FRUTO DA CURIOSIDADE

(English version)

Freedom is the absence of coercion. The antithesis of freedom is coercion. Freedom is, therefore, a political concept.

If we take the definition of politics as the arrangement of the network of social relations on a determined group context – as the etymological origin of the word suggests -, we observe that these networks of relations between individuals are, fundamentally, of a free or coercive nature. The content of this relationships derives from this fundamental dichotomy.

The concepts we employ while adjectivizing something only possess meaning by opposition of their contrary, and because they were experienced. Good and evil, beauty and ugly, pleasure and suffering, etc.

Freedom is a political concept in the sense that it only possesses meaning on a context in which the non-recourse to the use of force is voluntary – that is, on a group context.

On an hypothetical scenario in which the reader have forever been living alone on an island, I suggest you would never confront and debate with yourself the concept of freedom.

However, the concept of freedom have had different interpretations along the course of history and the geographical-cultural space. Hence, I will refer to the concept of freedom in the context of both our time and geographical-cultural space.

First of all, I would start by referring to what seems to me a false distinction between the concept of positive freedom – freedom to –  and negative freedom – freedom from.

It is worth to point out that this distinction is of great relevancy, as from my perspective, it is a diverging point on the structures of different political thought and political ideologies concerning the organization of a society.

I urge the reader to notice how the concept of negative freedom is really the absence of coercion.

On the absence of coercion, our power of choice is absolutely ours. It is erected on the employment of reason, expression of individuality, and at the responsibility of each and everyone of us. Only from here the self-determined action confers to each individual, on the realm of his capabilities, freedom to execute, express or access something.

If on a determined aspect a social relation comes from coercive fundaments, freedom to of the coerced is being restrained under the lines of the coercer. In this context we find ourselves on a relation not only of dependency, as also subserviency.

I will now transcribe these ideas into the realm of reality, while presenting my critique.

Those who uphold freedom meanwhile their political ideology stands for State intervention don’t really understand what freedom is. Or maybe they are intellectually dishonest and do not stand for freedom afterall.

Agreeing or not with State intervention, it is legitimate to defend so. However, if one utilizes the concept of freedom in his rhetoric, one is found on a logical contradiction.

Here is why. One fundamental aspect of the nature of the State is the possession of the monopoly on the legal recourse to the use of force.

Another is the fact that the State is not a productive institution. The State feeds from others’ resources by the recourse of threat of the use of force.

Let us now observe the differences, from a freedom perspective, between the relationships between individuals and the State from other institutions of our society.

A fundamental aspect of some political ideologies lies in the observation of the “oppression of the working class by the capitalist class”.

Contrary to a slave-based economic production system, the employees of a firm are not property of the firm owners, nor do the owners make use of force to convince employees to work. Would even be counterproductive making use of violence to try and maintain workers linked to the company.

Slaves do not voluntarily enter on a working contract with the proprietors of their individuality, just as citizens do not enter voluntarily on a social contract with the State.

Those gifted with critical thinking will notice how I am not comparing the treatment of the master to the slave and State to the citizen. Rather, I am pointing out how both relationships stand on coercive means.

Freedom presupposes voluntary social relations; this is equivalent to say equality on a political point of view.

Meanwhile the firms’ source of revenue comes from voluntary transactions, being fundamental that companies offer goods and services of quality so that the consumer chooses to exercise its purchasing power, the State’s revenue comes from expropriation of this purchasing power of its citizens.

These taxes that finance the services offered by the state are collected independently of their quality and independently of the will of the citizens on making use of them.

Why is hierarchical organization legitimate in the midst of companies? Because being free also means the disposal of the resources we belong as we see fit, as long as the freedom of others is not trespassed. If a working contract is signed voluntarily, by definition there is no coercion.

The company and its resources are someone’s property. Someone invested their resources on the development of such project. These individuals then possess all the legitimacy on organizing the project as they find best.

The labour market is really a network of partnerships in which both employer and employee make a voluntary exchange. The latter offers his time, intellectual capital, and labour force in exchange of purchasing power.

Now in regards to the institution of the family. Why are the parents, or must be the parents, authoritarian and coercive? By other words, why is it that a child is not free, and such is legitimate?

We are born naked with no belongings. But above all, we come into this world without yet possessing the qualities that best distinguish us form the remaining animal kingdom: logic and abstract thought.

Because of this a child is not free: are not recognized the capabilities that allow the child to take decisions responsibly.

The social relation between the parents and their children is embedded with a coercive aspect. As a last resort, given the level of disobedience of the children, the parents recourse to force so to redirect the actions of the children.

It is the parents’ duty the task of shaping the children and equip them with the necessary tools so once they come to adulthood they are prepared not only to adopt behaviours within the civic norms, but also, from them, being capable of facing the challenges life may impose on them.

The modern western philosophical culture comes from the following axiom: if we are all humans, if we all possess the same rational and intellectual capabilities, that is, if we all are the same from an ontological point of view, we must all possess the same fundamental rights and duties stemming from this equality, based on mutual respect and diplomatic means of conflict resolution.

These rights are the right to life and physical integrity – from now onward simply referred to as right to life -, right to individual expression, and the right to dispose the resources and the property fruit of our labour. Rights protected by the duty of each and one of us to respect the life, the individuality, and the property of others.

Expression of individuality goes beyond than the simple ‘freedom of expression’ that is normally associated with the communication of ideas and opinions. We express our individuality in pretty much all the actions we perform, namely the activities and projects we undertake, product of our distinct personalities and interests.

Nonetheless, also coming from this relationship between equality and freedom diverge determined political ideologies on what concerns the organization of society. From where I stand, both these concepts were devoid of their real and logical meaning.

Because axiomatically we are deemed to be equal ontologically speaking, the idea arose that we should all be transversally equal. Namely that we should all have access to the same resources.

Because we are born naked with no belongings, the only way we are able to satisfy our needs and desires is through the use of reason and abstract thought, being reason the fundamental ingredient of our learning process. But are also tools an whole range of qualities and characteristics that make up each one’s individuality.

Obviously that, from this observation, inequalities will be identified, namely economical inequalities. We do not possess all the same talents, interests, purposes, and perceptions of the world and reality. Therefore, it is counter-natural that we all are turned the same. It is yes natural that we are all different. And such is a good thing.

Many are those that uphold State intervention so to eliminate theses natural differences, incurring on another logical fallacy.

Naturally that the imposition of this notion of equality, or whatever imposition it may be, must come from a coercive – non equal – relationship between, in this case, the State and the citizens. By consequence, freedom will be subjugated to this principle of equality.

Another diverging theme on different political ideologies lies on the presumption of human rights.

Can other rights, apart from the right to life, individual expression, and private property being taken as fundamental on the construction of political thought without the principle of freedom being cast aside? Put differently, do not all rights consecrated in the various official documents come from the religious respect of the first three?

From my point of view, before answering this question we must first highlight two very important aspects.

The first is the fact that freedom presupposes responsibility and accountability. If we are not responsible and assume the consequences of our choices on the investment of our resources, be them natural or material, are we really proprietors of our life, individuality and property? Are we then really free?

As I mentioned, we come into this world naked with no belongings. Poverty is our natural state. Wealth is created by the investment of our resources. Everything we possess is product of the employment of reason, labour, and sacrifice.

This means that certain rights must be conquered. Needs and desires should not be confused as rights.

This nuance is of extreme relevancy. Our three fundamental rights are on the basis of the exponential wealth creation of the last two centuries due to the fact that they provide a moral-cultural framework that allows for pacific coexistence and the alignment of the right incentives to the development of markets – the network of voluntary economical transactions.

If this sense of responsibility is taken away, is withdrawn with it the perspectives of individual development.

If we enjoy the comfort and quality of living that we do today, it is due to the spirit of work, sacrifice, ambition, and sense of responsibility that our ancestors demonstrated on the resolution of their problems and on facing of the obstacles life imposed on them.

For the same reason parents should not attend to every whim and desire of their children, or being too soft or too protective of them, incurring on risks of raising spoiled men and women incapable of dealing with hardships, we should not expect the State to solve all our problems incurring on risks of becoming prisoners of our dependency and vulnerability.

Making use of State intervention as to secure access to healthcare, housing, education, etc., is not, in the end, taking from some and giving it to the others? Is it not the appropriation of someone else’s resources denominated theft and extorsion, and morally reprehensible?

It does not seem to me a matter of justice – afterall, who defines what is just?

Justice is not part of the laws by which Life and Nature are ruled. Justice is a concept coming from our emotional machinery and subjectivity.

Meanwhile our emotional machinery is fundamental on the processes of cognition, it does not serve the function of both reason and logic. It is dangerously easy to fall on incoherences and misguided thinking once we fail to observe that emotional arguments brutally crash against the wall that is reality.

Why is it fair someone having its resources confiscated so that another one obtains whatever thing? Is it even fair to define the terms of the debate in such a way that we are faced with the choice between State intervention and misery and hunger?

At least on logical terms, I would say no. It is a matter of freedom and responsibility.

The State is not a productive institution. No State intervention does not mean people losing access to healthcare, housing, or education.

Are groups of individuals who voluntarily associate, pursuing their interests, employing their resources, the wealth generators.

Are also groups of individuals who voluntarily associate, pursuing their interests, employing their resources, the founders on numerous charity and solidarity institutions that we all perceive to be indispensable and the de facto safety nets of numerous families.

The State does not possess the monopoly on solidarity; it possess the monopoly on the legal recourse to the use of force. And it is worth mentioning that forced solidarity is like a squared circle – such a thing is irrational.

Finally, the second aspect.

The problem that gave birth to the discipline of economics, even before the birth of agricultural production, is that of scarcity.

This means that no matter how much solidarity there is, or how morally virtuous we take ourselves to be, there are only so much goods and services accessible to us as much as we are efficiently producing them with the limited amount of resources we possess.

Healthcare, housing, education, as economic goods that they are, are products of labour and require costs. They are fruit of the markets.

The idea that we are able to take economic goods as natural and universal rights, and that for the enjoyment of such goods we must not pay, is irrational. Thinking that in fact those goods and services rendered by the State are free is being completely oblivious from reality.

These may even come as more expensive. Our taxes are not only channelled to the financing of this economic goods, as they finance as well the bureaucratic machine that refrains our freedom.

Is a millionaire freer than a poor individual? No. They both are equally free to dispose their resources as they find best. In this scenario we are not comparing freedoms, but options available given the available resources.

Is a tetraplegic less free because it cannot walk? No. This individual is as free all the others. In this scenario we are not comparing freedoms, but options available given the available capacities.

Needs and desires must not be confused with rights, as resources and capabilities ought not to be confused with freedom.

Freedom is the absence of coercion. Freedom has to do with the power of choice of the individual, fruit of the employment of reason, of its individuality and self-determination, at its responsibility.

Options available are independent of the observation of freedom; these concepts pertain to different phenomena. Options available represent that which we can or cannot access through the power of choice – which is absolute on the absence of coercion -, given our capabilities and resources.

Donativos Paypal