A heated discussion about the concept of liberty had been going on for as long as we all can remember.
Winkipedia defined liberty as follows:
“
Liberty is generally considered a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the ability to act according to his or her own will.
Political philosophies rooted in individualism and socialism often conceive of liberty differently; individualist and liberal conceptions of liberty relate to the freedom of the individual from outside compulsion; a socialist perspective, on the other hand, regards liberty as the equal distribution of power, arguing that liberty without equality amounts to the domination of the most powerful.”
The validity of the issue relies upon the position where we stand. Do we percieve liberty to limit only for ourselves or is our concept of liberty transcend towards others as well. Do we only seek to liberate ourselves from the inequalities of the world or do we struggle to liberate the world from the inequalities inflicted to a larger populace by the dominant few.
What we percieve to be true and unjust varies depending on who’s interest are we concerned to uphold. Whether it is about liberty for ourselves or liberty for others as well, it is entirely on us.
Liberty…what a profound word to disclose.
I wonder whether it really is about personal liberty vs social liberty.
Struggling to liberate more people from the worlds inequalities could only limit the liberty of a few (and only gross excess at that). So really, it becomes potential personal liberty (thinking “I could be rich enough to enjoy this freedom”) vs social liberty. At least if we are talking about questions of resources, access, etc. For example, are you really free to leave a country if you cannot afford to? Another way to look at it is, should poor people be prohibited from leaving the country? The gut reaction is (“of course not!”), yet that is precisely what we do.
The personal vs social dichotomy is dead on for social issues. Am I free to swear in public, or does the public have the right to expect certain standards in public places?
As with the liberty to speak up in public, and to act whatever pleases us , is a form of personal liberty and must be limited when it is done to offend or burden others.
When personal liberties crosses, how do we gauge it correctness of one over the other. That is when we only jusdge the personal aspect of liberty. But if we look at it in a much broader perspective, how our actions affects others, we may clearly draw a line.
And of course, the liberty of the poor who constitute the large majority, to gain access to travel, social services and welfare only enjoyed by a very minute population, is a form of suppression of personal liberty. And yes , being rich gains access to those luxuries, not normally available to all.
But, if we all must struggle to be rich in order not to be poor, then we must also prevent others to be richer than we are so we are not poorer. And it goes on and on and on.
While in the fast lane, people aiming for immense wealth would not stop at anything that keeps him from earning more, others cherish…no, lavish the simplicity of life and live peacefully in the absence of the paranoia of being poor.
If one is richer than the other, then others are poorer than others too. If the mainphilosophy of the world is “money rules’ then poverty will never end. And the debate on personal over social liberty will never cease.
So it is really social liberty where all live to co-exist with others without the insecurity that another would steal money from another’s pockets, or Personal Liberty where the strong will always have the loudest voice in the crowd and have the flashiest car while others suffer the hunger and the cold because their personal liberty to have equal rights and previledges is being suppress by the liberty of others who want to stay on top and be rich all their life. So, ultimate liberty will only occur in a world where social liberty is at bay.
And living the country is no longer an issue, because everybody would enjoy whatever benifit others have.
This may be a far away bliss but its an idea. An idea envisioned by the poor and the oppressed but dreaded by the wealthy and the oppressors.