What is Freedom? (updated 10-Nov-06)
FREEDOM is self-determinance; it is the condition of minimal constraint. Naturally, in a society or community, there has to be some constraints — the burglar cannot have the freedom to steal, the thug cannot have the freedom to mug, and the businessman cannot have the freedom to excessively pollute and pay no taxes. But get the balance between personal freedom, social order and ecological integrity right, and the vast majority of citizens can live happily with moderate personal freedom and minimal constraints.
Our freedom and constraints are formalized into a long agreement between each individual (or legal entity such as a company) and the society of which he she or it is a part. This formal agreement is called the law or legal system and it is constantly evolving and changing as new situations and circumstances arise. (Parts of this legal system, usually those dealing with human rights, are deliberately less changeable and are sometimes called constitutions.) So our freedom is defined and upheld by the legal systems.
A common fallacy regarding freedom is to automatically assume that it is a byproduct of modern democracy. In fact, the "only" freedom that a democracy bestows practically on its members is that they have the right, every few years or so, to vote for one of a set group of representatives (government) who will run the country on their behalf. Whilst modern democracy is an indispensable foundation for free societies, it does not necessarily guarantee freedom. That job falls to the legal system, which is not so readily influenced by our periodic voting. (Which is why freedom campaigns often involve legal challenges.)
Democracy can only be an agent of freedom if it gives the people meaningful voting choices (not just a choice of 2 or 3 parties which have only cosmetic differences), and if it ensures that the people have the unbiased and undistorted information necessary to make a choice that is in their interest (in other words, a mass media and educational system free from undue government and corporate influence). Of course, sometimes the people will want to use their democratic rights to restrict freedom (for example in the areas of gun ownership, stem cell research, GM foods, pedophilia, the "war against terror" or fox hunting). This is because different freedoms often conflict with each other: what is freedom for one person or group of people is often a restriction for another.
For example, the freedom for us to breath clean air is dependent upon the restriction of the freedom for factories to produce as much pollution as they like. So the support for freedom is always a balancing act between the collective long-term interests and the interests of the short-term interests of the individual or corporation (under law, corporations are regarded as individual people and so are afforded many of the same rights). Raising a green tax, for example, on 4x4 vehicles to off-set their greater ecological impact would be considered by many drivers as an affront to personal liberty, and yet such a tax would be part of a policy to ensure that future generations, including the very children of those 4x4 drivers, have the same chance to exercise their personal liberties. Which freedom is more important? That should be obvious to anybody, but because so many decision makers are taking short-term and selfish viewpoints, long-term public interests like this are not being respected and freedoms are not being chosen wisely.
We live today in democracies that are increasingly hostile to long-term and collective freedom. Our choice of political party at election time is quite restrictive (although still significant), and the mass media is almost entirely corporately owned and therefore influenced, which in turn opens it up to government influence — payback for political favours to those corporations. This means that the mind of the people is being strongly manipulated to make voting choices that are not actually in their best interest, but in the short-term interest of the politicians and the corporations. (They are conditions to think that buying that new product is in their interest, but most of what Westerners buy is not essential and does not even give any more than momentary pleasure.)
Something else that manipulates the mind of the people into undervaluing freedom is the fact that adults spend the bulk of their waking hours toiling in the corporate environment. Are corporations democratic organisations? No. They are authoritarian organisations — dictatorships — with a strict hierarchy of control. This means that most adults in democratic societies spend most of their time in dictatorships, and this skews their psychology and their values so that social freedom is much easier to pry out of their hands. (Sheep mentality is reinforced at every level.)
At the same time, there are national and international legislative and political agendas underway that will shortly result in considerable reduction in public and individual freedom. What is most concerning about these is that they are largely immune to democratic influence — planned and implemented primarily by organisations such as multinational corporations, the United Nations, Food and Agricultural Organisation, World Health Organisation, World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund, the European Parliament… all of which "the people" have little influence over. The only way to counter these agendas is either through the courts or through mass protest and public disobedience (although we would never advocate any lawbreaking activities). What is most worrying, however, is that with their massive lobbying power and money, corporations are now able to disproportionately influence legislative procedure, which results in a legal system increasingly favourable to the freedoms of large corporations and multinationals to conduct business with minimal government and legal interference, a practice that is destroying the fabric of Western society. And as big business owns most of the main media outlets, the people are happy to go along with this charade, parroting the importance of corporate freedom without thinking of the consequences.
In light of these threats, it is important that we unite to defend encroaches on collective freedom by the "pseudo-freedoms" of special interest groups such as corporations. We need to have public debate about which freedoms are in the collective interest and which are not, and which individual freedoms we are not prepared to surrender. After 9-11, for example, is it really in the collective interest to introduce the Patriot act? Short-term, maybe. Long-term, definitely not. After 9/11 we saw shameful intolerance within the US to anybody who opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq, even though Iraq had played no part in 9/11, posed no threat to any of the invaders, and had no weapons of mass destruction. In the "land of the free", you would think that people would respect each other's right, indeed duty, to voice disapproval of misguided government policy, but that is not what happened… patriotism reared its ugly head.
Public freedom and civil rights are seriously compromised by fervent patriotism. In the words of Leo Tolstoy, "The subjection of men to government will always continue as long as patriotism exists, for every ruling power rests on patriotism — on the readiness of men to submit to power." Judging by the staggering number of "freedom" organisations and sites that are plastered with national flags and emblems, there is widespread confusion between patriotism and freedom. Patriotism serves only to pervert government accountability, allowing reprehensible behaviour to go unchallenged, even when that behaviour is directed at the people themselves. This is why governments waste no opportunity to stir up patriotism… it gets them off the hook.
Finally, it is important to remember that the freedom that so many of us now take for granted didn't just come about because everybody agreed that it was a "good idea". They were literally fought for by previous generations; that is how much they valued freedom. Those in authority generally don't give up that authority willingly; freedom needs to be demanded from them (preferably, as Gandhi did, by peaceful means). We are now the generation that has become the custodians of freedom. Will we allow it to languish because we have more important things to do, or will we take up the responsibility, as our forebears did, and fight for freedom and civil liberties so that the world is a better place for ourselves and our children? But we have to understand that in order to defend freedom, we will invariably have to make choices between collective and individual freedoms, and in the process our defence of freedom will also paradoxically involve the restriction of freedom. There is no simple formula or easy solution to this balancing act. But rest assured that there are many different individuals and corporations that are constantly trying to influence that decision because how freedom balances can have huge financial consequences. (If individuals want to stop global warming, for example, industry will have to raise its bottom line and spend trillions on cleaner practices.)
This choice of freedoms, therefore, is each of ours to make, and the consequences of that choice will affect future generations to come.
