To answer the question in your subject-line: No, but, where you live, it isn't a good idea to say things like that, because it could get you in trouble with the government there.

I believe in avoiding trouble with the government. ....ignoring politics, and completely staying out of the way of the rulers.

(By the way, I commend you for writing in English, a foreign language to you. Not many people here can write in a foreign language.)

.

If I understand your question, it is something like: is freedom meaningless without the power to change things?

How are your in country? People have the word freedom? They can will change the situation which happening around of them? Recently died the public activist Ekaterina Gandzyuk, did you heard about her? She was attacked of one the person with a bottle sulphuric acid, and he pour out it straight in the face Ekaterina. Does exists the word freedom about which we can talk?

The freedom of Speech, is indeed rare in some countries. We live in an evil world where in some part of the world, there are people who haven't taste the "General View of Freedom". Disclaimer, I don't live in a situation as dire as you, but my country is also not what I called "Ideal".

I think, yes, you don't have the Freedom of Speech (to some degree), yes, a better "Regulation" are needed. But the questions are, what facts that I don't see in my country?

There are somethings that we need to think, some of it are:

1) A country that restrict public activist must have its reason, what is their reason, and do you have the better realistic and possible solution for that reason? If you don't, then we are in a weak position to protest. Think as if you're the country.

2) If it "bad", it WILL eventually change to good, the problems are, what sacrifice must I make to start those changes? What part can I play to start this changes. A small things is okay, because even though it's small, we can still do something.

Maybe the situation are, "We are not Free, and thus we Protest/Act/Spoke/Write, Today we're still in bondage, but in the future things will change".

there are different kinds of freedom. People usually refer to freedom of expression and political freedom, but there´s also the freedom of staying alive, freedom to have a family, or to walk at night safely. When these basics freedoms are endangered, a society might decide to limit political and communicative acts of freedom, to preserve order. This is not against the general value of freedom in society, but a necessary choice. Roman republicans, from which our modern law and citizenship is derived from, understood that in times of unrest or war or natural disaster a dictator needed to be appointed and special measures needed to be taken. However, this dictatorship was a transitory regime to save the Republic, similar to the medically prescribed "limited freedom" we have when we are ill to allow the system to get well. The whole purpose was to save basic freedoms and the state while society recovers and overcomes the crisis. This is different to the use of dictatorship in Totalitarianism (islamism, fascism, socialism) where dictatorship is called revolution and its aims are not to create the conditions for the restoration of full-fledged democracy, but to create the conditions for democracy never to return again.

An individual contributes an amount of chaos to society. When chaos is small, society thrives; when it grows too big, society falls apart. Population bomb, which is now stronger in Africa, the Middle East and to a lesser degree in regions such as South America, brings many more individuals to the world and that means more chaos. This chaos is multiplied exponentially with access to digital technologies and modern transport.
A society can do one of these three things to deal with this excess of chaos:

1. To control population (via educating people so that they become responsible citizens) and to restrict the influx of immigration. This way, you have much less individuals and chaos is in the right proportion.

2. To externalize population: to encourage people (through religious or political propaganda) to move to other regions of the world, especially young, fertile people. That way, chaos is externalised to other nations and order is preserved.

3. To reduce the level of chaos each individual can contribute to society. This is done by creating homogeneous populations, with less creativity, less personal differences, and less personal agendas.

All countries use the three strategies, but with different intensity. A nation that wants individuals with the maximum creativity and self-expression (freedom) needs to rely especially on 1. Collectivistic, totalitarian regimes that place the social system over individuals, usually rely on 2 and 3, producing large populations where individuality is diluted within simplified discourses and identities and difference, or diversity, is crashed or externalised. This produces very dynamical systems, with an ever increasing need for externalization and expansion. 1- type produces slower economies, but with much faster development and very innovative. Israel is a great example of 1, becouse individuality is very important in Jewish religion and culture. 2 is a preferred strategy of islamized countries, and they call it hegira, migration to infidel regions to force islam on the whole planet. 3 is China, where the whole big country is now a Sims 3 game Red edition.

Freedom only exists in varying degrees. There is no one instance of governance which completely guarantees absolute freedom of speech. Even democracies cannot boast unrestricted freedom. And this concept is not entirely morally wrong. Unadulterated freedom is extremely toxic and destructive. Freedom of speech can cause rebellions, revolutions, and chaos. Yes, these actions may be necessary for morally just changes in society, but a morally evil means never fully justifies a morally good end.

Now, let me deal with the first problem: what degree of freedom, in this case - speech, is beneficial to society as a whole?

Pragmatically speaking, freedom of speech must be based on fact and evidence. It must go through due process of law. This freedom of speech must be used for the betterment of the aggregate sectors of the society and not for a certain group of people. This is the ideal.

However, it is part of the self-interest of the government or ruling authority to control this freedom of speech to purely grow their sector. They would only allow government-supporting propaganda and they would shut down opposing outlets in media. Given this, a strong vocal opposition is a sign of a healthy free society.

Although another issue arises: what if this opposition is contradicting a categorical imperative, or an ideal in itself. For example, the neo-Nazis advocating for the silencing of the LGBTQ+ community. Is this still provisioned by free speech? In my definition of the ideal degree of the freedom of free speech, I would need to say 'no'. Any speech openly soliciting violence must be stopped. The government must see that EVERY right of EVERY sector of the populace is upheld. If another party uses their freedom of speech to violate someone's rights then the said party is at fault.

Simply put, the limits of ideal freedom is summed up in this statement: my freedoms ends at your freedoms; when my rights violates yours, then I am at fault.

Onto the main discussion, why are do governments fail to uphold this ideal freedom?

Simple. They find it disadvantageous. They find it chaotic. They find it radical. And the government is an extremely conservative body. Especially in Ukraine or in the Middle East.

If I walked down the streets of Kiev, demanding the betterment of the conditions of the common people, then clearly, the government will not see me in a good light. Take it like this: the government is extremely stubborn and unwilling to change drastically. And in Ukraine, it is especially rampant. Their indifference is a plague that kills the common people.

Alas, the title of this discussion resonates the question: "Do we have the right to choose?"

As a common person? No.
As a radical? No.
As a man with no support? No.

The only way to create change is to bet on someone liberal in the government to make small steps to the right.

The paradigm is simple.

1. The people want something to better themselves and society.
2. This concept is countering the plans of the government.
3. The government rejects this proposition with words and/or action.
4. The people would elect someone to change it.
5. The person elected would make small changes to create betterment of society.
6. The person is no longer interested and is now into the government.
7. Rinse and repeat.

Wishing the Best,
NuncAmissa

your answer seems to be presuppose an ideal world where all choices are available and are equally costly. Can you re-think your idea to include a real scenario?

there are different kinds of freedom — DiegoT

When I'll ask you: "We've freedom action?" you would be likely will answer me: "Yes of course" and I agree with you but our "freedom" finish on it: "today I drink beer with my friends or I go to the cinema with my girlfriend" — Artie

Yes, I agree but it's everything formally. I see freedom how something whole, non differentiated, and we limited in it.

Yes, that's why when the people are protesting we need to see the facts in all the part. Not only in the protester part.

I somewhat agree in

The paradigm is simple. — NuncAmissa

. It is simple, but it is costly, and sometimes Imposible.

An example of it being true :

Women Suferrage, it all start from a group of women who want tradition to be changed, it get opposed, but little by little, it start to become big (The Chaos become Bigger), until it cannot be contained anymore and the situation is changed.(The Chaos Become Order)

The situation in middle east CAN be changed, BUT it need time AND may result in a revolution. But I disagree that people must "Elect" someone. No, the people ITSELF (through sacrifise) must be the one that start and do the process

It´s very complicated and I struggle to understand it myself. Consider your example of the suffragettes: The suffragette movement did NOT create the chaos, but merely channelled part of it in a particular direction. Social chaos can be seen as free energy, energy that is not engaged and damages the system when it can not be absorbed or put to good use, like an overflooding river or an excess of electrict current. Free energy was due to the Industrial Revolution process, that brought about all kind of changes and also affected how power and participation was distributed in society and the family. That is why I´m bothered with the idea that changes in women´s roles were created by feminists; no, feminists just deviated the stream to their land (socialist models). The point is that revolutions are not the cause of change. as revolutionaries of any ideology would like us to believe, but a necessary consequence of the accumulation of changes and the liberation of energy. When the wave comes, different groups try to surf it in their own interest.

Okay, assume that there is free energy due to the Industrial Revolution. You are saying because of a cause, Social Chaos happen (which I can understand) .

Then, we can say that the "Free Energy" that the protester in the middle east are trying to channeled are caused by "The Globalization Era" (or something). Then if The Middle East Protester stay in the path the same as the woman suffragettes, we can hope that it will eventually realize (Even through revolution). Changes can happen!

Because the main problem is "This situation is Bad, Why is it bad? What can we do to change it? And are we ready to change it? And are our reason good enough for that change?"

I don´t really understand what you mean by change. Reality is all about change, if it stopped just for a second, the universe would cease to exist. The same goes for human processes, historical changes are unstoppable so long as Humanity is not extinct. I try to guess that you imply a sense of evolution, or positive adjustment, in your idea of change. Middle East protests were already forwarded in articles published even before the Arab springs took place, becouse the youth bulge provoked by demographic inflation, digital media and the cultural "pathways" existing in Islamic cultures allowed the experts to know that these revolutions would take place. It´s not so easy to know what will happen next, becouse very different scenarios are possible, better and worse than the previous situation. A positive outcome of a social revolution involves a lot of integration work, in other words: social improvement directly derived from the effort to establish negative feed-back loops to trap as much energy as possible. I don´t know if I´m explaining myself clearly

I think that is positive to "not choice anything".

If Lao Tse can be considered a "philosopher", I think he is right in that afirmation.

Yes, the point that I want to make is

1) Change is possible and will happen. (Your statement Suggest that)

2) In that Process of Change, NuncAmisa "Paradigm" could be used. (The paradigm that I thought you don't believe).

Look at it this way:

- An unpopular notion is founded by a group of individuals whose voice is not necessarily heard well.
- This unpopular notion is continually opposed by the government to protect order.
- This notion becomes popular through many different means (some candidate gets enough backing, the notion getting enough backing, revolution, etc.)
- Since the notion has now grown into a popular one, the government ought to listen to this idea; Except when they don't, and that's where the main contention arises.
- The notion is upheld and changes the system little by little.

To clarify, not all choices are equally costly and equally efficient.
In my opinion, a revolution is WAY costly than creating a 'democratic front' and pushing forward change through rallies and speeches.

An armed revolution is way detrimental than a step-by-step push for change i.e, rallies, voting and such.

Thank you very much for clarifying my point.

Despite that, I would need to argue that there is no real need to be so abrasive and call for revolution. The use of the gun must only be tolerated when the use of the pen is useless.

Revolution is extremely costly and I would argue that utilizing the bureaucratic process will be more efficient though slow-paced.

You may ask: What are costs of revolution?

Well, there is bloodshed. There is chaos. There is the risk from the government declaring you as 'rebels' and 'trying to secede from the state' and that's detrimental to your purpose. A revolution would also polarize the spectrum further. Revolution is used by radicals and while the milder ones keep themselves safe under the jurisdiction of the law.

However, I would like to remind you all that the main contention in the first place was how we ought to act and choose.

Freedom is always limited. It is limited to within your own personal space. You may not morally nor legally violate someone else's space or freedom with your own freedom. Once you do however you have committed two crimes, one against the state which is bound to protect the other's freedom and another against that person personally.

It’s up to you.

"The use of the gun must only be tolerated when the use of the pen is useless". Nuncamissa, do you realize that this statement is in line with "the end justifies the means" and is the basis of totalitarian revolutions? All criminal and revolutionary organizations, if they think they can achieve their goals without bloodsheed, they will try this road first. Becouse it is less costly as you say. For example, narco cárteles in Colombia´s business is not killing and torturing, but to make money through selling drugs and to support narco-regimes such as Venezuela. Their purpose is not to slaughter; they just do not exclude violent means from their strategy.

However, this approach simply means that some people have freedom, and other don´t if they stand in the way. Not even the freedom of staying safe.

Totalitarian revolutions? Please, don't categorize all revolutions into "Totalitarian." Totalitarian is a dictatorship, centralized, and controlling. My statement:

The use of the gun must only be tolerated when the use of the pen is useless. — NuncAmissa

states that an armed revolution can only be morally justified IF and ONLY IF all peaceful alternatives have failed. And I believe, not all totalitarian regimes bloomed SOLELY on blood-filled revolutions; Adolf Hitler rose to power through democracy, though a weak one at that. No revolution happened during the voting process. After all, it was Hindenburg's failure which paved Hitler's rise.

And yes! A revolution is a revolution. Blood is ought to be spilled. All the nations whose independence was built on revolution understood this principle. How many countries in the world have the color red in their flag which represent the "blood of those who have fallen for the country." We need to realize that there must be sacrifices to be made.

I may sound extremely Machiavellian, but there is a reason why freedom if fought for rather than simply sought. To gain freedom, one must be ready to trample on other's freedoms. You see the public unrest in the streets. They fight and shout for a belief that to them is morally just. Behind those people, one principle is upheld: Change.

Did I encroached on someone freedom? If no, why did you write it me? I wrote about suppression of word freedom by the government and you wrote me that:"You may not morally nor legally violate someone else's space..." I know it very well.

It is our duties to the universe that we act on what is right. Perhaps our action seems relatively powerless and that the will of average citizens does not seem to matter but never forget the pen is mightier than the sword. We outnumber those in power and united we stand, divided we fall. As long as we have freedom of speech we can attempt to unite others behind what is right, and they can unite others behind what is right. Our failure to accept this responsibility will lead to our doom because only when we do what is right will we get good results. I am afraid the US has chosen some bad presidents with bad consequences for the whole world. I wish we all understood what reason and science have to with manifesting a better reality.

Not only is an armed revolution morally questionable but if there is not a revolution of consciousness, the destruction is unlikely to make anything better. The revolution must be in our consciousness if we are to manifest the good.

As long as we have freedom of speech... — Athena

But I can tell you that I don't have word freedom. And what do I do?

Athena made a very good point about the importance of Consciousness. Revolution is a word with many meanings, but its political meaning, for historical reasons, is strongly tied to socialist uprising, outbreaks of violence the Mass is responsible for. Revolution is a very filthy word for many societies suffering a revolution in their recent past. I don´t like political revolutions at all, because they are irrational and do not work in favour of society or our values. People who glamourize revolutions have not really suffered the consequences of one in their lives and their families. Revolutions are only good in the context of an ideological Discourse, where reality is replaced by a myth. Revolutions do not bring about a greater consciousness, but a deeper fall into a dream that invariably turns into a nightmare when it manifests in social reality.

If people submit to tyranny, they deserve to be kicked.

None of us have complete word freedom. Plenty of people in the US think they do, but lately, more and more people are losing their careers because of something they said. :gasp: More serious is not being aware of the possible harm done by one's words because then wrongs are said and we lose our liberty as authority over the people increases. Forums have moderators to prevent the harm of poorly chosen words. I must admit I do not know your situation and it pains me when others are concerned about their lack of freedom of speech. However, what is important for you to say? Can it be said in an acceptable way? As my family tells me when they object to what I say "it is not what you said, but how you said it".

What freedom do you not have? I am trying to understand. In the US poverty does not leave a person much freedom. I have had jobs that violate our liberty in a very serious way and when we live from pay check to pay check we must surrender to the authority of the employer. I am deeply concerned that we are losing our liberty and do not have enough understanding of such matters to defend our liberty.

Nicely said. The American Revolution began as a consciousness revolution long before the New Land was discovered or any shots were fired. You mentioned the socialist motivated revolutions and these follow the religious revolution from Catholicism to Protestantism. While the scientific revolution strongly led to the belief in rule by reason as opposed to rule by someone chosen by god to be the authority over us. I am a little disappointed that even philosophy forums aren't saying much about this history and change, and hopefully, this forum is doing better than others.

Last night I stead up late to watch a show about the Puritans and it explained the physical hardships they faced how the native American population had been devastated by the disease of earlier explorers, but almost nothing was said of their reasoning for believing they had a better way for people to live together. Not one word was said of Calvinism. What a huge disappointment that show was.

What you said in another post is even better. What is considered good manners here? How many replies before someone else has posted, are acceptable? Education is everything! I could spend all day writing about that. When education transmits a culture for good moral judgment, then and only then is liberty possible, because only highly moral people can have liberty. We have forgotten that and become very authoritarian, like the enemy we defended our democracy against. Now we seem to think dying our hair blue and covering our bodies with tattoos and smoking our weed of choice is freedom. :shade: