Statue of Liberty, NY under the Sun
“Freedom is the most-used word of our time. What it is seems obvious to all…Yet there is nothing more obscure, more ambiguous, more abused.”- Karl Jaspers (1883 – 1969) Future of Mankind
If we were to call for a society, which ensures absolute freedom to each member of the society, it would for sure bring about a lot of excitement, but almost instantaneously an anxiety as to how would we ensure our safety from our fellow men? If we were ever to dream to bring about a society where in our individual freedom are set at tangible limits, one that we can afford to offered to be each of our citizens then we have to first define to start with, what do we mean by these terms, to start with what do we mean by freedom?
Absolute freedom or what is philosophically termed as freedom of will, is, when an individual has no restriction at all to put into action anything that his/her will desires. Of course, this freedom is bound to have natural limits, that is, one may desire to have wings to fly but one possibly cannot. However what concerns us really is that such freedom has no restriction in regards to ones actions those are coercive in nature. That is it is within the purview of absolute freedom of an individual to rape murder or plunder.
It boils down from the dictum of single pointed Objectivism. One that acknowledges only one actor at a time, rest everything is presumed to be dead or acted upon. In such a scenario, every action will have results that are good or bad for the actor and he may judge based on what is good for him and what is bad. All that brings good is virtuous and all that does not is vice. There are no clear cut laws or ethics laid down to stop an individual from coercive or even self defeating actions except that it lays a lot of trust on rationality of human mind and its ability to reason its way through such potential dilemmas.
Such a philosophy of freedom of course very individualistic in its approach, even though we all trust our rational judgment, we distrust others on the same just as much. More so, history of mankind sadly is not very inspirational in this matter. It is replete with every kind of crime that we can possible think about. So what is the prudent limit of freedom that we can offer to each member of our society?
In social context, the term freedom gets modification into what is popularly known as ‘liberty’. Liberty can be defined as the legitimized or sanctioned freedom that a society or state offers to its members. Domains where he can follow his will and domains where there are laws to prevent him from doing so.
Maximum liberty is all manners are offered in a peer group (friend circle) or anarchic society. Here each individual willfully forsakes certain freedom for a mutually advantageous company. It works on the simple laws of symbiosis. Societies however tends to get hierarchical, it is so all across the living world. Be it a bee hive or lions pride, hierarchy does set in eventually. No matter how much we try to deny this inherent nature of living claiming that all men are equal, I guess all we go about doing is give rise to another idealistic philosophy based on social equality and in the process curtail individual liberty to cater for this embosomed ideal.
Liberty, Love and Guns
Anarchy has come across or rather projected to us in a very dangerous and dubious way. The joker in the movie Batman returns is presumably trying to bring down the state and bring about anarchy in Gordon city. It seems as if humanity has no future without policing and law enforcing, without every action of our regulated and monitored. It is true that we as a society is not yet mature to trust each other’s rational sense of good and bad so to say, which makes law and law enforcement unavoidable menace. So a call to do away with policing and law enforcement at this juncture is too far fetched. We however need to progressively make endeavor to reduce the need and utility of these elements in our lives. These things may take generations to come by but we need to make an endeavor in this direction if we ever dream to have a truly liberal society.
Among the liberties, economic liberty is one that needs special mention here, one that perhaps is spoken about the most, one that is perhaps behind many upheavals and revolutions overtly or covertly. Economic liberty in its vast purview has rights of self ownership and right on, ones work and talent, property rights, right to indulge in enterprise of choice and so and so forth. These however I would leave for another day and another time.
No Responses to “Defining Freedom and Legitimate Liberty”
Leave a Reply
Unpretentious Diva Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 6:40 amAs a matter of fact, Right to property is the most fundamental right on which every other right of freedom is based upon.
As for example,
The right to freedom is one of the most important fundamental right that have been granted to us by the founders of Indian Constitution. This fundamental right is described in the constitution as:
All citizens shall have the right-
Now consider the right to freedom of speech.
It suggests that Every Indian has a right to express himself and a freedom to say, write and speak anything.
So how is it possible if you do not define where he can speak freely?
Can a person simply go to a temple or mosque and start abusing the religion?
No, it is neither right, nor possible.
One can not and should not go to some other person’s house and start abusing him.
He certainly does not have it on property on which he is trespassing. In short, he has this right only either on his own property or on the property of someone who has approved, as a gift or in a rental contract, to allow him on the premises. In fact, then, there is no such thing as a separate “right to free speech”; there is only a man’s property right: the right to do as he wills with his own or to make voluntary agreements with other property owners.
A person does not have a ‘right to freedom of speech’; what he does have is the right to hire a hall and address the people who enter the premises. He does have a right to own a house and speak whatever he wish. He may not speak the same thing at some other place.
if someone abuses Gandhi, or Nehru or Sonia or Atal Vihari Vajpayee in his own home, or in the party room he hired, then it won’t be a crime.
But if a person abuses Gandhi at a public place, or in the congress office, or at Sonia Gandhi’s home, he will be imprisoned and punished. it is not his property, hence he is not free to use his right to speech.
Similarly, A person does not have a ‘right to freedom of the press’; what he does have is the right to write or publish a pamphlet, and to sell that pamphlet to those who are willing to buy it (or to give it away to those who are willing to accept it).
As for example, if I do not approve the idea of Theism, or of Free-education or some other contentious issue, I am free to post my opposition or views about it at my own site, or I may hire an independent press to produce a printed material (property) representing my ideas, and then I have right over my property, to propagate it amongst those who are willing to read my ideas.
I cannot force my ideas on anybody anyhow though, I am free just to use my property, and my rights over it to actually practice my right of speech/express.
Same way, I have freedom to assemble anywhere without arms for peaceful manner.
Now even this right of freedom ignores the importance of property.
Can I practice my freedom to gather at my neighbors house while he is not agreeing to it?
No, if i do so without his consent, I will be trespassing his property, I will be harassing his freedom, his right to his property i.e, his house.
Same is for the right of making associations or Unions. I cannot make a union, or be a part of union of workers in a factory/company where I myself am not working.
I neither can move freely throughout the territory of India, i am not free to enter anybody’s garden or house or property premises wihtout his consent. if he agrees and let me enjoy his property, or use it at an agreeable rent, than Only I can use it.
Without property rights, it is impossible to define freedom.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 7:16 amAbsolute freedom doesn’t mean Mindlessness, or madness, or irrationalities.
Actually, the problem with such views about Liberty is, Indians do not recognize the importance of “OWNERSHIP”.
OWNERSHIP, or Possession, it is an Importance notion which defines freedom. As stated in the previous comment, freedom is impossible without property rights, similarly, Freedom is meaningless without the sense of “SELF” without the sense of ownership of one’s own self.
Furthermore, we should also realize that why actually rape, or murders illegitimate? They are illegitimate because if a person trespasses other’s premises of rights, i.e, his property (his own body in this case) then by natural reason, the victim opposes the trespasser.
The Individual’s will to oppose the trespasser defines freedom and it also decides the property rights.
deadmanoncampus Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 8:01 am“Absolute freedom or what is philosophically termed as freedom of will, is, when an individual has no restriction at all to put into action anything that his/her will desires. Of course, this freedom is bound to have natural limits, that is, one may desire to have wings to fly but one possibly cannot. However what concerns us really is that such freedom has no restriction in regards to ones actions those are coercive in nature. That is it is within the purview of absolute freedom of an individual to rape murder or plunder.”
There are two concepts of freedom.One is anarchic concept of freedom.The other is rational concept of freedom.The anarchic concept of freedom allows anyone to do anything they want.I don’t think that I would have to mention that it would only lead to chaos.The other is the rational concept of freedom.People are free to do anything other than initiating force or fraud.
Liberty Speaks Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 9:58 am@ dead man
The idea of rational freedom has been covered and that has been described as the legitimate liberty that society ought to offer to each induvidual…I am sorry if the article fails to bring out that well…
@ unpretentious
thanks for the valuable inputs…economic liberty is a topic in itself, I would love to dwell over it
GP Says:
December 26th, 2008 at 4:53 pmgood one !! keep posting. However, for Nihilist freedom / liberty (legitimate/illegitimate) doesn’t make any difference. Waiting for ur article on Economic Liberty.
Liberty Speaks Says:
December 26th, 2008 at 6:36 pm@ GP…I guess I have written one on economic liberty too, it doesnot cover all aspects perhaps, but major ones are covered in my following article…Argument towards self ownership and property rights
thanks for the read
Enlargement of Free Sky Says:
January 20th, 2009 at 3:06 pmGreat article, you made my day, seems i read the words here, I was just thinking a while ago.
Thanks for producing such a nice views. keep doing work