Freedom is not a simple issue

Freedom is a double edged weapon.

Is anyone “Free”?

Freedom is such a simple sounding idea yet it is actually rare to find anyone who can be said to be 100% free. Once we have children we have responsibilities and so a curtailment of freedom. Even earlier in our lives, once we enter a meaningful relationship the same thing applies, we become responsible for another persons happiness and well-begin and so we choose to curtain our own freedom. Yet freedom is still a desirable condition, a condition rather than a life style. In a democratic nation we assume freedom to choose our leaders, we also choose to accept the idea that if the majority choose differently from ourselves then we have to accept it. We are limiting our freedom. Freedom of thought is taken for granted in most democratized nations, the freedom to disagree and the freedom to protest are assumed. Yet these are fragile freedoms, the modern trend to curtail other peoples freedom to offend anyone, is a step towards removing freedom. The double standards that seem to have been adopted in many universities, which seeks to “cancel” the expression of some opinions, yet promotes others. Universities have for centuries been places where debate was unlimited, where ideas could be explored and expressed. Places where political ideals could be constructed by the exploration of all alternatives; yet now only “acceptable” views may be heard.

The people of Ukraine are being killed, starved, physically, mentally and emotionally suppressed in order to prevent them expressing a freedom to choose their leaders and the policies they have a mandate to pursue. In every democracy, and in every dictatorship, (be it political or religious in nature;) there will be some who disagree with the majority. In a democracy they have the right to that disagreement and to express that in secret free and fair ballots. They have a right to protest as long as these protests do not entail attempts to, in any way, force their views on the majority. It is this limitation that angers and frustrates some. Those activists who have such a strong belief in the merits of their cause that they consider any means to bring the majority to the same belief, or even acceptance of it, is acceptable are the most frustrated, but even in a democratic state where freedom of expression is allowed, there have to be some limits to “freedom.” There can not be a freedom to force others to accept a selected choice. Accepting such a “right” would be giving all power to the most ruthless, those most willing to suppress other peoples freedom, in a word anarchy. Once choices are made by enforcement, society descends into anarchy and from that we move to fascist style dictatorship. The perpetrators may say they are socialist, they may claim to be doing things to free the people from oppression but the end result is government by decree, a single party state where true freedom of expression is curtailed.

Destruction of freedom is what the Russian leadership is trying to do in the Ukraine. They wish to impose the choices made by the leader of Russia, on the people of the Ukraine. They are using brutality, death, destruction and brute force. While not using such levels of destruction, this imposition of selected choice is what the cancel culture zealots are trying to do in other nations. In both cases freedom is being eroded by people claiming to wish to enhance freedom.

How can freedom be maintained? Acceptance that there can not be a freedom to forcibly impose views is a first step. Paradoxically, even this has to have a limitation, in order to prevent forcible imposition, a preventive force of some sort has to be used. Many nations proclaim that they have “the freedom of the press” they say that, because the media is free to express any opinion, they are a free nation. Study this and it throws up the problem with “freedom”. Much of what the media publishes is not wholly accurate and truthful; sometimes this is intentional, some times, it is done since the publishers have no evidence that supports what they publish, but they do so to promote readership. Misleading and down right fake news is published. Freedom can be a double edged weapon. The freedom to tell an unwelcome truth is also a freedom to tell lies. This is where freedom is in danger, because the public will support the suppression of lies and fake news but such suppression will inevitably be used on unwelcome truth. Obviously this occurs when the lack of welcome, is in the minds of those with the power to suppress. Who gets to choose? Freedom is not a simple issue.