FREEDOM AND UNFREEDOM
Posted by anthonynorth on December 5, 2007
Click Tony On for my current affairs posts
See Fiction Page to catch up with Pictures of Life, a novel
The defining point of western society is the idea that the person is free. Each an individual, it is our own choices that decide who we are, assisted by a society that is democratic, with minimum interference in what we do.
This is more a delusion than a reality, because a society can only exist if it balances your duties to others and your rights towards yourself. Go too far one way, and we have totalitarianism. Go the other and we have chaos.
Libertarians would disagree with this argument.
Rather, it is the duty of the individual to be who he wants to be regardless of others. The outcome is not chaos, but fulfilled individuals. But the problem with this is that if everyone does exactly what they want, they impede so much on the wants of others that no one gets what they want at all.
Most people accept this and moderate their behaviour accordingly. Indeed, it seems to be that libertarianism is not about choice, but excess. It is simply about deluded people flying in the face of a norm.
But to most, the idea of freedom is actually a failure.
You see this in so many of our modern youth. They demand their freedom – to do ‘their own thing’ – but when they do, they usually end up standing on street corners wondering what on earth to do.
Those young people who excel still think they are free. But tell me this: what is a great footballer without his team? What is a young concert pianist without his dedication to the culture of music and to the orchestra?
A touch of unfreedom is, it seems, a prerequisite to excelling in life. And an individual can only truly thrive within a culture that allows it. If only we understood this, we may at last produce a society where the balance between freedom and unfreedom is right.
© Anthony North, December 2007
______________________________________________________________________
Fiction Xtra – AUTUMN OF THE SOUL - A tale of love in later years
When Alan Jeffries walked into the nursing home to see his father he saw the most horrific thing he’d ever seen in his life. For there, in the corner, Percival Jeffries rested one hand on his walking stick and held seventy five year old Rita Madden in his other arm. With a slight shake of the body, he struggled to control his deep cough and spittle whilst his and Rita’s lips met in what can only be described as an awkward but definitely passionate kiss …
… read more …
______________________________________________________________________
poseidonsmuse said
Certainly, I think (speaking for myself here) that as we age and mature as individuals, some of us, are lucky enough to at least realise that we are all (as humans) part of a larger team. Cooperation, understanding and acceptance of one’s potential role in community will certainly make for a more rewarding experience in life (and “living simply, so that others might simply live”, is certainly part of this). Teens and young adults have certainly not struggled enough with themselves and their own identities to fully appreciate themselves, let alone their potential contributions to community (as individual, but connected persons as part of a greater whole).
Interesting thoughts Anthony. Thanks for the post.
anthonynorth said
Hi PM,
You raise some good points here, in particular the idea that our individuality seems to mellow as we age. I think this may be quite true.
Your point about ‘living simply, so that others can simply live’ is a poignant message we should take into account in the west.
tobeme said
Tony,
Great thoughts! We need to live a balanced life, we can do this without imposed un-freedom, however this takes courage and compassion and living a life of love.
anthonynorth said
Hi Mark,
So very true. Unfreedom must be a fact of life, but it must be voluntary – not, as you say, imposed. But to too many it is too hard a thing to realise, and act upon.
TiamatsVision said
Thoughtful post,Tony.
I agree that as we age we become more comfortable with ourselves and with who we are. In youth we’re trying to figure it all out. By becoming aware of and interactive with the society and culture that we’re a part of; we discover more about ourselves and our possibilities.
As a young rebel I used to see things as “us against them”. As I grew older and actually communicated with “them”, I realized that I could always find some common ground. Along with gaining some interesting ideas and viewpoints to boot.
thedesktop said
Yeah, I totally agree. There’s no possible way we can have absolute freedom without absolute anarchy. Well, some people could be free while others have to work, but then we’d have communism.
I guess you could say freedom is rational. We’re free to do rational things like buy guns and prostitutes, but not irrational things like question someone’s faith.
anthonynorth said
Hi TiamatsVision,
Indeed. My youth was, I suppose, anarchy personified – I was even in a rock band. I learnt about teamship, etc, in the forces, but still kept a little of my rebelliousness. Now, in middle age, I’m certainly in tune with many aspects of my community – globalisation and PC excepted, of course – but I like to think this blog is the rebel intact. Though hopefully more useful today.
You’re right about ‘them’ always holding common ground. I’ve said before, every system holds common sense. It only appears not to be so because of degrees of fanaticism.
Hi Thedesktop,
Freedom, I’m afraid, is always good and bad, in that it allows the unsavoury as well as the worthwhile. I guess that’s because it’s often difficult to decide what one person’s ‘unsavoury’ is. Although your ‘guns and prostitutes’ are usually clear cut.
As for questioning someone’s faith, I’ve noticed views on this differ depending on where they live and which religion you’re talking about. In the UK, Christianity is totally disrespected at every stage. Whereas in many parts of America, it is the reverse. I suppose the idea of freedom holds these inconsistencies.
Interestingly, a case of blasphemy has just been up in the English courts. It was rejected, the idea placed that something can only be blasphemous if it causes unrest or possibility of violence. As British Christians are unlikely to be so, then you can’t blaspheme their faith. But Islam?
Strange how the law works, isn’t it?
Grace said
Hi, Anthony
This is a very important topic. As others have said, “Balance” is truly the key. We can be ‘free’ to do whatever we want, but at what cost to ourselves and others? Personally, I don’t define personal responsibility as “unfreedom”
Nor do I believe that there is true ‘freedom’ anywhere but within a person’s heart and soul. Everything else is simply…negotiations! lol
anthonynorth said
Hi Grace,
Yes, the use of ‘unfreedom’ is simply to highlight the opposite of freedom. What it is really is ‘responsibility’, ‘duty’ and ‘balance’ in weighing our wants and actions against those of others.
But also, the idea of ‘freedom’ alone can actually inhibit the inner person, for it gives them nothing to strive for. So could freedom restrict a person in knowing what is within a person’s heart and soul?
A person who is in balance is, to me, more in tune with his ’self’.
writerchick said
Hi Tony,
I think you’ve hit on something. I believe that one of the problems with ‘freedom’ is that most people don’t understand that freedom is about the freedom to rather than having freedom from. It’s a fine point but makes all the difference. Good post, my friend.
Annie
anthonynorth said
Hi Annie,
You raise an important aspect to the problem. And in one way this is also a mind-state. Thinking you need ‘freedom from’ can be a pessimistic attitude that places barriers, whereas having ‘freedom to’ is optimistic, clearing away those barriers.
Thanks for that.
Stonehead said
I had a long think about this, and then decided several writers that I admire have expressed my beliefs to best effect, thus:
Frédéric Bastiat: “Is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so?”
John Stuart Mill: “The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.”
John Herbert Spencer: “The root of all well-ordered social action is a sentiment of justice, which at once insists on personal freedom and is solicitous for the like freedom of others; and there at present exists but a very inadequate amount of this sentiment.”
A more bleak, cynical and perhaps honest view was that of Thomas Carlyle: “”Everywhere the human soul stands between a hemisphere of light and another of darkness; on the confines of the two everlasting empires, necessity and free will.”
In other words, you may be alone on an island with nothing and so enjoy complete freedom until your inevitable death from starvation, thirst, disease or exposure. Or you can be one of a multitude of people in a land of riches but be denied all that others enjoy, and similarly die of starvation, thirst, disease or exposure.
In the first, you have total freedom (light); in the other you have no freedom (dark). Only in the middle ground can you escape necessity and have some freedom to act.
Think about it. We live in a land of milk and honey (for now), but access is limited to the affluent and pliant consumer while the homeless, the rejected, the destitute, the mentally ill, and the less able-bodied starve, rot and die as we deny them access to what we have. Our escape from necessity has come at the expense of theirs; our perceived freedom to choose has come the expense of theirs.
That’s why I prefer Carlyle. Bastiat, Mill, Spencer and others are are more hopeful, optimistic, even naive. But Carlyle? He’s thoroughly immersed in humanity’s inate depravity.
I don’t mean that to mean that we shouldn’t have hopes and aspirations to rise above ourselves. I simply think it’s better to have a more realistic view of our starting point.
Stonehead said
Oh, for an edit or preview facility.
The last paragraph should have started, “I don’t intend that to mean we shouldn’t etc”.
anthonynorth said
Hi Stonehead,
Welcome. I think the degree of the message depends upon who you’re communicating with. Some require more pessimism in the message, whereas others need more optimism.
So often the message is wrongly received because it is wrongly emphasised. Carlyle could so easily give someone no hope, whereas the rest could lead some to be complacent.
On the basic point of the inequalities you speak of, you might find the SUPER-CAPITALISM category interesting. I think you might be pretty much in agreement.