What is Freedom?

[Wise TibetanMonkey]

This debate is loosely related to a BBC series by the same name. I rather discuss it because I can be quite open about it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-25683135

I agree that the media makes up an image of the world that only makes sense from the side of the mighty. Those are the ones that own newspapers and TV/radio stations, and the reporters/analysts do the job they are paid to do. I say that I'LL BELIEVE THE MEDIA WHEN THE REPORTERS MAKE MINIMUM SALARY. Obviously that is not the case so I treat all news with skepticism.

The reality for the "man on the street" is very different. He can not afford a car and can not afford NOT to have a car. Riding public transportation is a gamble time-wise, riding a bicycle is Russian roulette, and walking is for idiots --or the elderly.

And things are not getting better. WE ARE AN ACCIDENT IN THE DESIGN, such as this:

(Read the captions please)

http://i881.photobucket.com/albums/ac18/thetibetanmonkey/CORRUPTION/111213163605_zps60a752d1.jpg

Dogs go crazy about going out, don' they?

If you were to ask the prey what's freedom, they would say "ROAMING FREE." That's what freedom means, and we are not nearly free. We are slaves of making payments on a car. We are barely surviving in the jungle.

Like I say, "Nothing's free in the land of the free!"

--------------------------------------------------------------

http://BANANAREVOLUTION.webs.com

[Wise TibetanMonkey]

On Sunday, March 30, 2014 10:52:37 PM UTC-4, Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> In article <0119f425-b2d6-4d6b...@googlegroups.com>,
>
>  Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > What do you say to people who claim that having an SUV to travel all over the
>
> > place, is freedom?
>
>
>
> They say that freedom is the opposition of compulsion.
>
>
>
> To the extent that one is not forcibly compelled to act against one's
>
> own will one is  free.
>
> To the extent that others can compel you to act against your will you
>
> are not free.
>
>
>
> No one in a society is totally free of the constraints of that society,
>
> but most of  us willingly accept such constraints in order to enjoy the
>
> benefits provided by that society.

You may say the government can and should intervene in public safety for the benefit of all. An example of that is AIR BAGS.

However it fails to protect you against the superior mass and higher bumpers of the SUVs. They are "trucks" for something and are not trucks for something else. As trucks, they should require stricter drivers license, LOWER BUMPERS and "pollution fees." The opposite is true though. They get a tax break as "business equipment" after so many tons. At the same time they do not require the same safety standards as cars. Safety is measured in terms of "self," not "others," and Fiats and Honda's small cars are categorized as "dangerous."

That's an oversight, or the deliberate act to protect big profits.

You better drive an SUV. Everyone else must live in fear.

NOTE:

SUV= Supersized Unnecessary Vehicle, not including smaller vehicles and crossovers.

For example:

http://www.section179.org/awesome_vehicles_that_qualify_as_a_write_off.html

[Wise TibetanMonkey]

On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 5:16:29 AM UTC-4, Vladimir  says  Chinese aren't  native of SE  ASIA wrote:
> NO  religion  is  a fundamental  condition  for FREEDOM

Right, FREEDOM FROM RELIGION is more important than FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

Who says that? ME!!!

[robert...@gmail.com]

Well said Monkey. I say look around you, at the way things are and tend to be, and if you HAVE to (for peace of mind) find a religion which seems to suit the circumstances, rather than one that is forced upon you through fear or tradition, insists it is the 'only one that tells the truth', or claims to be the only one that will preserve your immortal soul...