my freedom to swing my arm ends at your nose. freedom does not need to be, nor should it be, completely unrestricted, unless only one person in the universe counts and the rest don't matter. so before we talk about what the first step to freedom is, we need to know what freedom is.

g

If you define freedom as the ability to ask questions, then yes. But if you believe for instance that laws against murder should be open to question, somehow I think that flies in the face of the intended victim's freedom and I don't agree.

I think it depends on how you define "freedom". Some want freedom from uncertainty. That inherently means they want someone to tell them what to think / believe / feel. If you value freedom from angst more than intellectual freedom then you'll trade intellectual freedom for dogma so long as the lies are, at least in the short run, comforting.

My guess though is that you're talking about intellectual freedom / freedom of thought. And yes, nothing can be exempt from a requirement that it be substantiated. Nothing can be dependent on presuppositions -- or at the least, any presuppositions must be very minimal. For example in math, there are a few unproven and possibly unprovable axioms ... but at least math has been demonstrated to accurately predict and explain actual reality.

Yes. Freedom is subjective and individual. Isn't that why there are so many tribes in America?

I think yes to freedom of thought and the freedom of speech that allows people to engage in discussions so as to be able to think better. Where action is concerned, I agree with the religious thinkers who feel freedom is the ability to chose what is right and do it.

Sure..

Yes, but then again, this is open to question too.