"The land of the free" - fact, or meaningless rhetoric?

The land of the free. Fact or meaningless rhetoric?

Rhetoric is described as language that is not honest, sincere, or meaningful.

I am French. French has no word that equates to freedom or free will as understood by the English. This makes freedom and land of the free pure rhetorical statements and basically a dishonest statement. These terms are ideas or a reality that are impossible to have.

Freedom and free will then just becomes something that I would name as liberty. Liberty is described as permission especially to go freely within specified limits. That says to me that we are only free to follow the rules of society and those in power.

That being the case, is land of the free a true and meaningful expression?

Would it be more accurate to say land of liberty to follow the rules?

Free will is defined as freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.

Free will translates to being your own master and not having your will hampered by any outside influence not of your choosing.

Does any law or divine command negate free will, freedom of choice and the notion of a ---- Land of the free?

Regards
DL

A land, a nation, or a society without rules is anarchy, roughly defined as "do what you want without consequences", some might say its absolute freedom.

In some nations, particularly in Europe, it would be against the law to refer to a person of Afro-Caribbean origin by certain terms, but in other nations it would not be against the law, some will argue that it infringes their freedom of speech.

So here we have a classic example of free speech or liberty versus the right to be free from hatred, bigotry or racism, and in my personal opinion, liberty must have certain restrictions in the name of common sense and decency.

As humans, and as a society, we have to have rules which apply to all citizens equaly, this is for the benefit of all in that society and for our own good and protection, sometimes we may not agree with certain rules or laws, but then in a decent society we have the right to protest and oppose.

witchfinder wrote:A land, a nation, or a society without rules is anarchy, roughly defined as "do what you want without consequences", some might say its absolute freedom.

In some nations, particularly in Europe, it would be against the law to refer to a person of Afro-Caribbean origin by certain terms, but in other nations it would not be against the law, some will argue that it infringes their freedom of speech.

So here we have a classic example of free speech or liberty versus the right to be free from hatred, bigotry or racism, and in my personal opinion, liberty must have certain restrictions in the name of common sense and decency.

As humans, and as a society, we have to have rules which apply to all citizens equaly, this is for the benefit of all in that society and for our own good and protection, sometimes we may not agree with certain rules or laws, but then in a decent society we have the right to protest and oppose.

I agree.

Regards
DL

"Freedom" in this country usually means "the freedom to take away other people's freedom."

Shirina wrote:"Freedom" in this country usually means "the freedom to take away other people's freedom."

Yes. When it is supposed to mean free to insure that all share the same degree of freedom.

Regards
DL

"Freedom of the Press" is the watchword this week in British politics, with David Cameron (Murdoch's representative on Earth) ploughing a lonely furrow in favour of a Gentlemen's Agreement.

A comic element is interjected by a columnist in today's Sunday Times pleading fearfully for us not to jeopardise the future of Private Eye.

Well there does have to be a first time for everything.

We certainly don't have a free press. We have a bought press, owned by just a handful of dubious moguls like Murdoch, who decide editorial policy and, as we saw in 2010, almost decide the outcome of our elections with their incessant propaganda.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

There was a CNN news anchor (I can't recall her name) who refused to read a story about Paris Hilton getting out of jail. She refused because there were far more newsworthy items coming out of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan which she thought was far more important than celebrity gossip news about someone who isn't even a real celebrity.

Among individuals, journalism has a sense of ethics, but as corporate culture settles in, everything is about making a buck, not reporting real news.

"Company to install microchips in employees"

It's voluntary .... for now.


http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/company-to-install-microchips-in-employees/ar-AAoL4XP?li=AA54rU&ocid=iehp