Yes, it's well known that there is an ongoing attack on the liberal idea of freedom which seeks even to destroy basic terminology.
They're the same kind of people who made the word "liberal" mean "socialist" or "interventionist" which is something of the opposite of its original and true meaning.
But the fact is freedom has a simple and plain meaning, and it's a meaning we need to have a word for. If you want to say that police stopping you from using marijuana is good, whatever, just make up some other word for that because that's the opposite of freedom.
Or if you think people have the right to "freedom from want" at the expense of others, it's nothing but a nasty and misleading rhetorical trick to call that freedom. It may or may not be good, but you're taking away people's freedom of choice when you force them to provide for the poor. Force is not freedom, it's force, end of story.
You're using the word "true" here in the same sense as others do in phrases like "the one, true god". I'll step forward and be the heathen to the absolutist concept you idolize...
But the fact is freedom has a simple and plain meaning
...actually, like many words, it has several. I opened my dictionary and can count seven different nuances in the entry. Here's the one I believe it was used in, and I see no problem accepting the intended semantics:
"(freedom from) the state of not being subject to or affected by (a particular undesirable thing)"
We already know how much Steve likes the use of "freedom from"...
"We have created for the first time in all history a garden of pure ideology, where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests of any contradictory true thoughts."
Look, I'm a fan of freedom in the sense that you wish the word was used in. I just recognize that there are other common meanings to the word, and that if Steve would like to use one of them, he should...how you say...be free to do so.
I remember when my son went through a similar phase where he fell in love with the "one, true meaning" of various words, and the endless circular debates I enjoyed coming out of it. Good times. But even he, at a tender young age, learned that your freedoms and my freedoms can come in conflict with each other — that a utopia of everybody being infinitely free was not possible to realize.
I believe the common phrase used to resolve such cases is "your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose".
Companies have a right to make design choices, set licensing terms, and decide what to stock in their stores (whether they be real or virtual). If you don't like their choices, you're free not to do business with them. If you don't want companies to have such freedoms, you and I will have to agree to disagree.
"The phrase "freedom from" can have as an object: fear, want, hunger, pain, disease, stress, depression, debt, poverty, necessity, violence, war, advertising, addiction, etc."
They're the same kind of people who made the word "liberal" mean "socialist" or "interventionist" which is something of the opposite of its original and true meaning.
But the fact is freedom has a simple and plain meaning, and it's a meaning we need to have a word for. If you want to say that police stopping you from using marijuana is good, whatever, just make up some other word for that because that's the opposite of freedom.
Or if you think people have the right to "freedom from want" at the expense of others, it's nothing but a nasty and misleading rhetorical trick to call that freedom. It may or may not be good, but you're taking away people's freedom of choice when you force them to provide for the poor. Force is not freedom, it's force, end of story.