Freedom

[C0ckney]

We have similar problems with "equality." Probably not as bad though.

yes, although i think it's easier to come up with a clear definition of equality. some people not only do not believe in equality but are also honest enough to say they don't; it's not seen as universally good in the way that 'freedom' is. there are also (it seems to me) fewer situations in which 'equality' for one person can conflict with 'equality' for another, unless we use 'equality' as a synonym for 'interests', than situations where 'freedoms' conflict.

[C0ckney]

Traditionally, freedom is an absence of coercion. But the coercion we're talking about is usually of the social/political variety. So in a "free" society, you cannot be coerced into silence, or coerced into a particular job, etc. But there's an evolving view of freedom that looks at it as an absence of other kinds of force as well. For example, you can have a freedom from sickness or a freedom from ignorance, which is how you get states with universal healthcare or education.

The difficulty is the tension between what freedom grants and what freedom costs. If you look at freedom as only applying to social/political coercion, then you can think of being free as the "natural" state of things (even if it never exists). Thus, governments cannot give you freedom; they can only restrict it conditionally. So the cost of freedom is that you cannot infringe on another's freedom, for example, and the government can act to ensure that.

this is a good point well made, but i think the question political and social freedom is broader than governments; other social forces can also restrict people's freedom. we see many examples of this kind where two freedoms, or rather the freedom of two different people, or groups, conflict. two examples, discussed on this forum, the northern ireland bakery and the french headscarf ban. both involved the government stepping in and restricting the freedom of some people to preserve the freedom of others. this kind of thing happens all the time, we (as a society) make decisions about whose freedom's are more important and prefer those.

of course from an anarchist perspective, the absence of government is perquisite for anything approaching freedom. it can also argued that the structure of employment (capitalist > managers > workers) is antithetical to freedom; what is the point of political 'freedom' if you are at someone's beck and call for a quarter of your life, just so that you have the means to survive. a free structure by contrast would be some kind of workers co-operative.

we might even say that living in any kind of society necessarily restricts freedom. we are all constrained and prevented from acting as we please by laws, norms, social conventions etc. obviously we prefer it this way; hermits living in the forest don't post on apolyton.

[molly bloom]

Billy Mackenzie, B.E.F. & 'Free'

[molly bloom]

Billy Mackenzie, B.E.F. & 'Free'