freedoms of others. Thus the tobacco companies have the right to try to sell you poison. You have the right to put that poison in your body (thinkin you look cool), but you don't have the right to put that poison into my body.
Just as I don't have the right to stand next to you and spray Raid in your face.

The standard of the masses - - - the law .

I am thinking our notions of freedom are defined in large part by the country we live in. In the United States, for example that would probably be referred to in The Constitution and constitutional law, The Bill of Rights, etc... We understand that we are free to do as we please within the laws established by our State and Federal Governments. However we also have responsibilities which further define and encroach upon our freedom and concept of freedom. If you compare the life of someone who is totally free from any responsibilities to the life of someone with many responsibilities, most of us would probably consider ourselves slaves to something, but that, we are told, is based on "free will" - we choose the hold a job that we must go to everyday, in order to maintain our standard of living. So, we are not completely free, but we are also not completely enslaved. That appears to be the standard we all currently follow. It would certainly be nice if we could somehow have the standard of freedom of, say, some celebrity or multimillionaire, who seems to spend a lot of time shopping, traveling and partying, wouldn't it? But we'd also have to figure out how to do that and maintain our society which is currently supported by millions of people who are, for lack of a better word, partially enslaved, by the constant attention our society and infrastructure seems to need...

Freedom is fine and dandy. Understand the consequences and duties required for that freedom. Otherwise the freedom is built on top of the suffering of others and that is slavery on one's hand.

You shall be free indeed when your days are not without a care nor your nights without a want and a grief,
But rather when these things girdle your life and yet you rise above them naked and unbound.

Good question. Very thought provoking and in the most literal sense that definition is true. But I also think you can look at freedom in MANY standards in your own view as well. When most people, say in America, think freedom, most people think of their freedom in the law of the land. The U.S. is a free country and it's people are free. Free to do what they want under democratic society. Of course each individual depending on their situation have a secondary level of freedom or real freedom and everyone's freedom in that sense is different from every other persons in the entire world. If you are an abused child or family member, you don't feel free. It could be as simple as you hate your job or feel wasted and you don't feel free. It could be a monopolizing franchise you have to get a product from in a certain area, and you don't feel free. If you feel sick or are terminally ill you don't feel free. It could be like you say, enslavement by means beyond your own control that take your freedom such as second hand smoking. Or maybe you're getting dirty water out of your faucet because people other than you make those sanitary regulations. Because we all rely on each other, you can only view yourself as free if you see yourself as free in the most literal sense.

I feel free and that perhaps has to do with my faith. You can truly let go of any one thing that you feel enslaves you if you have your faith. If you ask who's standard to follow, it probably should be your Maker's. Else, how would you know what direction to take your freedom or freedoms in this world. In the end your freedom is your own standard that which the Lord gave you, free will. Anything beyond your control would be His will, but having faith with that fact gives you peace.

True control is an illusion. The crane must fly south with the winter wind.

It sounds like you're taking more along the rights, and whose / what kind of rights take priority.

It is much easier to argue for 'negative rights' (i.e the right to not have something done) that for 'positive rights' (having the right to do something, including doing something to someone).

While smoking as been kicked to death as far as this example goes, let's use it anyways.
"Should one be free to smoke in enclosed spaces with others" really contains several other questions -
"Should one have the right to not be forced to inhale another's smoke in an enclosed area" as well as "Should one have the right to smoke in an enclosed area, and by doing so create a situation where others have little choice but be exposed to their smoke."

When talking about the freedom to do something, whether it be smoking around others, expressing opinions, drinking and driving, having an abortion - the ethical burden is on the person who wants to take part in the activity.
Their explanation must not only include some rationale as to why the freedom to do x matters, but more importantly, why their freedom to do x overrides another's right to not have x done to them.

I think we are the only ones who can free ourselves. We are our worst enemies, and when we get into a pickle, others may help but it is our own choice to let ourselves be freed in the end. We are our own worst enemies and our greatest saviors. The same thing goes with miracles, I guess; you want to see a miracle, you must be the miracle.

The Bible is the only standard to follow. In today's society where everything is becoming more and more of an infringement of privacy. The only freedom we may possess if we want it is freedom from shackles of bondage(sin).

freedom ia fruitcake so be a fruitcake