Political freedom is a concept: demand it is to require that within a particular sphere a man not prohibit you from doing what you want, that is, that you are not prohibited from doing so, whether it can carry it out or not. A crippled it is not forbidden to walk upright, although in fact it can not. A healthy man does not prohibit you fly to the moon but, in fact, is not in a position to do so. However, we do not say that a man is not free to meditate to the moon or say a crippled is not free to walk upright. Efforts have been made to speak this way: freedom has equalized with power.
If I’m unable to get rid of some stubborn mindfulness or an ideal fix, which makes me forget the whole world in the frantic search for a goal that obsesses me, I can describe, no doubt, as “slave” of my passions. But I’m not a slave in the literal sense of the word, and nobody considered me a slave in the sense that Uncle Tom was a slave to The Liberty Beat.
There are all kinds of natural factors-physical and psychological-that prevent a man do what you want to do, or you want as someone else wants or could want addiction. But, as a rule, it is not considered that these obstacles are direct object of political action, no matter of political principles, as politics has to do with intentional actions carried out by conscious human beings, concerned about the degree of interference that It allows them to exercise the one in the lives of others. For example, the influence of education or social environment on the development of a man who says he is frustrated or maim somehow-, we’re not entirely sure if the resulting frustration it is or not a deprivation of liberty in the sense that is beside the point of The Liberty Beat.
We don’t know because we are not so convinced of the facts of sociological causality as we are of psychological or physiological, not to mention physical causality.
Like similar cases when we hesitate to blame an individual or a group of people to act despotically, because they could avoid behaving well; or, conversely, not blame, or despot qualify their behavior, because they are “socially conditioned” and therefore could not “help” – make us feel a kind of borderline quality. And this in itself indicates that the word “freedom” has a different meaning in both cases, of which the borderline case from an instance of bridge: it has something in common with both and puzzling and problematic because it is not sufficiently clear to neither.
In its political and not metaphorical sense, freedom means the absence of interference by others, and civil liberty defines the area from which the interference of others has been excluded by law or by a code of behavior, whether “natural “or” active “, depending on how the law or the code in question is conceived. This can be illustrated more broadly taking the uses of the word “liberation” that are considered correct but somewhat ambiguous as to its strength: for example, the celebrated phrase “economic freedom.” What they meant is that those who coined the granting of political freedoms or civil -that say, the fact lift all restrictions on particular types of activity as regards the legal interference did little to those who do not have the resources economic enough to make use of that freedom. Perhaps there is no prohibition on the amount of food you can buy a man, but if you have material resources, that “liberation” it is useless, and say that it is free to buy as much food as you want is to mock his indigence.
Sometimes it is said that such freedom “meaningless” if the person to whom it belongs too sick or too weak to exercise. And yet, those who advocate political freedom feel that there is some degree of injustice in this argument: the fact that the law does not prohibit buying an unlimited amount of food, for example, is, according to some of them, freedom genuine whose suspension would constitute a serious setback to human progress. The fact that the poor can not benefit from this “liberation” is analogous to the fact that a deaf-mute can not take advantage of the right to freedom of expression or the right to freedom of assembly.
A right is a right, and liberty is freedom, regardless of who may or may not be in the position to make use of both at The Liberty Beat. And yet, it is perceived that those who speak of genuine economic freedom indicate a defect in a social organization that material goods are available, in theory, for those who, in practice, can not afford them. They point out that these people are so free to take advantage of economic freedoms as the Tantalus himself who, surrounded by an endless sea, is free to drink salt water all you want because no statute is prohibited.
But perhaps this dilemma, like many other arguments where both sides feel they say something valid but mutually incompatible, receives its characteristic paradox of the inevitable and not always desirable vagueness and ambiguity of words. The mere inability to make use of something that others do not prevent one use say a biological or mental defect by the course user, or the failure to achieve due to some physical or geographically reason certainly not considered as such and in itself, a form of unfreedom or “slavery”. And if claims about the absence of economic freedom were mere laments, in the sense that some people in society are, in fact, sufficiently rich to get everything they need, despite the fact that you can get legally-, that does not differ, in principle, complaints about other disabilities. Described as the absence of freedom would be as absurd as saying that having only two eyes eo ipso is a lack of liberty to have three eyes or a million eyes, which, after all, the law does not forbid it.
The thinking behind it is that the rich own a too significant portion of the total holdings of society. This is the reason that the poor have so little and, therefore, they can not make use of laws that benefit only the wealthy.
The implication is that the rich can act voluntarily, or they may be forced to work, so as to stop robbing the poor of the resources they need and who would have if they knew who need them, and that, according to the paladins of economic freedom. They would get in a society that is more just, i.e., in a given society differently by those who organize, but not in a society that was necessarily different physically or psychologically, or distinct in any other natural look today’s society, which is less fair. What it gives strength to the word “freedom” in the phrase “economic freedom” is not to establish a requirement for a missing capacity for action, but indicates that someone has robbed someone else of something that belongs by right. If interpreted quite explicitly in this context the term “belongs” means at least the person or persons so denuded can be described as individuals who have suffered interference, which has been stripped, they have been undermined, in the sense that a strong man interferes with a weak, or a thief robs his victim.
Thus, “freedom” usually denotes the absence of a real coercion, or the presence of a negative restriction, by a group of humans to another. The allegations or claims of freedom often refer to the particular kind of coercion or constraint, in the specific circumstances in question, they are given to prevent men from whether or act or obtain something that then wants with fervor and the lack of which for better or for worse they attributed to preventable behaviors.
The release is in the first instance, freedom against something; freedom is freedom from something.
Freedom is an ideal only while threatened. As war and economic science, its essential purpose should be to abolish the conditions make it necessary. In a perfect society, this would not be aware of their need for freedom. Because freedom is a mere guarantee against interference, and the need for guarantees only feel where there is awareness of these dangers, to avoid what promotes them. The struggle for freedom is the struggle to create a situation in which its very name forget.
Whether they are conceived in the almost mythological terms of true believers in natural rights, as Paine and Condorcet, and others, in any case. They are among the founding fathers of both the French Republic and the US. Within the curious intermediate zone between the two, in which some of the lawyers and constitutional writers of democracy seemed to have thinkers, for liberals the notion of freedom is still not a definite goal, such as pleasure or knowledge, or beatitude seeking the Wise Men or the saints of the West. Nor is a decisive goal as the duties of Kant or approved of mind and body Hume states. It is only the means to be used to prevent these positive goals when: political habits, laws to shore against failures in individual cases, which make possible the fulfillment of the favored purpose.
To be free is not to be obstructed, is to be able to do what you want to do. Be free is in a state where nothing can oppose the wishes of one, omnipotent. Be free, in the normal social sense, or in the political meaning of the word, both in private life and in public, it is not to be obstructed in one’s desires for another human being. Be relatively free, in the sense that said Mill is not be clogged within certain precisely established, or more or less vaguely designed limits. Freedom is not a word that denotes a social end, but a term for the absence of obstacles -in particular, barriers resulting from human action to carry out any purpose that men can persecutor-. And the struggle for freedom, like the struggle for justice, is a struggle, not a positive end, but conditions can be carried out such positive terms: it is evident a space without the ends it worth pursuing in themselves, remain empty.