The way I would define freedom, is "to have the right to do whatever you wish, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others".
I don't think I'm free. Because of my age, and living in Canada, I'm forced to go to school, whether I like it or not (note: I'm not one of those "I h8 skool" teenagers). The fact remains that I am still required by law to go. I personally think it's ridiculous that people are forced to go against their will. If I don't go to school, my parents will be charged. Is that right? Who's rights am I infringing if I don't go to school?
Personally, the other thing that irks me about Canada, is the Health Care and Education. I hate public services. Say my family decides to get private health insurance. We still pay taxes into the public option, even if we don't use it. Say my parents enroll myself and my younger brother in a private school. We still have to pay for the public schools in our taxes.
Sure, I love living here, and I love my country, and I have "freedom" in that I can do what I want within reason, however, that I am forced BY LAW to go to school, invalidates my total freedom.
Being underage, you don't qualify for freedom. Sorry. I love it when schoolkids complain about not receiving their rights. Talk to us when you're 18 (or whatever the age is in Canada.)
There's something to that, but it's not complete. As for whose rights you affect by not going to school, it would be everybody's. As an uneducated adult, thus lacking any job skills whatsoever, you would be a burden on society, relying on the government dole for your support. The government finds it cheaper to provide you, for free, every opportunity to prepare yourself with the knowledge and skills you'll need later in life.
Taxes for the school system are not tuition. They are not waived for those persons who don't have kids, or whose kids attend private institutions. It's called "public" school for a reason: the public supports it, i.e. pays for it. Some years ago a retiree in Arizona sued for the right to not pay those taxes, as he moved there from New York, his kids were grown, never did have kids in Arizona, and thus felt it was unfair for him to contribute to their school system. He was basically told he could contribute, move back to New York and contribute there, or live in jail instead of a condo.
Whether that's an infringement on your freedom is not really a question. Complete and total "freedom" would be anarchy, where those who gain by being bullies do better, and without punishment, than those who aren't tough enough, mean enough, or just too "nice" to be bullies (the aforementioned murderers, thieves, and rapists.) Freedom includes being free of the fear of such people, for the most part. Yes, they exist, but not in the numbers they would have in an anarchist system.
EDIT: Geez, I missed a whole conversation while I was typing, now I'm completely out of sync!!!
*** backs up 10 or 12 posts and starts reading ***
Famine gave me something to think about. Maybe it may help clearing up the difference between freedom and chaos.
If we lived in an state without rules, I wouldn't kill, steal, or rape. Why? Because I think and I freely consider I have no rights over someone else. Because I think someone else has worked for this specifical comodity and I haven't earned it. Because I believe sex must be under consent. Not because a rule tells me to do or not to do, just because I think, I've seen both sides of the equation, and I picked the best side.
You say that because your upbringing was in a moral, free state, and not anarchy. Had you grown up in anarchy, you would see the virtue of taking what you can, holding as much of it as you can, and leaving others to fend for themselves, assuming they survived their dealings with you.
EDIT II: The discussion of freedom has two frameworks so far. Freedom of the individual, and freedom of society.
I am reminded of Asimov's robots Daneel and Giskard. Giskard had the ability to read emotions in humans, and thus his behavior under the First Law of Robotics was much more severely restricted than any other robot. The ability was an accident (if I remember correctly, it's been a while since I read it) and he kept it secret. He confided in Daneel when he needed assistance in resolving problems with the Laws of Robotics and his ability. Turns out, he had formulated a "Zeroth" Law, superceding the First Law, when he decided that robots should serve Humanity as a whole before serving individual humans, thus logically, harm to a human might be justifiable under the Zeroth Law. Giskard's brain locked up during his considerations, as he was not able to actually accept something superceding First Law obligation.
Our freedom discussion is similar. Nearly everyone's reason for claiming they are not free is associated with the fact that they are not allowed to do whatever they like without fear of retribution. The responses to that point out that no one is free unless
everyone is free, moving from First Law to Zeroth Law.
Interestingly enough (to me, anyway) later stories, not by Asimov himself, but by other authors under guidance of principles laid down by him, had robots who sought to define a set of Laws of Humanics. There is mention of these in an Asimov story, but in the series Robot City, and later Robots and Aliens, robots who were actually engaged in projects out of contact with humans, but still under primary programming including the Three Laws, sought to define the humans they were built to serve, but had no contact with. The final set of those laws from that series, drawn up by experimental "learning robots," Has as its first law, "All beings will do that which pleases them most." Sounds like our previous discussion of anarchy-as-freedom. The Humanics Laws continue, however, with the second: "A sentient being may not harm a friend, or through inaction allow a friend to come to harm," and the third: "A sentient being will do what a friend asks, but a friend may not ask unreasonable things." The second and third bring acceptance by society into the "Laws of Humanics," whereby that which pleases someone for him to allow himself to do should include consideration for what those around him would perceive from it.
So even fictitious robots have come up with, "We are free to do as we please, so long as we are not the
only ones pleased by it.
.
.
