We are so used to the word freedom being tossed around that we rarely ever take time to think about the intricate details and situations that surround the word. If we took freedom, and interpreted it in the strictest sense, that is, every person is free to do whatever they want in life, regardless of what it may be, and nobody should be allowed to hamper that freedom. But in the last phrase, nobody should be allowed to hamper that freedom, are we not hampering the freedom of people who want to hamper peoples' freedom?
Yes, that is extremely remedial and something that we can easily provide a solution for. But my point is to carry on this discussion to another level, using the same sort of reasoning. So, we establish that certain freedoms, like doing whatever we please, may hamper other peoples' freedom. Therefore, as a society we agree to give up certain freedoms for the safe and smooth protection of freedom at large. A good example of this is the police force. We give up our freedom to be duty or tax free, to pay police officers to keep order and peace throughout the society.
Moving forward, we can begin to think about freedom in respect to Nozick's philosophy. Nozick essentially believes that everything should be minimalist so that our freedoms will be hampered at the very least by the government. This is Nozick's idea of a just society. The question I have, is that is this type of minimalist thinking feasible? What happens when a large amount of the wealth is in the hands of the few, and the many are left to suffer. Would it not be in the best interest of the society to redistribute the wealth?
My point is that eventually, there will come a time where society must not be so individualistic and minimalist-minded, but must come together to make a communal decision about what is good for the best of society. While this may not be freedom in the strictest sense, it is the best, and in my opinion only way, to preserve freedom. Yay freedom, Merica.
Morgan B.
Morgan, hampering people's freedom is not the same as individual freedom. I think freedom means being free from social punishment to act rationally by one's individual standards. For a modern example, if I want to treat my cluster headaches (theoretically, I don't have cluster headaches), with marijuana, because it is the only thing that seems to help, then I should have the freedom (autonomy) to acquire this substance and treat myself with it, since it does not harm anyone else in the process even if the substance has the potential to harm myself. I have the freedom to make a personal judgement to make a decision. I like the quote "If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all." – Jacob Hornberger
ReplyDeleteHence, I think freedom assumes the condition in which an individual is allowed the pursuit of autonomy, happiness, rationality, even with error in judgment. I think freedom is connected in some way with forgiveness, patience, and acceptance also.
In response to you police officer point, why must freedom be given up? Why must we as a society use coercive force and imprisonment to rule citizens? This is oppression, not freedom.
I think our society can become a lot more free, in terms of allowing people to behave socially as they choose etc. However, economic freedom is tough because making money, almost by definition is an unjust transfer of goods.
Capitalism is a boom, and bust type system. Economic freedom is good, but even with the most moral citizens, the system will deposit money into the hands of the rich and less of the poor. So eventually there will be a rebellion and wealth will be redistributed. It's a cycle.
But having a moral society that only tries to acquire what it needs will end up being the most just, free, society that will allow for a free market.
When considering the differences between the philosophies of Nozick and Marx, it seemed to me that Marx hold equality especially high in terms of his basic principles and assumptions, whereas Nozick holds freedom as, perhaps, the highest good. Which is more important to society, equality or freedom, I cannot say. However, I think that the equality Marx describes would grant a kind of freedom the a capitalistic society would not. For example, in capitalism, the lower class will necessarily be much larger than the upper class. Poorer people often cannot afford a private education or a better college, which restricts their knowledge about what to do and down the line may restrict what jobs they can have. Even though capitalism suggests they have the same, equal opportunity to pull themselves up and succeed, I think this is simply not the case when a person is born into poverty. In a way their economic freedom, a most important tenant of capitalism, is very restricted. In the end it seems to me like a communism would be both more equal and more free.
ReplyDelete