On the Meaning of Freedom

[Raeonaire]

Note// This is an essay I wrote for my AP English Language class, and I just wanted to hear the thoughts of others on the subject. Please take time to read the entire piece before replying//

“Only the feathered angels – the piketalon, the crane – only they, who brush the stars with their wings, know what it means to be free” (Sapientia). A person is rare and extraordinary if they know no limitations, for there is no human in history who can explain, for lack of understanding, what freedom truly is. Humans forsook the wildness within themselves long ago, to live in realms governed by laws and restrictions. In doing this, they abandoned their freedom. They no longer roam to wherever the horizon calls them – the borders keep them at bay, the law forbids them. One may argue that the laws keep them safe – and that they do still have freedoms, at least here in America. “Wherever Law ends, Tyranny begins,” Locke alleged. Aye – the law keeps them safe. But what is the freedom of speech to the freedom of movement? The freedom of religion to the freedom of spirit? Sooner would this one appreciate the insanity of complete anarchy when people could grow strong by it, rather than ‘civil government’ in which people are meek and unable to bear their will. Ask it aloud – if humans are so content, then why are they so unhappy?

Recall all those stories – the ever so popular action and/or adventures – now, why do humans appreciate them? Because it is the substitution of what they lack – their own adventure. Take The Lord of the Rings, a story of danger, heroism, determination, friendship, adventure – all that which they lack, for the removal of their freedom robbed them of their opportunity to take the chance, to do great things. Oscar Wilde declared that, “Literature always anticipates life. It does not copy it, but moulds it to its purpose.” Literature is a form of freedom – a life away from life – that may not be true but is welcomed and appreciated all the same. Some argue that literature is a mere means of expression, an art form, something that is not real or substantial and is for the sake of pleasure. Then why is the expression needed? Certainly it is a means out of an ordinary, dull, meaningless existence.

Also, there are times when some wish to run, or so to say, jump in a car and drive on and on and on (for some, leap on a horse and ride forever into the horizon), and never return. But they are repelled not only by borders (and gas mileage), but by their dependency on others. Freedom is not only liberty of physical restrictions; it is liberty from people as well. A daughter, for example, cannot simply run away, if she has no means to survive. Her parents pay for her food, and she lives in the house they bought and paid for. Even the parents feel this. A strange urge to just leave the house. To do something. Anything. Just so they can’t think. They share the same boundaries as their children, and neither can they lope off into the wilds. Now, if humans weren’t so frightened of living outdoors in the wilderness, and they knew how to survive there, then this would not present a problem. In the wilderness, the only thing that a person can be subject to is their own fear, and that is, granted, often no easy thing to overcome.

The many things that humans find themselves subject to are, in a way, the most obvious and the most ignored, and are the most hindering to what may be known as the closest reach to absolute freedom, which is defined as the representation of “our free action as successively ‘free’ from any types of causes”. The gender bias, is a small but greatly significant factor in the bindings of humans, more specifically, women. There is a deep, or nearly encoded, instruction in the mind of women: obey. Obey the father. That is not so strange; all children learn to mind their parents. Yet women mind their brothers too, when they are quick to raise their voice or their hand, when they are the stronger. And also their husbands, though fools they may be in judgment and punishment, too sure of their own dominance to accept the idea that they may be wrong, too egotistic to remember what they preach – compassion. And through the blood of women a thousand years of submission pulses. Listen to the men, though fools they may be, though erroneous and cruel, for they are stronger, and that is how it has always been, and it shall always be, against one’s spirit and one’s will to be unbound.

Religion is another set of iron shackles. It conforms to the ideals of society, in a way that cannot be completely denounced, as it claims holiness or justice, or any other word that stirs guilt in a human’s heart. They openly, freely, though perhaps not knowingly, accept the restrictions of religion, promising themselves that they will obtain something greater. There is nothing greater than freedom. Even love, with all its promise, is mere pyrite, compared to the truth and boundlessness of liberty, complete and absolute. There is no reliability in freedom. Everything is unchained, therefore there are no bindings, and nothing need be relied upon, save the one soul a person is responsible for – themselves. They cannot rely on religion to “glorify their spirits”. They should do it themselves, and feel all the better for it. Never to ask for forgiveness from anyone but themselves. Never to ask permission from anyone but themselves. Never to take strength from anything but their own reservoir, when it is unchained, and to finally understand that it is boundless, just as they are, and they need nothing more but that certainty, that understanding, that all is nothing, all is boundless, and everything is without limit.

To be without limit is a wholly, as suggested, impossible theorem. One may never know, until they throw off their bounds. The smallest strands of iron are clasped around the mind. Free those first. There is great emotion that is trapped, unheeded, from many occurrences in someone’s life. Each time they were hurt, by words or fists it matters not, but only that they were hurt, they were forced to withhold the justice they wished to unleash. That proves a chain that strengthens over time, as such things become mere habit. However, as tirelessly as one tries to ignore it, there seems to be no reason why anyone should endure any pain if they do not wish it. Strike back at the enemy. It does not matter who is the stronger. It only matters that a blow was returned, a resilience sounded and was heard. Whatever other wounds may be dealt are insignificant. There is a glory in war. There is a glory, a maddened, frightful glory, in the striking back, in the rebuttal, that roars aloud the willfulness, the freedom, of a soul to fight back, to unleash their will and let it be heard, to stand up after being pushed down.

An imprisonment known as society is well-known to humans as “normalcy”, or what is acceptable and right in the eyes of billions of people. It is true that one cannot stave off that numerous of an army, before either being swallowed by the crowd or killed in the attempt to hold the line. This is a foe that is much harder to overcome. It is seen everywhere. In the home, in the schools, in the malls, in the workplace. It is faceless, and in the eyes of every single person one may meet. It has affected all humans that have had the misfortune of lingering among society. Ironically, individualism is the one and only accepted ideal of freedom by society. It is the only ideal they can understand, because it is their equal and exact opposite. Everyone has attempted to conform to the standards of society, at one point in time, when they feared rejection, loneliness, or lowliness. Some still cling to that bitter feud, always trying to please the faceless entity that is ever changing its mind. Throw off those attempts. Forget there ever was a thing as society. Forget “civilization” as well, for something so mindless cannot bring about anything that is right or just.

Humans do not know what freedom is, perhaps, because they have never known what freedom is. They, and everyone else, have lived under a code of dictatorship, law, boundaries, ruler over subordinates, and all things that bind one against their will to be free. This one cannot recall in history, save for a select, rare few, perhaps, a group or society that existed in a way that allowed for no restrictions. A single person may find the power, when avoiding all others, to obtain freedom. In this way, they allow no one to steer them, or divert their course – they are not bound or chained by moral responsibility to abandon their course and commandeer another’s, their hearts are not burdened by the woes of the enslaved – what one must do to gain acceptance, what one must do to please their superiors, what one must do to survive in a world where people are alive, but not living.

What? What, one asks. They live – they laugh, they love, they find pleasure in the world. Ha! They find pleasure in the world, certainly – under rocks and in tunnels buried deep beneath blackened soil! They must dig, aye, through war and disease and death and sorrow, before they find that pleasure, that faint happiness that only shines bright because their eyes have become accustomed to darkness. “When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities” (Plato, Allegory of a Cave).

The true happiness that they seek is the happiness, the joy of life, that stays with them forever. Not the fleeting, hopeless clutching at ethereal moments – sometimes it is but a moment, but a moment of freedom, of joy, is better than a fakery, a mockery, of what freedom truly is. This one knows of what she speaks – this is her stance, she’d better know of what she speaks! This one happened across such a moment of true joy, a small, lifting second of freedom. Her birthday, just this passing year, was no more special than any other, yet when she sat down and confronted the candles, she suddenly knew what to wish for. The candles all faded under her breath, cementing the wish. It is hard to describe the feeling that rose within her chest, but it was not tight, nor painful. It was a small moment of such fateful certainty that her wish had been granted – a buoyant, powerful stillness of mind, a peacefulness, that calmed her to that point where nothing is impossible, where only her own self can limit her reach. Still to this day, though not long after, this one has yet no doubt that it was true. Such is the extent of that one moment of happiness.

Now one suggests that freedom and happiness are two separate things. It all depends. For this one, freedom is happiness. Without it, sooner one would drive a dagger through her heart, or across her throat. Whichever happens to be the most convenient at the time. But, in all sense, freedom is what all people need to be happy. The freedom to love, and thus be with, the person you choose. The freedom to pursue your own goals. To eat one’s own self-picked and hard earned meals. To fight a pointless battle merely to prove one could. To wander to the very horizon and go on if one so wishes.

The point of this tirade? A person must never be blind to themselves. Do not meekly accept boundaries. All boundaries are built – therefore, they can be broken. Struggle against all things that cause pain to the spirit – that ensnare, trap, or slowly poison. Look to the elders and wonder why they always wish they could have done something better. Push away from the mooring, steer your course away from the shoreline. Wherever the ship sails, it was meant to go, because it was chosen, and all consequences are forthright and gladly claimed. As John Stuart Mill once noted, “In all such cases there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences.” It is a choice to stand against a battering ram, and hope to win. It is a choice to leap over the high hedges and break through the concrete barriers, to bear the scars of the escape with pride and dignity, and cherish them for what they stand for: absolute, total, and undeniable freedom.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

One more on my side.

It is axiomatic for freedom to bring happiness. When one is free, one follows his nature, and one cannot find sadness in his nature.

As an anarchist, however, I must say that it is not "insanity"; rather it is the emergent organization of rational actors allowed to live for themselves.

What do you know of anarchy?

[Raeonaire]

I know absolutely nothing of anarchy. All I know is that most people I know think it to be complete insanity...or disorder.

However, I like your definition much better.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Raeonaire

I know absolutely nothing of anarchy. All I know is that most people I know think it to be complete insanity...or disorder.

However, I like your definition much better.

Raeonaire,Mr Fight the power,

Mr Fight the power,

I to no nothing of anarchy but would like to,could you expand on this theme.The first thing that comes to mind is to what degree is it egocentric or is that a bad wrap to open a discussion with?

[Mr. Fight the Power]

You have put me in a pickle, I want to answer these right away, but I am presently pushing back a trip that will take me away from home for the weekend.

Basically anarchy is not lack of order, but lack of rule. Anarchists believe that society can exist freely without the state, and that the state, in its continuing existence, must therefore be a hindrance to freedom, but I will just stick with your specific question: Anarchistic theory is not usually egoistic. Most theorists have called for a level of class conciousness that leads to a very altruistic social order. Through a social revolution of sorts people recognize the dignity in their fellow man (or worker) and cease to respect property and the market relation that runs with it. At this point people still produce, with those who can produce more than they need offering the surplus up for the taking, those who cannot produce enough for themselves freely doing the taking.

I am on the other hand, very much an egoist, and believe that individuals working through self-interest do not need the state to organize themselves. People do not need laws to tell them respect one another, nor do they need some altruistic social revolution. They simply need to know that their ends are only met by a trade off, and by their desire to satisfy these ends, they will deal fairly with those who will provide the means.

I must go, so I will submit first a quote by Ludwig von Mises (who many anarchists revile) that expresses my core thoughts on society very well:

As society is only possible if everyone, while living his own life, at the same time helps others to live; if every individual is simultaneously means and end; if each individual's well-being is simultaneously the condition necessary to the well-being of others, it is evident that the contrast between I and thou, means and end, automatically is overcome.

And here is an article:

"Why I am an Anarchist" by Benjamin Tucker

[Raeonaire]

Then, would the nonexistance of society as well, be disorder? For society is, in a way, more harrowing than government, for society affects each indivisual, and government affects the whole of society. To do away with government, or so to say, rule, will still leave society intact. To do away with society also topples government.

By the absence of society, I do not mean the loss of morals and justice. I mean the absence of the power of a group over an indivisual, though I realize that a complete eradication is impossible, because indiviusals themselves create these groups, but the thought is entertaining. Anarchy does seem to meet the criteria, however, when one thinks of it as a machine, in which indivisuals become or choose their part in its functioning, that takes away from, yes, egotiosm, and therefore, freedom of standing alone, standing apart, not helping but neither hindering, not set in a rule, not set against, but randomly interacting. Rather than a machine, or the like, think of it as your basic ecosystem, a forest, an ocean, a swamp. Bluntly, everything is marvelously, wonderfully, inter-dependant and independant, all at once. It looks chaotic. It even seems chaotic. But even though the fauna do not have a "society", even if they do consist of the occasional pack, flock, herd or family group, they coexist with everything else. Arguably, this is nature and how they evolved. So? If it works, it works.

Reverting to the theme, society is a hindrance to freedom. So, regardless of how appealing anarchy is, it does not answer the question. Freedom of government is too wide-spread, too...broad, or general, for the effect on the indivisual. That is what it all comes down to. Indivisual freedom. Not society's freedom. One person's.

And I know that is all quite...disjointed...I beg pardon for that, humbly. I attempted to write my thoughts, but I find they are somewhat muddled when it comes to explaining things. So, again, appologies, just in case.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Raeonaire,

The first and foremost clarification we must address are those definitions we apply to society and to the state, as creating a clear deliniation between the two is extremely important to anarchism and political thought in general.

Society, to begin with, can be generally be defined as the whole of the relationships and institutions created by the actions of individuals. Basically, society is what we have when humans follow out on their social nature.

The State, on the other hand, is that institution that typically monopolizes the use of force in order to organize or regulate society as according to a rule of law. The state, therefore, is very much different from society itself, but it is almost always a portion of the society.

It is a simple fact of nature that we will not do away with society, it is a part of our essense as human beings to be social creatures. Because of this society should not be looked at as a hindrance to freedom: free men will form society. We can see this to be true by considering the origin of society (the roots of human society were likely present long before we actually became "men"): If not nature, what compelled mankind to create this thing we call society?

You are on the cusp, however, with your thinking. Complete individualistic independence is only possible with complete autonomy, that is the person can support and defend himself, a man is the means to his own ends. This is simply not possible within modern society, though, and likely never possible. What we must then fall back on is a system of, as you said, interdependence.

This is what Mises was referring to in the quote. If all men were the means to their own ends, then no society would exist, as men would not interact with one another. Since we know that men cannot be the sole means to their own ends, we can assume that society must exist. If society is to maintain a semblance of the freedom that preceded it, then men must be allowed to continue the pursuit of the ends that brought them to society in the first place. If we are to allow all men to pursue their ends, while not being the means to these ends, we must then establish a society where one man can provide for his ends by being the means for others. This is the contract, this is the exchange, this is the market, this is society: the mutual satisfaction of needs and desires.

When you say it comes down to one person's freedom or individual freedom, I would simply reply that individual freedom creates a free society, not a lack thereof.

[cherryberry]

humm, living in an anarchistic enviroment, I feel, doesnt mean that the people are really free. Total freedom exists only if a person is not dependant on anything, completely detached.

If I am living in an enviroment where there are no rules, but I am still considering that I need a roof over my head and a nice comfy bed as well as my morning coffee or good books to read, I am not really free.

[Raeonaire]

Well then, forget your nice comfortable bed and your hot cup of coffee. The ground suffices, water is better for you, and sooner would I see a sky then be locked away in a box. But then, that is just me, and we are all different in our opinion. I believe that humans have become too dependant on their comforts, however, and that they have also become soft in the head to believe that they cannot survive without them.

[cherryberry]

Originally Posted by Raeonaire

Well then, forget your nice comfortable bed and your hot cup of coffee. The ground suffices, water is better for you, and sooner would I see a sky then be locked away in a box. But then, that is just me, and we are all different in our opinion. I believe that humans have become too dependant on their comforts, however, and that they have also become soft in the head to believe that they cannot survive without them.

I completely agree, and thats exactly what I mean, the enviroment we are in doesnt give us freedom (whether thats anarchistic or not), not real freedom anyway.

It is only the personal detachment which gives us freedom.