Saturday, December 24, 2005
The cost of freedom discussed
The advocates of freedom promote the notion without delving into the price that it comes with. I find it quite intriguing that most people have come to take freedom as a right, and sometimes, they fail to question whether something as valuable as freedom would not bear a remarkably high price tag.
First off, let us define freedom. What is freedom? I find it more appropriate if freedom is considered an abstract concept, one that can not be quantified, but yet is readily recognized. I would say that freedom is the entitlement to exist without boundaries in a closed system, and however you might want to define the system as, I believe that definition would still hold true. In short, freedom is to "be as you wish".
Then you ask, "Why is freedom not a right?" Very simply put, it is because humans do not rule the Universe. Man is free to do as he whims, and the Universe would not care to stop him. Existing on this reality, Man has been bestowed all the freedom he could ask for. The laws of the Universe do not restrict Man’s freedom. Though physical laws might exist, they do not serve to oppose Man's freedom. The opposition to Man’s freedom is in fact, man himself.
Let us then discuss freedom as a product of a group.
The existence of groups of humans and eventually, the establishment of societies means that there are other sentient beings around. Beings that are equally capable of anything as the other. Thus, Rules and Laws emerge in order to keep the group in working order, whether it s to prevent unnecessary competition, pilfering of possession or even murder. Such actions are detrimental to the health of the group. In order to facilitate that maintenance of the state of affairs, rules have been set by the Ruling hierarchy to protect the integrity of the group (and perhaps the interest of said individual).
Such being the case, it is not unreasonable to conclude that freedom is not a right. It cannot be, simply because if every individual is able to do anything, then the human group will cease to function. Thus, freedom can only be said to be an entitlement; one is granted in varying degrees dependent on the state of the group. For example, a village suffering from drought cannot possible allow its members to use the precious little water indiscriminately for bathing.
In the past decades, Man has seen unprecedented rates of progress, pushing the human societies into states of affluence. Affluence allows for the introduction of more freedom to the populace, as the group is now hardly concerned with basic needs.
Without the presence of imminent threats to survival, and without much void in the functioning of the group, the group can then afford to allow a higher level of freedom to its members. A country such as France would most certainly be glad to allow its citizens to actively participate in the proliferation of fine arts, whereas in a place like Zimbabwe, where food is still scarce, the group would demand that its members work to produce sustenance, rather than art.
Such is freedom within a system, or freedom within the rules. As I have mentioned earlier, every man is born with infinite freedom. It is in the upbringing and interaction with the group that slowly erodes this sense of limitless freedom. Quite simply put one is free to do whatever one wants, whenever one wishes to. Nothing in the physical world would stop one, but it is the group which prohibits one from doing certain things.
Who is to say that one cannot kill another? It is but a matter of perceptions and the fear of punishment that discourages that act. If one where to murder another human being, nothing in nature will physically stop one. It is the group that would act upon such a turn of events.
What I am trying to demonstrate is that man is born free, and he loses that freedom as he is integrated into the group. Freedom is then given to him in degrees as deemed by the situation, and such freedom, would be an entitlement, subject to change and even deprivation.
Find it curious that many people think that freedom is a right that cannot be withheld. They fail to see that it is not taken from them in the first place. They posses whatever freedom, but whether they know it, or choose to exercise is another issue.
People wish to have freedom that does not come with a price. They hope that they do things without being punished nor penalized in anyway. That is the type of freedom they expound. For that type of freedom, the cost is zero to them. Zero cost, because they do not have to pay anything in exchange for it, because such freedom is sanctioned by the group.
I find that such freedom is not freedom at all, and is merely an illusion of freedom. Nonetheless, such freedom is necessary in the group, but I find that it should have it own terminology, as I now bring back the concept of an abstract freedom. They both occupy opposite ends of a spectrum, so different, yet still referred to as the same thing.
To exercise that abstract freedom I talk about is a hard task. Such freedom comes at extremely high prices, and in some cases, might cost a life. I guess that society cannot have all its members exercising such freedom too, as it would deconstruct the group. Add that to the previous costs, and it is not hard to surmise the incredible cost of freedom.
Thus, the actual freedom afforded to members of a group is a mitigated amalgamation of the illusion of freedom and freedom. To let the people feel that they have been given enough freedom whilst still ensuring that they do not exercise their full freedom in ways that would be harmful to the group. Thus, to the individual, the price of freedom is not high; an individual will still survive without freedom. The true price of freedom is incurred by the group, and such a cost is ridiculously prohibitive, but a price that a group cannot afford to not pay.
Gavin
pondered @ 12:48
