Self-Mentoring XX ... Absolute freedom cannot exist.
Twenty. Twenty posts in this series that pretty much started my humble writing career. Well, more like posting carrer, but it still counts as writing, doesn’t it? Sometimes educational, other times hopeful and other times thought- or anger-provoking. And something tells me that the milestone is going to fit into the latter category.
I’m sure the title is already raising questions in your head and rightfully so. What do you mean, cannot exist? Well, I could come up with at least two interpretations.
Absolute freedom cannot be allowed to/ must not exist.
Or
It is impossible for absolute freedom to exist.
Two quite different wordings and yet they’ll reach similar explanation or goal. How? Let’s follow the train of thought.
For the sake of familiarity, let’s pick an example that’s been in the public circles so much in late years and it’s been dragged to so much mud and dirt that it’d barely recognise itself in the mirror, freedom of speech. What is it? In the era of social media it’s often touted as the freedom to say whatever you want. And at its face value, one would be correct. It’s indeed the right to say whatever you want without the fear of reprisal. Or is it? Because there’s a lot more to it.
From a legal and often constitutional standpoint, freedom of speech is often defined as the right to be critical towards your governmental representatives without the fear of prosecution. This ranges from being able to call your representatives a rotting sack of diarrhea to journalists being able to reporting on them in not-so-great light if something bad is revealed. Of course, there are rules and boundaries to observe. Laws regarding slander exist for a reason as well as laws defining an act of threat, neither of which are protected by mentioned freedom because at this moment a boundary is being crossed.
So why do some “protest” that their rights are being suppressed? Because it’s not about the freedom at all. It’s about the desire for unaccountability. They already have the freedom to say anything they want. But they don’t want to be prosecuted for it. But imagine if they had to live in such world; a world in which freedom of speech is absolute. In this world, they could be threatened on hourly basis and there would be nobody to protect them. No judicary would be able to enforce the rules because the moment they’d try, the freedom would cease to be absolute unless the words would be acted upon. But how would you know the words wouldn’t turn into action? Exactly, you wouldn’t be able to tell. And at this point you’re living in constant fear. How is that free?
Terrified? Now imagine this idea expanded to freedom in general. Imagine a world in which you can do absolutely anything. One could drive through a quiet neighbourhood at maximum speed, threatening lives of everyone outside and nothing could be done. One could get beaten up over a petty disagreement. One could get murdered just because someone wanted to display their superiority. See where I’m going? The amount of freedom is overwhelming, isn’t it? Except there’s very little freedom.
I’m sure everyone is familiar with the paradox of tolerance. Well, similar can be said about absolute freedom:
Absolute freedom cannot exist because it allows for one’s freedom to be restricted or taken away, therefore rendering it not absolute.
Now, try to apply this “conclusion” to the wordings above. Does it make sense? I’m sure it does for the second one because it kind of hits you in the face but what about the first one? Well, read the previous paragraph which describes what happens if you allow absolute freedom to exist.
R.R.A.