| Actually, all of my examples are (variants in some cases) of the means used to restrict the freedom of groups of people in the recent history of the United States. Not to "cooperate, or be the same team, or be immune from the consequences of failure" but to actually restrict that group's ability to act or speak. I notice that you ignored the common definition of freedom I quoted. I find your definition of freedom...less than useful. It ignores any other sources of power than "the state" (I wonder how you would deal with the absence of a state.) It leads to irrational consequences; an individual can be perfectly free and yet unable to do anything except starve. I do have a couple of questions about your response, though. "> If a group of people kill one of your neighbors for violating some extra-legal rule... "This entire paragraph describes corruption, which is inevitable, and does impact your freedom. No human process is immune." Corruption, in this case, does not imply any violence at all---a jury is free to return a verdict of not guilty for any reason, no? How can that possibly impact your freedom? "Chattel slavery is defined by the use of violence to confine the slave literally in chains. If the slave can just leave he's not very enslaved is he?" (It's not really defined by violence, but I'll leave that up to you.) My plantation is located in the middle of the desert. You are free to leave at any time. You won't, because you would die, but you are free to do so. So you're really free, right? |