It is a common misconception that those in power necessarily have more liberty than their less powerful counterparts. Intuitively, a country’s king has the freedom to act in more ways than the peasant, the rich have more options than the poor, the slave owner rules while the slave is ruled, and a government official often treads above the laws they pen for the people. However, there is a hidden assumption in this way of thought— that liberty is proportional to quality of life. From a pragmatic point of view, most would choose the life of the king over the life of the slave, the rich over the poor, the slave owners over the slaves, or the above the law status to the law abiding one, simply because the quality of life of one is so much greater than the quality of life of the other. This is not the same as having a greater amount of liberty. I contend, in fact, that if one group does have a greater amount of liberty than the other does, it is by a small amount and hardly decidable as to who has more liberty.
In this discussion, I will use freedom and liberty interchangeably, with the intended meaning of both to be that which one is able and allowed to choose to do. For instance, I am able and allowed to vote in congressional election this year, therefore I have the freedom or liberty to vote. However, while I am able to set fire to an orphanage, I am not allowed to, therefore I do not have the freedom or liberty to commit arson. Additionally, I will make a distinction between freedoms and what I call mini-freedoms. A freedom is what one is able or allowed to do by law, or in public. A mini-freedom is what one can do on the level of gestures, speech, habits, posture, eating style; it is anything that concerns an individuals slightes...
... middle of paper ...
...implicitly or explicitly, certain prejudices, then we can not hold them responsible for acting in accordance to those prejudices. Should they break the law, though, then we have no choice but to hold them accountable.
In his introduction to The Philosophy of History, Hegel writes that “the history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom.” Maybe, then, the next stage of historical (or political) evolution will be the recognition of our lack of freedom on so fundamental a level as the way we talk, eat or think. For if these mini-freedoms can be obtained, then the arbitrary boundaries of race, class, gender, sexuality, age, heritage, political affiliation, geography or language, will be lost with the rest of the multitude of stereotypes based upon us all being slaves to an unknown ruler who commands are slightest movements.
Patterson pinpoints three different variations of freedom. Personal freedom is defined as giving a person a sense that, in one aspect, he or she is not forced or controlled by another person into doing something preferred. In addition, within another aspect, one can do as one pleases within limits of that other person wish to do the same. Patterson refers to Sovereignal or organic freedom as basically the authority to act as one pleases, without respect for others, or simply the capacity to enforce one’s will on another. Civic freedom is defined as the capacity of adult members of a community to partake in its life and authority. (Walton Jr & Smith, 2015)
Throughout history, it can be seen time and time again that rulers have different ways of rule. As expected, rulers may look over to different nations to see what is effective to prevent failures or encourage successes. With different forms of rule comes different thinkers and their take on the current methods of ruling which can be seen in Marx and Engels’ The Communist Manifesto, Machiavelli’s The Prince, and Locke’s Second Treatise on Government. Coming from different periods, it is expected that their perspectives are different. Assessing these works will ease the process of observing the differences between these thinkers and their thoughts on rulers who are above the law or have no morality and their notions of private property in society
There are many definitions of the term "freedom." Some will say that to be free one must be allowed to do as one pleases in terms of one's physical body, while others will say that one must only be able to think to be truly free. Yet another group will argue that both aspects must be present for true freedom to exist.
According to Eric Foner, “The boundaries of freedom that determine who is entitled to enjoy freedom and who is not…have changed over time.” Throughout America’s history, different groups have settled and inhabited the land. Each group arrived with their own concepts and beliefs regarding freedom. Freedom is defined as being free from control or constraints. Over time, however, this definition would change to fit the customs and beliefs of one group over another. Changes in freedom had occurred numerous times in American history for a number of people, whether it be in the form of national freedom, individual freedom, or religious freedom.
According to Dictionary.com freedom means “the state of being uncontrolled by another, or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint.” Freedom. What does freedom mean to you? Even though freedom means the state of being uncontrolled by another, or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint, I believe that freedom means being able to accomplish what you desire and when you desire it without anyone saying anything, by reason of the comparison and contrast of our society and the society in the book Anthem by Ayn Rand, the negation of the word freedom, and synonyms of the word freedom. I believe that you should accept the consequences of the actions you take when you have your “freedom” as well.
In his famous writing, “The Leviathan”, Thomas Hobbes explains that the natural condition of mankind is when a society lives together without the rule of a common authority or power; this creates a “dog-eat-dog” world in which the citizens live in a perpetual state of utter chaos and fear. The fears experienced by the citizens are not only of the unequal distribution of the power of others, but also fear of the loss of their own power. In Hobbes’ state of nature there is complete liberty for society in the idea that each member may do whatever he or she pleases without having to worry about infringing upon the rights of the rest of society; in other words, one is allowed to do whatever necessary to pursue their own happiness. Ho...
From the Age of Exploration to the Revolutionary period, many factors shaped the connotation of the word liberty. Liberty is defined as, “the quality or state of being free” (Merriam-Webster). This means religious freedoms, political freedoms, social freedoms, and many freedoms we may not think of on a daily basis. Throughout history, the word liberty has developed into a word with a positive connotation as well as a word used to describe the freedom we have today. The idea of liberty developed because of, religious persecutions, restrictions, and maltreatment during the fifteenth century through the seventeenth century.
Freedom in the United States Essay submitted by Unknown No other democratic society in the world permits personal freedoms to the degree of the United States of America. Within the last sixty years, American courts, especially the Supreme Court, have developed a set of legal doctrines that thoroughly protect all forms of the freedom of expression. When it comes to evaluating the degree to which we take advantage of the opportunity to express our opinions, some members of society may be guilty of violating the bounds of the First Amendment by publicly offending others through obscenity or racism. Americans have developed a distinct disposition toward the freedom of expression throughout history. The First Amendment clearly voices a great American respect for the freedom of religion.
Perhaps the most exclusive aspect of American freedom is stated directly in the Declaration of Independence. It states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" (Jefferson). This well-known statement truly incorporates all facets of what it means to be free in America. The citizens of this country have the right to live. They have the right to be free of restriction and control, to do what they please. And they have the right to be happy in whatever way that might be. These rights are...
Freedom is the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. In America there is numerous of choices that someone may make on a daily basis. If someone were allowed to make their own choices and were being told what to do; then they would not be free. When someone is allowed to speak when they want to, and say what they want; such as their opinion or view of something. Being allowed to have a right to speak is one of the most important characteristics of being an American. Thinking and stating your opinion in any predicament it a strong part in being a citizen because people in the United States are known for being able to think in their own ways. Freedom can stretch too many things such as being able to do as they please, they are not forced into doing anything that someone may want. The citizens of the United States are not made to do anything that one may not want to do; like
Freedom is often spoken of in what can be referred to as a loose sense of the word. One country has more freedom than another; a twenty-one year old has more freedom than a fifteen year old. What exactly does this word mean? For different people it may mean different things, but there has to be an equilibrium that can be reached in order to determine the meaning of freedom itself. In one form, freedom can mean that a person has "exemption from an obligation."* If only the root (free) is looked at, it can be interpreted that one is "not under the control or power of another."*
It is important to distinguish between freedom’s kinds of values, because in defining a system of government, the attitude towards freedom is a key component. If freedom has no independent value, different schools of political thought might have the standpoint, that we should not value freedom at all, only the things that it is means to. Some might think that they know better what is good for people, and feel justified in constraining people’s freedom. We intuitively value freedom, and usually do not even notice, that we have it, because it woven through so much of our everyday life. We take freedom for granted, even though in some countries it is not so trivial. It is not enough to feel that freedom is our basic right, but to understand why it is so important, and why freedom can not be replaced by the specific ends one might think it is means to. I will argue, that freedom does have independent value. First I will talk about the non-independent value of freedom, and look at the different independent values, then concentrate on the non-specific instrumental value. I am going to look at claims where Dworkin and Kymlicka were wrong, and evaluate Ian Carter’s standpoint.
When referring to freedom these words are often associated with freedom: Liberty, independence, sovereignty, autonomy, privilege, immunity, and indulgence. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and justice. Independence is granted by freedom in the sense that an outside party does not control you. To gratify ones desires by whichever ways they choose is freedom through indulgence. Privileges are g ranted through freedom. In some countries the dictator or ruler makes choices for their people on regards to what profession they shall have or to what religion they shall worship. In the United States we have special privileges that let the people of the country decide on their own religion and professions.
Two Concepts of Liberty. In Four Essays on Liberty. London: Oxford University Press, 1998. Haddock, B. (2008). A History of Political Thought.
People can have the desire for freedom as well as the desire for limitations on freedom. This is because freedom and limitations on freedom are both needed to live peacefully. Absolute freedom cannot be achieved because when you take away limitations you take away freedoms. With out rules governing our society, people would be able to do what they want to each other with out a certain punishment. When you examine the advantages and disadvantages of both arguments it becomes clearer.