Liberty
From Unfocusgroup.org
Topics:
The idea of liberty/freedom is a complex one. The trouble is that freedoms can conflict. For example, the smoking ban is, in one sense, an attack on our own personal freedoms. But many non-smokers will argue that it gives them the freedom to go to pubs or to work in pubs and not inhale other peoples' smoke. Similarly, gun-libertarians will conflict with those who believe that it's good that our police don't carry guns, which can only arise when guns are banned. Whichever side of the arguments you tend to go for, it's clear that something else has to inform our idea of freedom, in order for the concept to make sense. In other words, the idea of "freedom" does not make any sense unless it is underpinned by a wider narrative.
Types of Freedom
Open-ness is the idea of freedom of information. This can conflict with privacy-freedom.
Hedonism is the idea that happiness is the highest good. Hedonism does not need to be a vacuous idea, and can talk about long-term strategies to ensure the happiness of the human race. Hedonists will generally argue that the freedom to enjoy one's life is of paramount importance, provided that it does not impinge on other people's freedom to enjoy life. In fact, they will often go further and argue that the purpose of life is to spread happiness, and how to do this is the key thing. But that's another matter.
Privacy-freedom places an emphasis on the freedom to do things in private without intrusion. However, it can be argued that although some people may feel inhibited by intrusion, that the intrusion isn't really stopping them from doing anything. Furthermore, freedom of information conflicts with privacy-freedom. The ID Card Debate is one example where the idea of freedom is not so clear cut.
Intellectual-freedom is the idea that academics, or indeed anyone, should be free of the groupthink of mainstream academic politics or intellectual snobbery. Given that our academic institutions are state-owned, you would think that this would be considered a big deal, but few people seem to care about this for some reason.
Human-rights-freedom is a bit of a nebulous concept. "Rights" are a particularly contentious issue, because one person's rights really do conflict with others, in a more explosive manner than freedoms. This is why "human rights" organisations often don't make much sense, and tend to be a bit single-issue. For example the Shami Chakhrabarty school of thought centres around the idea of "identity" politics, the freedom of expression of identity, and multiculturalism, which is a whole kettle of fish altogether. Many supposed "human rights" organisations tend to have very specific target markets when you examine the detail, and tend to be funded by same. What about e.g. the girl who wanted to wear her muslim veil to school, effectively requesting the "freedom" to be treated differently. Would a libertarian say that because of this test case, that school uniforms should be abolished? Do children require "freedom", or are they not considered able to make informed choices? Up till what age?
Freedom from bureaucracy is a useful form of freedom, espoused by the Manifesto Club. [1]
Big Debates in Freedom
- Guns. "If owning a gun is a felony, then only felons have guns". So the saying goes. But what level of weaponry do we allow the public to have, if we assume that the police force need to be able to maintain law and order?
- Nuclear proliferation. Why should Iran not have nukes? We have them. Do as I say, not what I do...
- Smoking bans: freedom to smoke, or freedom from smoke?
