A reader asked us to provide a consistent definition of freedom as the
term is very often used in contradictory ways.
Specifically, the reader queried how one could objectively determine
whether a society is free. This is our
answer.
What Freedom Is
We ascribe to the classical liberal definition
of freedom which we feel is the only truly logically consistent
definition. Under this view, freedom is
a person’s capability for independent action in terms of his/her relationship
to others. It is the ability to exercise
choice, free will, within one’s means.
Freedom is defined in terms of the relations among
people. To be free is to be exempt from the coercion of others. . When we say coercion, we mean physical force
or the threat of force, not the ability to sway another person with good argumentation
or monetary exchange because, in either of those cases,
voluntary choice is involved—an individual still makes a decision whether to
accede.
What Freedom is NOT
It is important not to confuse this definition of freedom with ability. A person who desires to flap his arms and fly may be free to do so, as there is no one preventing him from doing it, but he is also unable to fly according to the laws of physics. This is a consequence of reality as opposed to the result of any relations with others.
Means or resources should also not be confused with
freedom. A person may be free to own a
business but will not be able to if he lacks the resources to build or purchase
one. Having the material means to do
something is distinct from being hindered by another. The capacity to do something has nothing to
do with one’s freedom to do it. One can
have either, both, or neither. This error
of confusing these is evidenced in the concept of “freedom from want” where the
assumption is that a person has a certain “right” to “an adequate living.” To guarantee this right, one necessarily
infringes on the freedom of another; thus this cannot be a form of
freedom. People should be free from others
preventing them from earning an adequate living, but they are not entitled to the
goods or services of others.
Lastly, freedom is independent of subjective emotion. “Freedom from fear” is a nonsensical concept that
is completely subjective, impossible to fulfill, ignorant of human
irrationality, and one that would necessitate infringement on the freedoms of
others. It should be obvious that freedom
from an emotion is absurd. Emotions are
tied to conditions and, therefore, these fears are triggered by other
situations. Freedom from the threat of
force is guaranteed but this is very different than an ambiguous notion such as
freedom from fear.
Absolute Freedom
Absolute freedom would entail the right to do whatever one
desires as long as it is within your ability to do so. To use Thomas Hobbes’ definition, a free man,
"is he, that in doing those things, which by his strength and wit he is
able to do, is not hindered to do what he has a will to do." This definition allows for total freedom and
thus a person’s only limits are his or her capacity (strength and wit,
according to Hobbes) to act. In a world
with only one human being, a person would have absolute freedom.
Because absolute freedom is complete independence from the
will of others, it cannot exist for more than one person in a society--that
person being is the most powerful. Depending
on constraints imposed by those below the most powerful person, it might not
even be possible for that person to experience absolute freedom. But generally, the power required to remain
free from the coercion of anyone else also provides the power to coerce anyone
else. If the world immediately reverted
to the state of
nature, or pure anarchy, then every person would immediately possess
absolute freedom, just as they would if they were the only person in existence. But this condition would only last until they met the first person who had more capacity to
act (aka more power). They would then be
subject, through the use or threat of force, to any limits on their own action
that the more powerful person imposed.
In short time, the world would reflect a situation in which one person,
with the most power, would have absolute freedom, and the rest of the population
would have only the freedoms allowed by those above them.
Real Freedom or
Liberty
A free society will clearly not be one of absolute
freedom. Absolute freedom centralizes
and monopolizes independence. It leads
to violations of the belief that all people are inherently entitled to an equal
level of freedom. It does not maximize
freedom and leads to almost no one enjoying any real degree of autonomy. In order to maximize freedom for all, it must
be reaffirmed that all persons are deserving of an equal level of freedom, and
that level is the maximum amount possible, so long as it does not infringe on
the freedom, or right, of others to do the same. In order for that to occur, any right or
freedom must be able to be enjoyed by all persons simultaneously, without
conflicting. Rights of this type are
described by philosophers as “negative rights” or liberties. Negative
rights are those that exist and can be respected simply by others
refraining from blocking them. These
rights require that others refrain from interfering in their exercise. Freedom of speech is an example of this type
of right. Natural
rights, defined by John Locke as
the right to life, liberty, and property, are the “self-evident and
unalienable” rights human beings have by virtue of being alive and are an
example of a type of negative rights.
There is, however, another category of rights. Positive rights, or claim rights, are the
inverse of negative rights. They require
action rather than inaction. Legal rights,
those provided by law, rather than
natural rights protected by a law,
are an example of positive rights. For
positive rights to be respected and enjoyed, they impose a duty on another
person. Positive rights, by requiring
action of another, can conflict with each other and conflict with the negative
rights of others.
In order for all
persons to enjoy the greatest level of freedom, a society obliges people to
refrain from preventing each other from doing things which are permissible—a system
where rights are limited only by the obligation to respect the liberty of others.
People are only entitled to their
natural rights (and the negative rights that are derivatives of them) and they
are only entitled to a positive right
if the third-party, of whom action is
required to respect the right, agrees voluntarily to it. One can never have a right to the goods or
services of another without voluntary consensual agreement, that is without
contract.
This construction of freedom which we will call “liberty”
means that people are free to make any arrangements they wish among themselves
so long as they are voluntary (absent
coercion) and do not infringe on the rights of others.
The Purpose of
Government in a Free Society is to Protect Liberty Only
Even though one has rights, there is still the potential for
them to be violated by another. This is
exactly what happens in the case of absolute freedom in the state of nature. In order to protect their natural rights,
citizens create societies with rules, typically overseen by institutions like government. The purpose of these institutions is to
ensure that people can enjoy their rights to a greater extent than they would
in the state of nature. A social contract is created and individuals
grant the government a monopoly on the use of force in the society so that it
can protect their rights from those external to the society (through the use of
the military), internally (through the police) and to adjudicate disputes
(through the courts). The government is
required to act objectively and is limited in its exercise of power by laws. If it is not achieving its purpose of
protecting the natural rights of its citizens, then the citizens have the right
and duty to abolish the government and can revert to the state of nature
and form a government that will better discharge its duties. This contract’s promises can be seen in
written constitutions.
Governments, however, have traditionally, and almost
exclusively, expanded this contract, thus expanding their roles and power
vis-a-vis the individuals in a society—through both legislative and judicial
processes—leading invariably to less liberty.
In virtually every society, over time liberty tends to decrease. This fact was noted by Thomas Jefferson, who
wrote, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and
government to gain ground." Social
contract theorists justify this by asserting that citizens’ lack of action in
replacing such governments (through law or revolt) implies tacit agreement with such policies.
Though no person has ever been given a contract with the government to
allow it to apply its rules to him in exchange for promises to protect his
liberties, social contract theories posit that living in a country and
remaining there indicates consent. This
view is not unchallenged.
In any case, using this definition of freedom and applying
it to how government is envisioned to function, we can see that there is no
truly free society on earth. There are
merely varying degrees of freedom and the debates center around where to draw
the line between a free and unfree society. While that is a subjective matter,
this definition provides us with an objective way to rank societies in terms of
freedom.
No comments:
Post a Comment