What price freedom?

Are you free? Is freedom an illusion? Can all people be free? If so, how much will it cost?

In our developed civilisations, we share a dream: a dream of freedom, a dream that success is in our hands, that opportunity is there and all we need to do, if we want success of any kind, is choose to do the things necessary to achieve it, and then do them.

​

Sadly, nothing is so simple. People aspire to so many different things, sometimes at odds with each other: sustainable living; realisation of wealth, power, or both; recognition of a skill or talent; survival; to be in love; to explore the world; to invent and create; and every conceivable alternative. Everyone has individual aspirations. What then, is freedom? Is it freedom from oppression? Is it freedom to choose? For the purpose of this piece, let's start with a broad definition:

"true freedom is the means to follow a path through life, unimpeded, in pursuit of one's aspirations" 

​

Vive la difference!

So, people have varied aspirations, and therefore varied expectations of freedom. They experience several aspirations in a lifetime, so their expectations change. Some, of course, will find alternatives, or reject all aspiration as false or unnecessary. Aspirations are acts of wanting, and necessitate change. Change involves new behaviour and each new behaviour has consequences. Provided these consequences are, on balance, constructive or neutral in their effect (on other people or the environment), fundamental freedoms ought to be secure. What would prohibit their legitimacy is the misappropriation of goals for personal gain at cost to other individuals, groups or the environment. Even where the aims of such aspirations are manifestations of liberty but cause net harm, there is an impact on individual freedoms. Added to this there is the concern that, in a ‘free’ world, some individuals aspire to undermining civilisation, causing catastrophe, or harming Earth, for example. Even libertarianism can lead to inhibition, prohibition and conformity, because it accepts the principle that human rights are inviolable and creates laws and regulations that protect those rights but at the same time control behaviour and, therefore, limits freedoms. Of course, a powerful libertarian state infringes human rights when it invades or otherwise attempts to control through force the activities of a non-libertarian state, but libertarianism is, in itself, a system of control: there must be rules that secure freedoms. The rules (laws) exist to protect citizens from harm. Modern laws aim to prevent harm to individuals through even what is said to them, having the underpinning of various laws connected with discrimination or incitement. Essentially, true freedom means living without controls, and relies wholly on the conduct of people: acceptance, tolerance, conciliation and trust sitting at the core of  a free world. It is an unlikely outcome of modern politics. 

​

Sustainable living

​

Living a simple life can be incredibly rewarding. Occupy a small piece of land. Make tools from locally available, sustainable, natural resources. Build low-imprint shelter, grow & harvest, return goodness to the land. Share produce and information and encourage others to maintain similar lifestyles. With very little or no negative impact on anyone or anything outside of this micro-eco-system, this appears truly valid in terms of aspirational freedom and it is hard to find aspects that may affect that validity. It appears unproblematic to live sustainably as an individual. Indeed, communities of hundreds, even thousands, can successfully roll out this model. Issues arise on scaling to more global proportions, however. Dense populations result in insufficient land, scaled up energy and resource usage demands ever increasing complexity and efficiency of energy systems. Deficiencies cause disparity and conflict and crash the model. Sustainability becomes unsustainable.

​

Accumulating wealth and power

If libertarian capitalism is the model to which we continue to subscribe, there are many ways to grow wealth that are, on the surface, beneficial to others. Consultancy can be lucrative in many cultures, and can ensure a range of positive outcomes, from better efficiency (even if only to the extent of improving localised business profitability) through to survival (advising farmers on how to avoid crop failures, for example). Individual workers can feel enfranchised by the purpose of their work, and fairly rewarded for their time and effort. Sadly, the western model of capitalism (the accumulation of capital) is sorely abused: profit is centralised, people and environmental effects marginalised. In some circumstances those who have great wealth take an apparently  altruistic stance, for example by creating homes for workers or supporting virtuous projects. These tend to be relatively small contributions, however, and there is often a trade-off. For example, workers’ homes and research projects are investments for the 'artificial philanthropist' (either financial, or in the creation of a veneer for less savoury activity). All too often, individuals suffer loss and indignity in supporting profitability for a relatively small number of people. Additionally, the means by which individuals in this model achieve limited freedoms is anathema to those freedoms. Since it involves relinquishing the majority of ones waking hours to support capital accumulation for others, in circumstances that are at best inflexible and at worst unbearable, does it really reference any kind of genuine freedom?

​

What’s the answer?

There is no simple answer. We recently ran an article about sustainability (Wringer Issue 1), which demonstrably succeeds at smaller scales. Expansion, to provide for global energy demands, entails very different tactics: global weather patterns, topography, populations, localised culture, and a swathe of other influential factors affect the local methodology. The world is an ecosystem in its entirety, not just at localised or national levels, and the implementation of globally sustainable systems needs a global plan. People, and peoples, are different in so many aspects (ambitions, intelligences, outlooks, energy, creativity, perseverance, and emotional resilience are but a small cross-section). This cannot all be legislated for in a single, global model. The answer necessitates a whole and healthy environment (energy, work, culture, relationships, welfare, etc.) that enables sustainable living conditions for all, yet allows for layers of success that satisfy those who aspire to more from life than comfortable survival. Not only this, it must operate across a vast spectrum of individual difference across the planet.

​

Utopia?

​

Imagine a world in which individual choice was very much freer. Those who seek power could live in systems in which power is available and manipulable, and within which there would likely be great (but desirable) conflict. Those who seek autonomy and self-sufficiency could be located within protected lands. Such a model was proposed originally by Robert Nozick in his 1974 work, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. It has been much criticised for its naivety and failure to recognise the complexity of socio-historical contexts and the nature of individuality but, perhaps, a more developed model might succeed.

​

It sounds impossible and, indeed, would be hugely wasteful of resources to establish, with no guarantee that the separate populations would restrict themselves to governance of their own lives and lands, be that a few hectares of farmland or a vast nation. Individual avarice, allowed by unrestricted freedoms, may lead to war.