Show of Hands

The problem is with that definition, is how is one free to determine what they want. Is a college graduate with no direction in life more or less free than a college graduate pushed to be successful. Is a man who willingly follows their friends as free as a man who willingly follows the government? How "free" are we to determine what we want when there are so many biological, societal and political factors that go into our everyday decision making. And what constitutes infringing on someone else's freedom? If we allow freedom of speech, won't one persons speech be another persons harassment?

If a person doesn't know what they want in life, are they just as free as a person who does?

Sure they are. Everyone has wants and desires, and they have the freedom to pursue them. Whether it'll benefit them or hurt. Freedom does not guarantee that you will be successful, but it guarantees you the option to take any opportunities for success that come your way.

And again, you say it ensures "options", but how much "free will" does a person really have. With all the external factors that go into everyday decision making, can a person ever be "guaranteed options". The truth is freedom is subjective, and dependent on the person. But also, while freedom is viewed as the removal of enter all barriers (negative freedom) it is also the power of internal self mastery(positive freedom). I would consider the person who has direction in life, more free than the person without. It is more than doing what you want, it is also knowing what you want as well

But a person is free to seek whatever he/she wants regardless of if it is right for them or not. People are all guaranteed options, but they are not guaranteed ALL options. If that makes sense.

Actually nothing is garunteed at all. And wouldn't you consider a person who knows what he wants in life and actively pursues it more free than a person who doesn't know, both of whom have the same external barriers

It depends on how you philosophically twist it. I think everybody will face their own opportunities, and pick based on their individual mindset. Wouldn't you consider that individual freedom? If John wants to be a doctor, and James wants to be a professor. Both are making choices based on what they individually believe is right for them.

Not even looking at external constraints, what if John only becomes a doctor because his parents tell him too, and he is unsure what he wants, so he agrees. and James becomes a professor because he believes it to be the right path for him. Would that make James more free? Also, is James just as free if he decides to quit his job and live with his parents?

Then doesn't John have the freedom to learn from his mistake and find an opportunity to pursue something else? And James technically has the freedom to quit his job, but he will have to deal with any effects of his choice (parents kicking him out, struggling to find a source of income, etc)

The truth is, he really doesn't. If John is influenced by his parents, his parents make decisions for him, and he doesn't even recognize it as a mistake. Self mastery also goes into freedom, freedom is internal as well as external. And if James lives on his parents couch, by many peoples definition of freedom "do what you want without getting in anyone's way" he is just as free as when he was a professor, maybe even more free since he has less external constraints (work responsibility), but I would disagree and say he was more free as a professor than living on his parents couch

So you're saying John is completely brainwashed and will always do whatever his parents tell him?

And I'm saying as long as his parents consent to him moving back in, he's not infringing on their liberties, and everyone is free. It may not have been his best option, but he made it and he is in control of his life.

Not completely, but heavily influenced since he lacks self mastery

And James also loses self mastery, you have to look at internal freedom as well as external. Do you think a professor is just as free as a person who stays at home with their parents?

It seems like you're trying to apply a "universal freedom" to both people. I'm trying to point out that each person has their own individual freedom. You're trying to say freedom is not absolute, right?

And who is to decide when is necessary and when it is not. Some would consider government in all aspects of a persons life as necessary while others would consider all government completely unnecessary

And what if you can't afford to live as you please? Or lack the physical or mental ability? Or how do you even know what it is you actually desire in life? How can you live as you please when you don't know what you please?

Well the government needs to intervene to keep us from hurting or killing each other. That's why we need laws so we don't live like F**king Somalia and we need a justice system to punish those who break the system.

Road signs and stop lights are government interference. Is a state without proper infrastructure (no government interference) like Somalia, more free than a state with proper safety infrastructure (government interference) like the US?

I would argue that most of the time removal of government barriers and societal norms is positive.

Then are the people of an anarchical society like Somali more free than US citizens?

What if you lack the ability to think for yourself. Is a newborn child more free than a Harvard graduate?

That's an amazing question that I'm afraid I just don't have the knowledge to answer

If freedom is living your life the way you choose it, would you say the people of an anarchical society with no government (say Somalia) with no barriers for its people, are more free where there is a more active government that does have more restrictions (say the US) and restictive laws in place

Well, if mass murderers run around Somalia threatening people's freedom by shooting them, then I would say they are less free.

So "living your life the way you choose it" isn't really freedom, as at the same time, it restricts the freedom of others if you let everyone love how they wish

How free is a person if they choose to not do work, and live a short life

Well a murderer has complete freedom if he runs around killing people. Because that interferes with the freedom of others, it is necessary to restrict his freedom somewhat. Complete freedom is impossible.

If someone chooses to live a short life, I don't see why that contradicts his freedom.

Of course people don't choose to have a short life, but may choose to pursue actions that directly or indirectly lead to it. Or an inefficient state may lead to a short life as well, if a state does not implement public sanitation, that will lead to shorter lives of the population. But if the people were to give up a small amount of freedom (taxes) in order to fund state sanitation, they would receive longer life spans as a benefit, which can be considered freedom. Which society is more free, the one with or without public sanitation?

With sanitation. As I said before, complete freedom is impossible. It is up to us to weigh which is the small freedom and which is the big one in policy decisions.

Absolutely, freedom is relative and based on perception. But although people like to wave around the term "freedom" as a pure good, the definition of freedom lacks a proper definition due to how vague the concept is

No, it does not have a vague definition. Only the practical application is vague.

Then what is the definition of freedom? Is it concrete?

The ability to live your life the way you want to live it. As I said, it's impossible to actually happen for everyone. But that is the definition of freedom.

So if it's impossible, then it can't be the definition of freedom, since letting everyone live how they can restricts the freedom of others

Unless you live on an island. See, it's possible.

But why should something's ability to exist in practice restrict its ability to exist in theory?

If you live on an island you're not free at all? What if you want to get away from the island, what if you want to live in a society with others, what if you want goods the island can't provide? See, again it's very vague

It's not vague. It's impossible. You're correct in that it's impossible but you're wrong in thinking that discounts my definition.

The goal is not complete freedom but maximum possible freedom.

You originally said to live your life the way you choose. What if you don't know how to choose your life, what if how you choose your life is misguided? What if others are choosing your life for you and you only THINK it's what you want? What if how you live your life is due to factors you cannot control?

"If the way you choose your life is misguided," that's very subjective and no one has the authority to decide if someone is living their life the "right way." Anyway, freedom is the ability to live your life the wrong way if you choose.

"If someone thinks they're choosing and they're not or they choose based on factors outside their control" then they are not free. Obviously. How does this contradict what I said?

And again, it is all extremely vague. "Living life the way you choose it" isn't freedom because it's so subjective. How do we know what we're doing is "freedom". There are so many societal, biological and political factors that go into our every day decisions that "free will" is basically non existent. Do you see my point?

So you're arguing that freedom is impossible? That's an argument I understand. But if we're going on the premise that free will exists, then my definition of freedom is not vague at all.

Yes it is, your simple one sentence definition of freedom is subject to an array of questions. Freedom is all subjective and to consider a short phrase a concrete definition of freedom is insane to say the least. There is an extreme amount of vagueness in that definition, as it gives no outline what freedom is. "Freedom is do what you want". Well as you have stated before, everyone doing what they want isn't freedom

Freedom is not subjective. It is impossible to exist, which only makes it more objective. It is an abstract concept that cannot exist in practice, but it is very clear.
Why would it be subjective?

Freedom is completely subjective. To say freedom isnt subject to the opinions, tastes, emotions and thoughts of people is completely wrong. Freedom is how we perceive it, and is dependent on the individual.

Freedom is objective. What an individual would do with that freedom is subjective.

It's not. What is the objective of freedom? It all depends on the person, you even have a subjective definition of freedom when you said "live life the way you choose it". Living life the way you choose it is totally subjective! Everyone chooses to live different lives depending on the individual

How do you not understand that freedom is a vague concept and your 10 word definition just doesn't cut it?

The purpose of freedom is definitely subjective. But freedom itself is an objective concept.

And again, what's the objective of freedom?

The objective of freedom is up to the individual. But how a person would like to use freedom has no effect on the freedom itself.

Say you ask what a car is. I explain to you what it is, and you respond by saying that because everyone uses their cars for a different purpose, the definition of the car itself is subjective.

"Up to the individual" that is the literal definition of subjective

The end result has no effect on the means used to produce that result.