Freedom is the power to act.
Every living person has a degree of freedom. Our degree of freedom depends on our circumstances. A prisoner has less freedom than a person unfettered obviously, but he still has choice, he still has power.
Freedom does not mean the absence of consequence. Many of us feel that it should. The law cannot force people to act one way and not another: all it can do is create consequences.
So when we vote for this law or that law all we are doing, really, is deciding whether or not an action should have a legal consequence in our city, state, or nation. It's not like we can actually impede people's ability to act without resorting to microchips in the brain. Instead, we use behavioral modification and Pavlovian principles.
So when we say America is "free," all we're really saying is that America is more permissive. In that sense, European countries are usually more permissive than America and...therefore...more "free."
7 years ago
2 comments:
I know that Dan or someone is thinking: this is all semantics. It all depends on your definition of the word "free." Does "freedom" mean the absence of restraint? If so, then our defintion of freedom is contingent on our definition of restraint: If a woman can't have an abortion, am we free? If a homosexual can't get married, are we free? etc. etc.
My viewpoint is that there are two freedoms: there is personal freedom of action, independent of governance (though restricted by ability and laws of nature), and there is sociopolitical freedom, which is dictated by our environment.
As long as we have the freedom to ask "Am we free?", we're good.
Sheesh--what's this about semantic bones? You qualified your argument well! "Every living person has a degree of freedom." No matter how you define freedom, that's got to be so. I also agree that freedom does not imply "absence of consequence". Are we tip-toeing around the whole censorship thing again? ;)
Nevertheless, I guess I do have a semantic bone to pick after all, now that I consider your idea that there are only two sorts of freedoms. Your main point seems to be about how freedom is defined, but as you point out, freedom is a contextual thing. A mere two sorts of freedom seems rather limited. From the other direction, perhaps multiple contexts for freedom are simply a way of subdividing a single idea for easier processing.
Good points, though. (Not mine, yours.)
Post a Comment