Freedom, and the ideas which follow it, are a loose mix match of semantics created by the human mind. There is no universal definition of freedom, only a collective understanding.
Some consider freedom to be without restriction of certain laws, or having the choice to be able to fully commit and succeed in a certain ability or desire. In the United States, freedom is defined as what the law allows its citizens to do, what the law says, or rather doesn’t say, isn’t wrong, and the idea of freedom in the United States has begun to revolve around whether there is a law allowing a certain freedom, or not. The Bill of Rights was written as law, in fear that law may take away freedoms. Freedom in the United States has slowly become a synonym for laws which grant its citizens access to further abilities and desires.
Just as the ideas of Anarchism, and even Democracy in its real form, society and government, the latter lacking in Anarchism, are controlled by a participatory society. In an Anarchist society an individual chooses to work in society to make a forward process, and in Democracy the individuals choose to come forward and take action to control their government. In the same sense, freedom is the same; the ideas of freedom are participatory based upon the individual.
As an example, take the Biblical myth of Adam and Eve. They were created by their god, made naked and ignorant. They were happy, and had no cares, they were also completely free, for the example disregard their gods command to not eat from the Tree of Truth and Knowledge. Socially they were completey free in their own minds, they had nothing to fear, and they had all they wanted, in true bliss. However, once they did eat from the Tree of Truth and Knowledge, their ignorance deteriorated and they became more aware of their surroundings, they gained a new perspective of their lives. Previously, Adam and Eve were ignorant children wandering through a beautiful garden – then they were out in the barren lands striving to survive. This creates a new idea of life, and new views on many things; new social rules began to apply to them, and with that, new freedoms.
The example goes to show that each individual has their own conception of abilities, desires, and doctrines. These three things create their perspective on freedom, what they “can and cannot do, or want to do.” And these perceptions are active in our everyday society.
Some see the mechanics of capitalism as a corrupted and exploitive system, causing divides and conflicts. Some see it as a way to be able to get whatever you wish, a house, a car, and create their own living standard. Both views of the capitalist system are correct. In the latter of the two, an individual would feel they have full freedom. The freedom to choose their work, to change jobs on a whim if they so choose, the freedom to buy a house, the freedom to support a family. While in the first an individual could feel that their perspectives of freedom are oppressed. The individual could feel that they cannot afford the freedom of health care, they cannot afford the freedom of education, or feel that they are restricted in their perspectives due to their class position.
Of course, there are hundreds, if not thousands of different variants between the two statements that can generate different conflicts amongst the perspectives of freedom. But, the main focus is that freedom is a dynamic. Each individual has different freedoms that they acknowledge, and with that they either see them as oppressed or widely available.
It is not to be confused, however, that as an individual’s perception changes their freedoms become their struggle to survive against the perceptions of other individuals. Instead, the individual is struggling to protect their perceptions of freedom, to fulfill their abilities, desires, and doctrines. Freedom and struggle are not one and the same. Freedoms are manifested by the individual, therefore the individual also creates their own need to struggle to fulfill their perceptions of freedom.
As each individual creates their perception of freedom, and begin to collectively form a society, the society then has a perception of freedom all on its own, a collective melting pot of the individual perceptions; in a perfect world, this would cause the dominate perceptions of freedom to dictate society, but sometimes minority perceptions take hold. These perceptions at large then grow and teach new generations who then take them and make them their own, changing them or constructing wholly new ones.
A very timely example of the evolution of perceptions, and how individual perceptions travel through society is the United States current debacle with firearms. At the time of our independence, many of the citizens of the new nation owned firearms, and with them defended the lands of the new nation during the war with England. This created a dominant perception that there is a freedom to own a firearm for the need of protection. As our country developed into a stronger, more centralized government based around a tangle of laws, the Bill of Rights was created, Amendments to the legal document called the Constitution to insure the perceived basic freedoms of the society at large. Included was the freedom to own a firearm for the need of protection, also known as the “right to bear arms.”
Originally the perception of this freedom was to defend the homeland from outside intruders, but as the nation began to change and grow, so did the perception of its society. The freedom to own a firearm for protection began to be used as a means of protecting private property and private interest. Many citizens, though, still own guns for protection, as do many businesses to protect their profit. Then, as social ailments began to spring up throughout the nations growth, there became what some call “abusers” of the freedom. Unable to support themselves with conventional means, whether it be immigrant discrimination or any kind of discrimination, individuals began to head toward illegal activities to support their families, to fulfill their other desires. In this position the individual looses support of the police, in fact the whole government, and must resort to their own means for protection. The perception of these individuals then is the freedom to own a firearm for protection.
At current times the freedom to own a firearm for protection is debated. It has, as of late, not been needed is comparison to its original creation, the defending of the homeland. More individual are relying on the police than their own personal means of protection. Slowly the perception of needing a firearm for protection is deteriorating, but still has a major holding in the collective body. Individuals are seeing the, what they call, “abuse” of the freedom and want it to be removed as a lawful freedom established in our government, or at least heavily restricted. As time continues, the freedom to own a firearm for protective purposes may vanish from the United States. Society could continue to outweigh the “abuses” of the freedom against their perceptive need of possibly owning a firearm for protective purposes. Or, however, there could be a conflict on the homeland an the individual would again find the perception that a freedom to own a firearm for protection is needed. Or, in a rare case, many social ailments could be cured, and the “abuses” of the freedom could vanish, leaving the objection to the freedom null.
(The reference to “abuse” is not sympathizing with those who commit illegal activity. They are exercising their freedom by having firearms, it is considered “abuse” due to the manner in which they use these firearms [i.e. gang wars])
It can be seen in the legislative history of the United States that the perceptions of society often change. There have been many laws passed, Supreme Court decisions made, and then some time after reversed, if not just partially, either by a new generation full of new perceptions or some kind of social swing. Some individuals consider these changes in their favor, as they have many perceptions close to the majority of society, others however do not. Every individual has an immensely diverse perception of freedoms, almost no where identical to another individual.
Early it was mentioned that society takes on the most dominant perceptions of the individuals to create the main focus of freedoms in the society; but, this isn’t always true in a realistic world. In the United States the system has evolved and changed beyond the scope of what the founding fathers could have ever imagined. Currently government officials are affiliated with many large corporations and other organizations, but so were the founding fathers. Many of the founding fathers were rich slave holders, or had some sort of wealthy profession. These different connections shaped their perceptions of freedom, and the perception of what the United States should become. The founding fathers, however, may have not expected big business to lobby directly at Congress to sway its votes.
This is where the disruption of freedom begins. A society should always have a perception of freedom based on the collective perceptions of its individuals. In the United States, however, this is shifted. Large businesses, which are entirely small compared to the whole society, are able to push and pressure the government into the perceptions of freedoms created by the private sector, not those which the society has created. It is not to say that the collective society is all together replaced, but small, sometimes large, restraints have been pressed on a society when its perceptions clashed with that of the private sector.
The problems any society has when its perceptions are overridden by a minority must be worked out by the individuals within it. They must educate themselves, almost constantly, about their current environment and shifts within the society as a whole. The perceptions of society as a whole cannot be changed with one swift effort, it is on the hands of the individual to find cures to any ailments. Freedom is free, it is an individuals own manifestation, and no individual can direct another individuals perception unless that individual chooses to do so on their own free will. And, with that, perceptions of freedom change day by day, every experience gives new insight to current perceptions, or new ones. The society is a collection of individuals, a pool of different beings with different abilities, desires, and doctrines. Discussion and education shape these perceptions, communicate with peers and other members of the community, see their perceptions of freedom, and in the same time refine or discover new ones.
