Is my freedom contingent on others? - An essay by Graham Gambier

Is my freedom contingent on others?

An essay on freedom by Graham Gambier

I was reading a blog post the other day on the subject of freedom but, while I agreed with most of what the author had to say, I was troubled by his assertion that freedom was the absence of coercion and that, some day, we may attain that happy state.

I was initially unsure as to why this definition of freedom disturbed me, but I am learning to trust my instincts and sleeping on it produced the following thoughts.

Firstly, I Googled the subject to check the blogger’s assertion and Merriam-Webster had this to say, which seemed to support the blogger:

freedom
noun free·dom \ˈfrē-dəm\
1
:  the quality or state of being free: as
a :  the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b :  liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another :  independence
c: …

My problem with these definitions of freedom is that they seem to make my freedom dependent on the actions (or lack thereof) of others. If this is indeed the case, then I must either beg seven billion plus people for my freedom, rely on their innate goodness, or be prepared to fight all of them for it. None of these options appeal to me.

Oliver Twist begging scene

Analysis

If a coercive act by you means that I am not free, then you control my freedom, and, perversely vice versa. This is both illogical and unacceptable. If a man can grant me my freedom, he can take it away, and I am still not free.

Ever since I adopted anarchism I have proclaimed to the world that I have no masters, but more importantly, I have integrated this statement into my being. This condition has led me to post comments such as the following about taxation:

“A mugger in the park may demand my property under the threat of violence, but that does not mean that he has a right to my property. Similarly, a man calling himself a government official might demand my property, but he has no more right to my property than the mugger.”

In my opinion, being threatened by a thug does not make me unfree. Whether I choose to give him my property, run away, or stand and fight, I will still be exercising my free-will.

If no man has rights over my property, including my life, then the corollary must be that I have no obligations to any man and, therefore, I must be free. Similarly, if no man can legitimately issue me orders then I am already free.

My definition of freedom is, therefore, the recognition by yourself that you are free to exercise your free-will in all circumstances and that you are obligated to no man.

This definition of freedom means that ‘involuntary servitude’, or slavery, is impossible. At all times, and in all places, you are entirely free to choose to obey the will of another, or run away, or fight, to the death if needs be. This, for me, is the true meaning of the quote attributed to Patrick Henry “Give me liberty, or give me death”. I do not believe that Henry meant ‘grant’ me liberty but ‘respect’ my liberty.

If my definition of liberty is indeed true, why then do dictionaries define it as “the absence of coercion”, like Merriam-Webster above?

As has been noted in many posts dictionaries do not define words, they simply record popular usage. Therefore, it is the masses that see their freedom as contingent on others i.e. the masses do not accept or believe that they are already free, and it is this lack of confidence that is being reported by dictionaries.

For completeness, and not to sound belligerent, I couldn’t care less whether you agree with my definition of freedom or not. It is how I understand freedom and, as it does not aggress against you in any way, you can have no legitimate interest in it.

If, however, you accept the dictionary definition of freedom, and do believe that you are beholden to others for your freedom (or anything else), then you may want to critically examine your anarchy.

Conclusion

Freedom is the acknowledgement by yourself that you are free to exercise your free-will in all circumstances and that you are obligated to no man.

You are free the moment that you meaningfully declare yourself to be so.

The task facing those who would be anarchists is to accept and embrace their pre-existing freedom, to cherish it, and to take responsibility for it.

The task facing anarchists is not to fight others to give the masses freedom, but to convince individuals that they are already free. Once sufficient individuals embrace their freedom, governing the remainder will become untenable.