Can One Be Poor And Free?

America is known both conventionally and historically as 'the land of the free'... but is that really the case? In his article titled Freedom and Money, G. A. Cohen addresses this question through the relationship between freedom and money, or more specifically the lack thereof: poverty. As Cohen shows, experts all along the political spectrum agree that the poor are entitled to far less opportunities than their wealthier counterparts. The controversy with the subject thus lies, instead, in the ambiguity of the term "freedom" and what it implies, as well as to what exactly it's beneficiaries are permitted. The political left believes that because the impoverished are financially unable to exercise many of their freedoms, their economic status

An American essayist, H.L. Mencken stated, “The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants be safe”. I disagree with this statement because an “average man” wants to live. In order to live you must have two necessities; freedom and safety. I believe neither is more important than one another because being free gives you the opportunity to a safe nation, and a safe nation allows you to be free. You cannot live a life without exploring and growing because that would not be considered living. On the other hand, you cannot expect to be free without safety around you.

At the beginning of this paper, I stated that freedom was a key concept in the

One of the greatest and more fundamental gifts of life is the autonomy that comes with being a sentiment human being. This hasn’t always been considered a human right, however, and many eastern hemispheres are struggling to catch on to the concept that people should be allowed to make the decisions they choose without the external pressure to do otherwise. Thus, the question that should be asked is whether or not every human being on this planet is free, whether they should be free and what does free really mean. For many, freedom is all about that ability to to choose what they want, make their own decision and be able to move around as they please. Freedom is about equity, free speech and the guarantee of life, no matter how good or bad.

Safety and freedom are both essential components of society and many argue over which component holds the most desirability in modern civilization. Many, like H.L. Mencken, believe that humanity’s desire to be safe trumps the want to be free. This view may hold true for some but there are varying interpretations of what is means to be safe and have freedoms.

The definition of freedom depends entirely on how the phrase “freedom from…” ends. Perhaps a most straightforward understanding of freedom is the laissez-faire emphasis on limiting the power of government to interfere in economic and social matters. In this state of absolute freedom, however, inequalities exist between people, so that freedom from a controlling government does not imply individuals’ freedom of contract, movement, legal protection, equal rights through citizenship, or political voice. In light of the persistence of slavery in the US through the 19th century, freedom as an individual’s legal status separated people who could be citizens from people who were lifelong slaves. Even among legally free people, economic

The author is able to draw his audience in emotionally by speaking of such countries, and how it eventually ties in to the United States, stating that “(if) a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich,” (3) concluding the connection between the U.S. and those countries who have a lower living standard.

Our freedom is merely conditional, for we can only exercise our right and freedom to a certain extent. As matter of fact, our right and freedom can be taken away by the same law that protect our rights and freedom. But that is the truth of reality, freedom without bound is impossible. The physicality of reality impose restriction, scarcity of recourse and mortality of men. Civilization dictates rules from punishment of crimes to shame and guilt through morality. Thus government, a form of rule, can not truly ensure freedom for its conditional and with limits. Men has long realize such limitation, yet we still yearns for such notion for we are driven by our free will and we seek create such system for we are protected from not just each others but ourselves' own infringement of rights and freedom. Democracy is still our best attempt at this unrealistic dream, the approach is simple, for a system of law made by people for people. We strive to effectively govern ourselves and keep our right and freedom.

Today, more than ever, there is great debate over politics and which economic system works the best. How needs and wants should be allocated, and who should do the allocating, is one of the most highly debated topics in our current society. Be it communist dictators defending a command economy, free market conservatives defending a market economy, or European liberals defending socialism, everyone has an opinion. While all systems have flaws and merits, it must be decided which system is the best for all citizens. When looking at both the financial well being of all citizens, it is clear that market economies fall short on ensuring that the basic needs of all citizens are met. If one looks at liberty and individual freedom, it is evident

Political philosopher John Locke ideas and theories serve as a foundation in our democratic world. In the Second Treatise of Government sovereignty is placed in the hands of the people. Locke argues that everyone is born equal and has natural rights in the state of nature. He also argues that men have inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. The central argument around the creation of a civil society was with the protection of property. In this essay I will explain Locke's theory of property and how it is not anything other than a "thinly disguised defense of bourgeois commercial capitalism." This statement is defended through Locke's personal background and his justifications for the inequalities of wealth.

To be free is to have the unregulated power to choose one’s own values. For de Beauvoir, freedom is the characteristic with which we are able to describe our existence: “Freedom is the source from which all significations and all values spring. It is the original condition of all justification of existence” (24). Freedom entails a choice of one option over another, and one’s choice cannot be predetermined, lest she be unfree. It follows that the freedom of choice for all values, actions, beliefs, thoughts creates an existence that is indeterminate, ambiguous, and is only justified by assigning meaning using this freedom. It is therefore necessary that an appropriate reaction and critical analysis of a situation take place when exerting one’s own freedom in the world.

Implicit within Swift’s essay is a call for radical change to the inaction towards the poor that existed in his 18th century society. Though his call was thoroughly addressed by nearly every global government, the poor class has not shrunk in any way due to this, and in fact, government assistance has only worsened the problem. One must only examine the nature of the welfare state to see the oppression inherent within it.

Today we accept that freedom is a basic right human right but what exactly is freedom. 1On one hand, there is physical freedom. People who are not imprisoned or enslaved are free. On the other hand, there is freedom as a the right to act, speak or think what you want. People cannot reach their full potential if they are not free in both senses of the word.

The free person has the ability to pursue their own telos economically, but the slave can only be a slave, subjugated to a master. As a result of this economic inequality, the political equality of the slave is undermined as they cannot be a citizen within the polis.

Just as every plants and animal as evolved and changed throughout the course of its existence so has the definition of freedom while its’ meaning has stayed constant. Freedom has a perpetual meaning, however, humans have tried to change the definition based upon moral, ethical, social, and legal ideals that have through history been debated upon and never satisfied all. Freedoms’ perpetual meaning is that everyone, no matter race or gender, has the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. As time progresses and new ideas flourish the definition of freedom either flourishes along with society or takes a drastic spiral downward usually with the opinions of humanity. In this essay we will be