Freedom?

This post is a result of a conversation on the Blog-O-Rama. It is a discussion of what it means to be free.

There are several definitions that I would like to discuss.

First: Freedom is the ability to act without external, or unconscious* internal compulsion.

In this definition, no person is truly free for every moment of his life. There are some decisions that are compulsory. If I unknowingly touch a hot stove, I will remove my hand and this action will be outside of my volition. For this reason people do not like this definition. (Stronger examples can be given, but I think the conclusion that we, at times, act according, not to our wills, but to some external compulsion is strong.)

Second: Freedom is the ability to choose among two or more choices at each time a choice is available.

This definition seeks to rule out harmless compulsory actions so that the general ideal is that choices that I have are not taken away by some external source. For example, I could prefer country music to reggae and no one will make country music illegal to broadcast and listen to in a way that would limit my decision to listen to country music.

The general ideal of freedom as a qualifier of actions seems to be incorrect however. Human beings are communal beings. We live in communities, and so these communities will invariably affect our choices and in some ways our freedom as it is contrued in the first two definitions.

This thought brings us to the Third definition: Freedom is the ability to act in accordance with that which brings about the good of the whole community.

This seems nice for altruistic people, but we are not all altruistic and even those of us who are cannot live this definition. This definition requires one to consider whose it is to decide which action is for the good of the whole. If it is to each his own then there are a few problems. For brevity's sake, I will focus on the one that I think is the biggest problem. If I am to decide for myself what actions are good for the whole and freely live them, then I proclaim myself to have the right, guaranteed by my freedom, to perform any action. But, does freedom include the right to perform an injustice(I define justice as giving to each person what they are owed in all respects). I argue that it does not, inasmuch as performing "freely" an injustice acts to impede the freedom of the person harmed. I know that here I assume an ethical code, but insofar as the discussion that prompted this post criticized a government for impeding rights, I feel this assumption is granted in this forum.

It seems then that freedom should not be defined in the third way as it is too vague.

Here is the problem that I am attempting to get at in an abridged way(I have much more to say, but I figure I shan't take too much of your time). Anytime that a government exists, it limits freedom. Governments are given power by the people to inforce and agreed upon set of rights(hopefully). It is the very nature of the creation of a government to have a code of what is right and what is wrong. In a proper democracy then, the people decide amongst themselves what this code is. If you disagree with the code, then you are not free to act against the code. The government is given power over you. Even if you assent to every object in the code, your freedom is limited for you do not have the ability to change your mind and act accordingly.

The alternative is anarchy. Anarchy limits freedom inasmuch as those who are stronger in some way will invariable limit the rights of those who are for whatever reason defenseless.

The only definition of freedom that makes any sense to me is that freedom is the ability to not sin. I don't you to take that without a grain of salt and you could argue well against it. But if you are willing to assent to something greater to yourself that is ordered to your happiness, then you will likely find happiness and that is a lot like freedom to me.


*For awhile, let us not argue about whether humans can be affected by an unconscious state.