What constitutes freedom ?

You ask some good questions here, oldandknew. Alas, the US is now ruled by a group of ideologues who believe they know what's best for this country--and the rest of the world. This view is personified by Att'y Gen'l Ashcroft, who seems to make news daily as he tries to impose his values on all of us. His latest pronouncement is to pressure federal prosecutors in NY to seek the death penalty in more cases.

We haven't seen his like in decades--the man makes Ed Meese seem like a free thinker!

[I know this topic is much broader than my comment here, but this is what's on my mind just now...]

while D'artagan may be responding to a specific i have to totally agree, when bringing up the idea of freedom, right now the thing I fear most is Ashcroft.

freedom is simply the ability to speak and be heard, no matter how small the voice; no matter how harsh the word.

I am a John Stewart Mill fan. His thesis in 'On Liberty', as I see it, was basically that we should be free to do as we wish, as long as it does not harm others or prevent them from doing as they wish.
I think this is a good definition of freedom. Of course, the problem is defining what we count as harm. Drinking is a good example. For some, it makes them laugh, and maybe sleep For others, it may provoke an aggressive reaction. How can I realistically expect that people would accept that their freedoms should be more curtailed than others? i.e. that I can drink, but my neighbour can't - because when I drink, I cause no harm, while when my neighbour drinks, he often does! One of the strongest beliefs a lot of people have is that everybody should be treated the same. The law expects this too. I suppose this is the result of living in large democracies, laws cannot be individualised, lol, and the advantages of government outnumber the disadvantages.
To move onto your examples, you do ask a lot of good questions. My general belief would be like Mill's - if no harm is being caused, it is none of our business to disagree. For example, if I were being forced to work on a Sunday, and it conflicted with my religious beliefs, to me that would count as harm. If I am simply offended that others work on Sundays, to me, that is different from harm, and must simply be tolerated.
I must admit though, even with my own 'guidelines' I find it difficult to answer your question -
Do we have the freedom/right to impose ourselves on other nations, for any reason?
Initially I would say no, it is patronising and completely wrong. But where people are being harmed by a regime, it is not wrong to wish to change that. To decide that a different nation should adopt my views is a different matter all together.

oops, think zinc. Something happened to my response...Welcome and tell me what it is like to roam through the heather on the hills...

Now that is liberty

D'artagnan === My direct knowledge of Ascroft, that Dyslexia also mentions, is limited by distance of 5000 miles but in my own country we have people of differing hues who always think they know what is good for Joe Public. Some would impose force others restrictive laws. State Nanny and the army of retards are always ready to use their illgotten authority.

Letty, the right to speak and be heard is paramount to both the USA and the UK as well as some other nations. Deaf ears and muted tongues often sidestep our concerns and leave us a shade neutered.

Thinkzink, I think you've hit a fair few nails very firmly on the head. And I can't dispute with what you say. If we don't cause harm to others, then we should have our freedoms. One point you raised about laws can't be individualised, but it never ceases to amaze me how different courts/judges will hand down very different levels of punishment for very similar crimes.

I find it's the nick picking things that annoy me. Should I smoke or not. If asked not to smoke in a restaurant or a persons home, then fine. But I don't need State Nanny telling me nor do I need the coniving faceless wonders in Brussels telling me either, what is good for me.

Hi Letty,
It's wonderful
I love visiting the highlands, and one of my friends has just moved up there. Guess who is going to get plenty of weekend visitors all summer

Even worse than the Patriot Act

Newsday:Group: Expanded Anti-Terror Legislation in the Works

Democrats Question Alleged Expansion of Anti-Terror Laws

Democrats Question Alleged Expansion of Anti-Terror Laws

"Democrats asked the Justice Department to explain reports that it plans to ask Congress to expand an anti-terrorism law to increase surveillance while restricting access to information and limiting judicial review.

House Judiciary Democrats called on Attorney General John D. Ashcroft to explain the existence of a copy of draft legislation called the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. The Center for Public Integrity, which posted the document online Friday, said the copy was from a government source.

Ashcroft said the Justice Department is working to figure out "what we can do to be more successful" in the war on terrorism. "We're going to do that on a daily basis," Ashcroft said.

The new legislation, according to the alleged draft, would prohibit disclosure of information regarding people detained as terrorist suspects and prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from distributing "worst-case scenario" information to the public about a nearby private company's use of chemicals.

The measure would create a DNA database of "suspected terrorists"; force suspects to prove why they should be released on bail; and allow the deportation of U.S. citizens who join or aid terrorist groups.

Ashcroft said there is no final proposal to expand the USA Patriot Act."

Gosh John this is a big one I will have to think some and then return.

"When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered."

- Dorothy Thompson, American newspaper columnist (1894-1961)

Understanding the Loss of Freedom