I've found an unfortunate paradox within one of my core beliefs. I believe in personal freedom, and I believe that each person should respect the freedom of others, but I worry that that belief may contain a contradiction. If I respect others' freedom, for example, doesn't that mean that I should respect others' freedom to disrespect the freedom of others? Perhaps I should amend my stance, as soon as I find a better way to describe my beliefs, but others aren't going to wait for me to complete my introspection.
I think that most of us can agree that oppression is wrong, but I worry that some of the measures that some individuals take in their attempts to reduce or eliminate oppression are, themselves, oppressive. Anti-discrimination laws can become discriminatory. In general, I believe in letting people live as they choose to live, but if some people choose to try to control others, shouldn't I try to stop them? But if I did, wouldn't that be me trying to control them?
We could soften the discussion with terms like "influence" or "convince." I could try to "convince" others to not try to "influence" others, but that doesn't really solve the underlying paradox. What right do I have to tell others that they have no right to tell others how to live? Maybe I don't have any such right. Maybe, to be true to the cause of freedom, I have to let others exercise their freedom to oppress.
That can't be my answer. There has to be a way to support freedom without allowing for the rise of oppressors. We could make exceptions to our blanket support of freedom. After all, one's freedom can only reach so far. But where would we draw the line? And remember, whatever standard we want to hold others to, we must maintain ourselves. That is actually the root of the problem. I can't claim to respect the freedom of others if I don't respect others' freedom to do otherwise.
This is a conundrum that I'm not going to solve overnight. Maybe I should pose this problem to some of my philosophical friends and get their two cents on this.
1 comment:
I think it all depends on how you define "personal freedom". If it is defined simply as the right to be free from the violent aggression of others towards your person and property, then there is no contradiction at all. In that case you need a good definition of what constitutes personal property (I highly recommend the writings of Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe for this... Mises.org is a great resource).
In libertarian theory, this principle of freedom is commonly referred to as the non-aggression principle (NAP). We are free to do what we please as long as we do not violate another person or his property. This is a purely negative right, in that it dictates a restriction rather than a privilege.
The contradictions arise when you start to claim the existence of positive rights (eg. defining freedom as a privilege to do or have something rather than an obligation to not be violent and to expect the same from others). For instance, some people claim that health care is a right. But this can't possibly be true without contradicting the NAP. Because health care is a good that is produced by the labor of others, if you say that you have a right to health care, you are saying that you have a right to other people's labor (regardless of whether or not they want to voluntarily give it to you). Positive rights always contradict the NAP.
Keep in mind that a person can strictly abide by the NAP, but still be an immoral person in other ways. The NAP (or personal freedom) is a necessary, but not sufficient, foundation for a righteous society.
Post a Comment