The Meaning of Freedom
For most Filipinos the ideal of freedom means license; a license to do or say whatever they think is right by them without regard to the consequences of their actions or words; a license to do what they feel is in their best interest even when the consequences of their actions represents everything that is against the very ideal of freedom. Understood as a license to unbridled action, the very ideal is used lopsidedly to enslave another; those who take freedom as a license are driven by the “could” and never by the “should” that characterizes free action.
Knowing the difference between “could” and “should” in the commission of action determines the level of our maturity as a free people. These interrogatives demarcate between a freedom that is bound by norms to one that is antinomian in character. Those whose freedom is bound to norms will carefully qualify actions by asking whether they “should” act; those whose freedom is not bound to norms (antinomian) will simply act because they “could” act without regard to any sentient consequence their actions will result in.
I remember my days when I served as a reserve deputy for the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department during the mid 1990’s. As part of our training classes and exercises, we were taught how to secure and clear an area when surrounded by hostiles. It was necessary for advance teams to systemically secure an area before allowing the rest of the teams to advance into that designated position. Only after an area has been secured could the rest of the team securely and freely maneuver within that secured area – but not until then. Advance teams take their jobs very seriously as the lives of the men on their detail or unit are at stake. To warrant an area secure is something that no police officer or soldier takes lightly.
The military employs minesweepers to clear an area from the threat of anti-personnel mines. In the old days, soldiers get on their knees and systematically poke through every segment of dirt to ensure that that area is free of mines. The secured areas are then flagged or marked. Today, more high tech means, such as an M1 Abrams tank fitted with minesweeping device, rapidly clears an area from the threat of anti-personnel mines in a fraction of the time it took in the old days, with very little risk to the vehicle operator or its passengers. People are only allowed to freely roam or walk through a secured area. The flags provide a visible reference that demarcates between secure and danger zones.
I brought up these two scenarios to illustrate the ideal of freedom. By analogy, freedom is not without its essential boundaries. While soldiers can, in theory, choose to walk outside the confines of these visible flags, no soldier in their right mind will do so as it will spell certain death. While assault units can choose to freely advance into unsecured areas, no police officer in their right mind will do so as it too will spell certain death.
In the same way the military or law enforcement units secures areas to ensure the well being of their peers and enable the free movement of people within that secured location, so must we establish boundaries that protect the exercise of our individual and collective freedoms. But unlike the physical boundaries employed by the military or tactical law enforcement personnel, the boundaries that circumscribe our freedom as a free people are abstract in nature. These abstractions take the form of values and norms that must be exercised and enforced by every individual within a free society if the system of freedom is to be enjoyed by every individual within that society. The moment any individual steps outside these boundaries and violates the freedom of another without due recompense, the system of freedom will fail.
This means that although we are free to say whatever we wish, we should individually temper what we say by first qualifying whether we “should” say what is in our minds and whether what we will say can edify or build up another or reinforce the values that protect freedom in general. This also means that though we are free to act, we must first ensure that our actions are tempered by the “should” and not by the “could” in order to qualify whether our actions will violate the freedom of another.
The exercise of unbound freedom is as dangerous as restricting freedom. These are the extremes that we must all avoid as these both violate the very principles that constitute the very ideal of free action. A society that allows the actions of a few individuals to curtail the free action of another is not a free society but a shackled one.
Protecting the integrity of freedom is a continuous balancing act across a precariously thin line that separates extremes. Individuals that act out of sheer license (bound by the could and not the should) clearly have no intention of protecting another’s freedom but are people who uses the ideal of freedom (in extremes) to benefit their vested interests and agendas.
This concept of a freedom protected by abstract boundaries is essential to the exercise of a progressive democracy. Without this will and commitment to protect these boundaries, democracies can easily be used by the few and powerful to push their own interests and agendas. The moment this happens, democracy simply becomes a very potent tool for the powerful few. Unless we can guarantee that free men understand and employ boundaries, we will have great difficulty in accepting the will of our very own masses. Unless we provide for systems that reinforce these boundaries, our version of democracy shall remain questionable and incredulous.
Employing these abstract boundaries provides for a tempered democracy and a tempered democracy is crucible to maintaining a progressive democracy. Tempered speech, and tempered action; these are essentials to a progressive democracy.
I pray that the time will soon come when our definition of freedom transforms from one that is unbridled to one that is tempered by conscientious action and bound to absolutes and boundaries that frame our norms and value systems as individuals, as citizens, and as a people that comprise a nation of laws.
Knowing the difference between “could” and “should” in the commission of action determines the level of our maturity as a free people. These interrogatives demarcate between a freedom that is bound by norms to one that is antinomian in character. Those whose freedom is bound to norms will carefully qualify actions by asking whether they “should” act; those whose freedom is not bound to norms (antinomian) will simply act because they “could” act without regard to any sentient consequence their actions will result in.
I remember my days when I served as a reserve deputy for the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department during the mid 1990’s. As part of our training classes and exercises, we were taught how to secure and clear an area when surrounded by hostiles. It was necessary for advance teams to systemically secure an area before allowing the rest of the teams to advance into that designated position. Only after an area has been secured could the rest of the team securely and freely maneuver within that secured area – but not until then. Advance teams take their jobs very seriously as the lives of the men on their detail or unit are at stake. To warrant an area secure is something that no police officer or soldier takes lightly.
The military employs minesweepers to clear an area from the threat of anti-personnel mines. In the old days, soldiers get on their knees and systematically poke through every segment of dirt to ensure that that area is free of mines. The secured areas are then flagged or marked. Today, more high tech means, such as an M1 Abrams tank fitted with minesweeping device, rapidly clears an area from the threat of anti-personnel mines in a fraction of the time it took in the old days, with very little risk to the vehicle operator or its passengers. People are only allowed to freely roam or walk through a secured area. The flags provide a visible reference that demarcates between secure and danger zones.
I brought up these two scenarios to illustrate the ideal of freedom. By analogy, freedom is not without its essential boundaries. While soldiers can, in theory, choose to walk outside the confines of these visible flags, no soldier in their right mind will do so as it will spell certain death. While assault units can choose to freely advance into unsecured areas, no police officer in their right mind will do so as it too will spell certain death.
In the same way the military or law enforcement units secures areas to ensure the well being of their peers and enable the free movement of people within that secured location, so must we establish boundaries that protect the exercise of our individual and collective freedoms. But unlike the physical boundaries employed by the military or tactical law enforcement personnel, the boundaries that circumscribe our freedom as a free people are abstract in nature. These abstractions take the form of values and norms that must be exercised and enforced by every individual within a free society if the system of freedom is to be enjoyed by every individual within that society. The moment any individual steps outside these boundaries and violates the freedom of another without due recompense, the system of freedom will fail.
This means that although we are free to say whatever we wish, we should individually temper what we say by first qualifying whether we “should” say what is in our minds and whether what we will say can edify or build up another or reinforce the values that protect freedom in general. This also means that though we are free to act, we must first ensure that our actions are tempered by the “should” and not by the “could” in order to qualify whether our actions will violate the freedom of another.
The exercise of unbound freedom is as dangerous as restricting freedom. These are the extremes that we must all avoid as these both violate the very principles that constitute the very ideal of free action. A society that allows the actions of a few individuals to curtail the free action of another is not a free society but a shackled one.
Protecting the integrity of freedom is a continuous balancing act across a precariously thin line that separates extremes. Individuals that act out of sheer license (bound by the could and not the should) clearly have no intention of protecting another’s freedom but are people who uses the ideal of freedom (in extremes) to benefit their vested interests and agendas.
This concept of a freedom protected by abstract boundaries is essential to the exercise of a progressive democracy. Without this will and commitment to protect these boundaries, democracies can easily be used by the few and powerful to push their own interests and agendas. The moment this happens, democracy simply becomes a very potent tool for the powerful few. Unless we can guarantee that free men understand and employ boundaries, we will have great difficulty in accepting the will of our very own masses. Unless we provide for systems that reinforce these boundaries, our version of democracy shall remain questionable and incredulous.
Employing these abstract boundaries provides for a tempered democracy and a tempered democracy is crucible to maintaining a progressive democracy. Tempered speech, and tempered action; these are essentials to a progressive democracy.
I pray that the time will soon come when our definition of freedom transforms from one that is unbridled to one that is tempered by conscientious action and bound to absolutes and boundaries that frame our norms and value systems as individuals, as citizens, and as a people that comprise a nation of laws.
Labels: Democracy, Filipino, Freedom, Mindsets, Philippines, Tempered Action
posted by Dennis Reyes, Ph.D. at
6:10 AM
|
1 Comments
