May I assume that we all distinguish positive and negative freedom - freedom to do something and freedom from restraint by another ? — Vera Mont

A short story on the 2 concepts of freedom or liberty:
'Imagine you are driving a car through town, and you come to a fork in the road...'
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/#TwoConLib

The ability to do what one wishes within reason such as not limiting the freedom of other living beings and acting in accordance with one’s free will.

Is it possible for anyone to have total freedom? — Vera Mont

Yes, but excluding illegal acts in a liberal society.

What kinds of freedom can a person have? — Vera Mont

The freedom to pursue one’s interests or happiness as long as they’re legal in the state the individual operates and lives in.

What kinds of freedom can subgroups have within a greater society? — Vera Mont

Freedoms that allow for greater or lesser freedoms by changing the laws of that society.

Are there natural, insurmountable limits to individual freedom? — Vera Mont

Yes but only in terms of immoral or illegal acts such as murder, theft and other types of criminal acts that impact someone else and are prohibited by law.

Are socially imposed limits necessary? — Vera Mont

Sometimes, for the reason to your last question.

Can and should all people have the same amount of personal freedom? — Vera Mont

Absolutely, given that we’re all born of equal capacity.

How do we distinguish a freedom from a right? — Vera Mont

Through legal frameworks.

A short story on the 2 concepts of freedom or liberty: — Amity

Well, that put a quick end to my desire for definitions! This* covers the subject admirably. Of course, having read it, I can't comment here, since much of what I might have said was expressed better than I could have done. So I recommend to anyone else who is interested that they read it only after they have added their own thoughts.

*Thanks, I've bookmarked it.

So I recommend to anyone else who is interested that they read it only after they have added their own thoughts. — Vera Mont

For sure! But I'm feeling like I can't be bothered to think, right now. Freedom to be lazy?!
Also bookmarked 40 types of freedom:
https://helpfulprofessor.com/types-of-freedom/

You're asking great questions over and above the 2 concepts.
There will be quite the conversation, I'm sure of it!
A wide net cast...

[Is it possible for anyone to have total freedom?] Yes, but excluding illegal acts in a liberal society. — simplyG

Doesn't the exclusion of a category negate 'total'? Isn't every law a limitation of individual freedom? Why does 'a liberal society'? All societies have laws, and usually conservative ones have more laws, more restrictions on individual action.

[Are there natural, insurmountable limits to individual freedom?]
Yes but only in terms of immoral or illegal acts such as murder, theft and other types of criminal acts that impact someone else. — simplyG

Those are hardly insurmountable limits, since some people transgress every one of them every day. The law that forbids those acts is an artificially imposed limit. By natural I mean something like a physical or psychological obstacle.

[Can and should all people have the same amount of personal freedom?]
Absolutely, given that we’re all born of equal capacity. — simplyG

I question that given. Society rejects it altogether, setting more legal limits on the freedom of some categories of person than of others, and depriving some people of any freedom of action.

[How do we distinguish a freedom from a right?]
Through legal frameworks. — simplyG

Do you not have your own idea of the difference? I think the difference is between the signatories to a social contract: the state and the citizen. Freedoms are what state allows the citizen to do unhampered (in return for which the citizen does not abuse his own freedom or violate that of his fellow citizens); rights are what the state guarantees the citizen (in return for which the citizen undertakes civic duties, such as paying tax and providing necessary service) .

A wide net cast... — Amity

... tends to land in the Lounge and disgorge sundry marlin, kelp and old boots.

...tends to land in the Lounge and disgorge sundry marlin, kelp and old boots. — Vera Mont

Not with your keen eye and focus it won't. It's placed specifically under 'Political Philosophy'.
Now, get back on topic, pronto!
Looking forward to a great exchange of views and arguments.

@Vera Mont

It’s interesting that we have laws that protect and also restrict certain freedoms, for example most people wish to not pay tax yet these are traded in for policing and maintenance of infrastructure of society as well as welfare in terms of healthcare or other types of monetary benefits that citizens would get that would not restrict the choice on their lifestyle were they to lose their jobs say.

But that some social contracts are forced does not mean an erosion in liberty or freedom even though certain governments may be incompetent in how they operate in redistribution of tax income or defending your freedoms from say another aggressive state which might have different aims such as China which operates high levels of censorship when it comes to free speech.

Do you not have your own idea of the difference? — Vera Mont

The right to bear arms for example is not the same for every country you live in.

May I assume that we all distinguish positive and negative freedom - freedom to do something and freedom from restraint by another ?

I have settled on a modified version of Axel Honneth's typology of freedom in Freedom's Right, based on Hegel's Elements of the Philosophy of Right.. I think Isiah Berlin's positive/negative distinction is a bit too vague, and leaves an important element, social freedom, off the menu as a main type.

My five types would be:

Negative Freedom as defined by an agent's freedom relative to the external world. It is freedom from external barriers that restrict one’s ability to act, e.g., the government or thieves seizing your tools so that you cannot work.

Reflexive Freedom is defined by subject’s freedom relative to themselves. To quote Hegel, “individuals are free if their actions are solely guided by their own intentions.” Thus, “man is a free being [when he] is in a position not to let himself be determined by natural drives.” i.e., when his actions are not subject to contingency.

Note that self-control is not enough here. We need self-control to get what we desire, but we also sometimes desire things we do not want to desire. Someone who shows tremendous self control covering up an adulterous relationship they don't want to have begun is not free. Frankfurt's "second order volition" concept is helpful here. We need to be able to desire what it is that we want to desire. Then we also need to the willpower to make our desire to desire X (as opposed to Y) effective.

Authenticity - we can have self-control and allow our selves to want what it is we want, but this is not freedom if we are not true to ourselves. Imagine a person raised in a cult, drilled in exercises of self-control. They may be able to engineer their desires, stop drive and instinct from being effective, and yet if they have not had space to discover their authentic selves they cannot be free. This sort of freedom has been described as bildung, development (Hegel), self-actualization (Maslow), and individuation (Jung).

Social Freedom is required because reflexive freedom only looks inward; it does not tie individual choices to any objective moral code. This being the case, an individual possessing such freedom may still choose to deprive others of their freedom. (This the contradiction inherent in globalizing Nietzsche’s “revaluation of all values”).

Since individuals will invariably have conflicting goals, there is no guarantee than anyone will be able to achieve such a self-directed way of life. Negative freedom is also contradictory because “the rational [reflexive] can come on the scene only as a restriction on [negative] freedom.” E.g., being free to become a doctor means being free to choose restrictions on one’s actions because that role entails certain duties. Positive freedom necessarily constrains negative freedom. We must identify with and desire duties that constrain negative freedom to be free.

Social Freedom then is the collective resolution of these contradictions through the creation of social institutions (the family, professional associations/guilds, markets, the state, etc.). Ideally, institutions objectify morality in such a way that individuals’ goals align, allowing people to freely choose actions that promote each other’s freedom and wellbeing. The free market does this (imperfectly obviously) by making the general health of the economy a matter of concern to all. Institutions achieve this by shaping the identities of their members, such that they derive their “feeling of selfhood” from, and recognize “[their] own essence” in, membership.

In the language of contemporary economics, we would say that institutions change members’ tastes, shifting their social welfare function such that they increasingly weigh the welfare of others when ranking “social states.” In doing so, institutions help resolve collective action problems. They allow citizens to transition into preferencing social welfare over maximal individual advantage.

Moral Freedom is the freedom to do what we think is good. It requires all the prior types to be perfected.

Is it possible for anyone to have total freedom?

No. We can't fly or turn back time, right? Absolute freedom requires a flight from any determinateness, as all determinations are constraints. For example, you can’t make a shape that is a triangle and also have it have 4 sides. Definiteness implies its own constraints.

Absolute freedom is a contradiction. If our choices never effect our other choices, if we can save our cake and eat it, move up while moving down, then we effectively choose nothing. Freedom collapses into the absolute lack of freedom. This is a classical Hegelian dialectical collapse. Freedom must sublate this lack of freedom, resulting in a modified conception where we "choose between" things, such that our freedom to choose necessarily constrains us from doing the things we do not choose.

Freedom also only exists in the context of change (becoming). You can only be free in the becoming present, in the moment of “now.” The past is already fixed, it must be so for it to give us a ground for determining our actions. The future cannot yet have been decided, else where is freedom? So, where is freedom except in the becoming present? Thus, freedom itself requires the ongoing passage of any “decisions” into “the already decided.” Freedom exists only in the mysterious twilight between “already has,” and “not yet.”

What kinds of freedom can subgroups have within a greater society?

I would just note on this point that the privileged class, the nobility, etc. are often made unfree by their special freedoms. The dictator can do many things the billionaire cannot, punish enemies more directly, drag women off the street, etc. But he cannot treat all his people as equals lest they use that freedom to remove him and he becomes the one with the boot on his throat. Minority rule makes the ruling minority unfree in this way; they cannot pick any path because they must always fear falling out of that elite group. You see this in the widespread status anxiety of economic elites today.

Second, the lord is unable to get recognition, thymos, from the bondsman. They have made the inferior person an "other" who cannot give them the recognition they crave. You see this best in "Manosphere blogs" and with "Pick Up Artist" communities. I have never read one of these where the author seems happy. They continually chase and manipulate women to get validation from them, but then that validation is never enough because they have othered them. Simone de Beavoir is great on this.

Hegel covers this phenomena in the Phenomenology with the Lord-Bondsman dialectical and Saint Augustine covers it in the City of God when he explains why Rome is not a "common wealth."

Are there natural, insurmountable limits to individual freedom?

Sadly. Still waiting on those Star Trek transporters. But determinism itself is a prerequisite of freedom. Leibniz originally formulated the Principle of Sufficient Reason to explain, not preclude freedom. For us to be free, our actions must be based on reasons. Arbitrariness is not freedom. If you play a video game, and every time you press a button something different happens, then you have not been given choices, just the sensation of action.

Freedom is contradictory in this way. Our actions must be determined by the world to be free. But as Bohr said, "the opposite of a truth is a falsehood, but the opposite of a profound truth is often another profound truth."

Are socially imposed limits necessary?

See above, re social freedom

Can and should all people have the same amount of personal freedom?

No. Because freedom requires development and development sometimes means doing things we don't desire. Would I have learned to read and analyze texts if no one made me? Probably. Would I have learned much mathematics? Nope. But knowing mathematics has made me more free.

Children are a prime example, but in the US we also have Casey's Law, such that relatives can force their drug addicted relatives to go to rehab.

How do we distinguish a freedom from a right?

Tough question. I would tend to think of the rights as the general principles that help promote freedom. But since society is a complex system, such rights aren't absolute, but rather guiding tendencies that should be brought towards perfection over the course of civilization's and individuals' development. Thus, early civilizations ensured few rights, and children have few rights, but as we progress more emerge (granted backsliding happens, it is a chaotic system).

-----

Anyhow, I think there is a moral element to freedom too. We aren't free if we are doing what we think is wrong, since obviously in an ideal world we would tend to want to do the right thing, right?

But morality is a limit on our reflexive and negative freedom, telling us what our desires should be and constraining action.To do good and to be free requires understanding the world, understanding the consequences of our choices.

We have a moral duty to be free then, so that we can choose the good. This is why criminals have a right to be punished. We do not punish merely to deter crime. To do this is to treat another human being like an animal to be domesticated.

Freedom requires knowledge of nature, and so we must study the sciences. We are natural creatures and must understand nature to understand ourselves. Likewise, we must master nature, “subdue it and have dominion over it,” in order to enact our will.

Freedom requires knowledge of the Logos, and so we must study philosophy, logic, and mathematics.

Freedom requires knowledge of the self, and so we must study psychology, the great works of art, etc.

For the individual, I think the path to freedom climaxes in moral freedom, in a paradox. To paraphrase Luther, "A free man is lord of all, subject to none. And yet he is servant to all, lording over none."

Apologies if this is a bit long. I have thought a lot on this and have some articles to draw on:
https://medium.com/@tkbrown413/why-freedom-is-the-key-to-happiness-be274bf5135c
https://medium.com/@tkbrown413/why-francis-fukuyamas-last-man-is-not-a-paradox-55310474e1fd
https://medium.com/@tkbrown413/freedom-requires-determinism-3cf4025d3c3d

Apologies if this is a bit long. I have thought a lot on this and have some articles to draw on:
https://medium.com/@tkbrown413/why-freedom-is-the-key-to-happiness-be274bf5135c
https://medium.com/@tkbrown413/why-francis-fukuyamas-last-man-is-not-a-paradox-55310474e1fd
https://medium.com/@tkbrown413/freedom-requires-determinism-3cf4025d3c3d — Count Timothy von Icarus

I started on the first article and stopped short at this:

We have a duty to be free. This is why criminals have a right to be punished. — Why freedom is the key to happiness - tkbrown

What is meant by a duty to be free?
And how does it follow that 'criminals have a right to be punished'?

It is a collection of short things I wrote for someone, so perhaps it needs a bit more context. See:

We have a moral duty to be free then, so that we can choose the good. This is why criminals have a right to be punished. We do not punish merely to deter crime. To do this is to treat another human being like an animal to be domesticated.

If we don't do what is good, it seems like we will very likely trample other's freedom. But when we make ourselves lords over others, we become unfree ourselves. First, because we now must fear them rising up, taking vengeance, etc. Second, because we aren't free to treat them like equals and get recognition from them as equals. Think, the king who can never know if his poetry is good because everyone has to blow smoke up his ass.

But establishing broad based equality requires moral action, since obviously we often desire to do immoral things that harm others, and their freedom.

Punishment has a deterrent aspect, a training aspect, but that can't be all there is. We want people punished to come to understand justice so that they will freely be just, not just trained to be just. If all we do is train them, then as soon as the lash is out of our hand they rise up to inflict punishment on us. We also want to restore justice. If our punishment leaves the criminal still better off, say they do a year in minimum security but make off with $20 million, then our society has clearly not restored justice.

Thanks.
But then I've just gone on to read, under the same heading:
The Essence of Freedom is What is Essential to It

[...] We are the midwives of the Absolute. We are Mary, the theotokos, giving birth to the Body of Christ, his Church. As the Blessed Virgin served to create his first physical body, so we now construct his immanent body through world history. We come together to form the Church and strive to fulfill its Marian mission of the creation of the Body of Christ.

I really don't see how this follows.

***

Edit: since writing the above, I note you added significantly more to your originally brief reply.

This is less in topic, so I didn't post any of that in the response, and I don't want to derail the thread by getting into that in depth, although I can send a PM if you're curious. Maybe I should have put the links at the bottom in case people were curious.

Very short explanation is it is a theological reference to the concept of the Church as the immanent body of Christ. The church is created by humans, physically, in a way that parallels pregnancy, thus the "Marian mode." In a Christian context, the Church is obviously supposed to be an immanent force for good (something it has failed at often) and thus plays a role in advancing freedom. But you could say similar things about the state (e.g. Hegel) from a secular standpoint, and the role of the citizen in terms of social freedoms, but the Church and state obviously have different domains they interact in vis-á-vis the individual.

I never expected anything so exhaustive! And impressive. I'll have to mull over a few particulars, but I certainly get the main points and have no arguments at this time. I may need to revisit moral obligation and punishment.

For now, I especially liked this:

I would tend to think of the rights as the general principles that help promote freedom. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That should be elaborated in terms of social organization and relationships. Not necessarily by you - unless you're so inclined - I'm pretty sure everyone has a perspective on this.

May I assume that we all distinguish positive and negative freedom - freedom to do something and freedom from restraint by another ? — Vera Mont

Well I do.

Is it possible for anyone to have total freedom?

No. Free acts are necessarily constrained by consequences.

What kinds of freedom can a person have?

Liberty. Morality. Freethought. Agency Ecstacy.

What kinds of freedom can subgroups have within a greater society?

Individuals, not (sub)groups are free.

Are there natural, insurmountable limits to individual freedom?

Yes.

Are socially imposed limits necessary?

No.

Can and should all people have the same amount of personal freedom?

This question doesn't make sense to me.

How do we distinguish a freedom from a right?

The latter limits – protects – the former (aka "liberty").

Quick early morning thoughts re:

1. Is it possible for anyone to have total freedom?
2. What kinds of freedom can a person have?
3. What kinds of freedom can subgroups have within a greater society?
4. Are there natural, insurmountable limits to individual freedom?
5. Are socially imposed limits necessary?
6. Can and should all people have the same amount of personal freedom?
7. How do we distinguish a freedom from a right? — Vera Mont

1. No. Death might be the ultimate freedom.
2. As many as can be thought of but usually limited and categorised, as per: https://helpfulprofessor.com/types-of-freedom/
Freedoms to read, reflect, write, choose, roam and wonder...desire, fear, vote, pray, eat leaves.
3. What 'greater society' are you thinking of? Subgroups or tribes, there are many. Freedoms limited.
4.

By natural I mean something like a physical or psychological obstacle. — Vera Mont

So, yes.
5. What specifically do you mean by 'social' and 'imposition'?
6. How do you quantify 'amount' of personal freedom? The 'should' suggests an ethical component, as in @Count Timothy von Icarus's 'Duty and Punishment'. A squiggly can of worms, probably worth a thread of its own.

We have a moral duty to be free then, so that we can choose the good. This is why criminals have a right to be punished. We do not punish merely to deter crime. To do this is to treat another human being like an animal to be domesticated.

7. They are related; complex and overlap, according to type and context:
Bookmarked:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/
section 4 - Rights and Freedom
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/#RighFree

Freedom requires knowledge of nature, and so we must study the sciences. We are natural creatures and must understand nature to understand ourselves. Likewise, we must master nature, “subdue it and have dominion over it,” in order to enact our will.

Freedom requires knowledge of the Logos, and so we must study philosophy, logic, and mathematics.

Freedom requires knowledge of the self, and so we must study psychology, the great works of art, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

We. Must. Must we? Really? So much freedom...for all...

Must we? Really? — Amity

It does seem that people are quite 'free' not to do so. :wink:

This is less in topic, so I didn't post any of that in the response, and I don't want to derail the thread by getting into that in depth, although I can send a PM if you're curious. Maybe I should have put the links at the bottom in case people were curious. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Better than a PM, perhaps your thinking and writing on certain aspects of freedom warrant their very own thread!? I agree that it would be easy to derail this one. Freedom to explore! But best to keep focus...I think. And yes, it helps that the links are now at the end.

It does seem that people are quite 'free' not to do so. — wonderer1

Praise be and hallelujah!
Anything else you'd like to add? Feel free...-ish...

For me, the word freedom, forms as a list of what I want to be free from. The problems come when one persons sense of freedom clashes with another's. Negotiation and cooperation seem best to me.
I assume 'freedom' presupposes the existence of human 'freewill,' for anyone who employs the word.

You may search
At any cost
But how long
Can you search for what’s not lost?
Everybody will help you
Some people are very kind
But if I can save you any time
Come on, give it to me
I’ll keep it with mine — Bob Dylan

When I am most free, I am least concerned about freedom and have no feeling of freedom. I make no choices at the crossroads, but dance to the rhythm of my heart.

I am in free-fall, glad at the next moment to be arrested by my parachute, and strung up in the sky. Perhaps to be unburdened, to be without connection, is not after all to be free.

But instead to want to be nowhere else but right here, right now, laboriously explaining the obvious again.

Right! A lot of musts for freedom. That's the paradox of freedom within the context of human society and world history. It turns out that being free requires much of us.

Let me explain how I think this makes sense, without being contradictory.

Obviously, at the individual level we are free to learn very little about the world and how it works, and free to not spend time in self-reflection.

Just as obviously though, this has some effect on our freedom "to do things," because our ability to bring states of affairs about that we prefer is totally grounded in what we think the causal impact of our actions will be. E.g., if you don't have any idea how a car works, you aren't free to fix your mom's car for her no matter how much you want to unless you learn how to do it. Thus, the mustof knowledge. You aren't fully free to improve your health if you have scant understanding of diet and exercise, and indeed people fall for unhealthy fad diets all the time and don't get the results they want for lack of knowledge.


With YouTube and free books it's hard to remember that guilds and other groups often fought hard to hide knowledge from the public. The fact that we can get so much information easily enhances our freedom in this way, so there is a social "must" as well.

I was actually thinking about a more global "we," in those cases, of which the individual is one part. "We" as a society must cultivate knowledge about the world, how to irrigate crops, how to create fertilizer, etc. to be free from the contingencies of nature. For a great deal of human existence, humanity was at the mercy of weather patterns. Humans died in droves when weather patterns shifted too much outside the norm.

Moreover, societies with more advanced military technology have had a consistent habit of conquering all those peoples without them. So, the collective we has a hard time being free to return to the primordial forests, even if an individual can. The flow of history shows that better organized states and more advanced ones tend to extend their influence over those that are weaker, damaging their freedom.

So, the "must" of knowledge is related to both the individuals causal powers and society's. But also to the fact that societies where basic needs are met, largely through advances in knowledge, have haltingly progressed at providing more development to their citizens and more negative freedom.

When mass starvation starts, man taking away the freedom of man follows. You're not particularly free if you're murdered, and mankind's natural homicide rate is estimated at around 2,000 per 100,000, about par for similar mammals, but the equivalent of 6.6 million homicides a year in the US, 10 times the nation's death toll in WWII in a single year.

Just as obviously though, this has some effect on our freedom "to do things," because our ability to bring states of affairs about that we prefer is totally grounded in what we think the causal impact of our actions will be. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It's not clear to me that greater capability for doing things successfully is an indicator of greater freedom. Contrary to your suggestion that 'we must master nature, “subdue it and have dominion over it,” in order to enact our will', my experience shows that nature never bends to my will. Getting things done as an engineer is substantially a matter of understanding that nature is going to be nature and working with it to the extent that I am able to understand how to.

However, this is a good thread and I don't want to derail it into a free will vs determinism discussion.

I think we're talking about the same thing. All I mean is, "part of freedom is being able to do what you desire." What is a common desire of man? "To have enough food." Well, here noticing ways in which nature works allows us to do that. E.g., if we put seeds here, the plants will grow, animals are "like father, like son," and so "if we breed the gentle sheep they will be easier to shepherd," etc.

Obviously we are part of nature, so the distinction is artificial. But freedom is, in part, using our knowledge of cause and effect to bring about states of affairs we prefer. A person with no understanding of cause and effect (hard to envisage) has no grounds for thinking any action will bring about their will better than any other (or non-action). The more we know, the more we are able to shape states of affairs such that circumstances we desire obtain. "I would like to get from NYC to LA in a day," for example, is currently only possible through understanding lift, metallurgy, etc., all the things that make airplanes possible.

The more we know, the more we are able to shape states of affairs such that circumstances we desire obtain. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Or we could try shaping our desires to the circumstances.

But personally, I prefer to leave things the shape they are, and not be a slave to circumstance or desire.

5. What specifically do you mean by 'social' and 'imposition'? — Amity

I meant constitutional clauses, enacted legislation, enforceable laws. The rules of a country or bylaws of a city by which all residents are expected to abide, and face formal reprisal of some kind if they break.

6. How do you quantify 'amount' of personal freedom?

Usually by specific rights and freedoms. Children are not free to choose their occupation or buy cigarettes; mental patients have no freedom of association; prisoners on parole may not leave the jurisdiction. Non-residents are not allowed to seek employment. Some societies place restrictions on women or ethnic minorities. There is also a great variation in enforcement of theoretical freedoms and rights. A child may have freedom of speech and under the law, yet the law will not step between him and a disapproving father to enforce the child's right to curse.

The 'should' suggests an ethical component,

I meant only to ask for opinion, whether on ethical, rational or sentimental grounds.

But freedom is, in part, using our knowledge of cause and effect to bring about states of affairs we prefer. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's clear now, and a valuable insight, I believe.
I keep reflecting back on the little I know of First Nations philosophies.

Native American culture and politics revolved around the individual. ....The position of Where You Are put the individual at the center of her universe, with the other six directions dependent on her. While this symbolic position honored the individual as the star in her own universe, it also implied that she possessed the power and the opportunity to keep that universe in balance. The Cherokees, like the Iroquois and others, viewed this balancing act as the product of lifelong self-discovery. To this end, the cultures offered a tolerant environment for artistic, sexual, philosophical, and spiritual experimentation. To reflect this they also allowed children to change their names as they grew and explored themselves. An act of heroism, a discovered talent, a cultivated physical or spiritual trait, even a famous relative could be cause for name-changing. The community thereby encouraged the individual to define and redefine himself freely throughout the course of his life.

IMO, this is where moral freedom, the freedom to pursue what we think is good, comes in. To be sure, we could come to agree with all natural circumstances, overcoming instinct and desire. But we might think some circumstances we find in something approaching a "state of nature," for mankind are not good: widespread food insecurity, constant band level warfare, thralldom and slavery for the vanquished, male relatives exerting undue control over their female relatives' romantic relationships, infanticide etc.

In moral freedom, freedom becomes a moral imperative in that, to do the good, we must be free to do so. So, if there are ways of enhancing freedom, we should enact them.

But this really ties into the idea of progress in history, Eusebius, Hegel, etc., which I think is worth its own thread.

Freedom is an idea. The word doesn’t describe much and can often be used to suit anyone’s purpose. I’ll suit it to my own.

The suffix “-dom” indicates that it is a condition, so we can understand that someone examines their own brain for imagery of a state of affairs, or they keep multiplying nouns to make any sense of it.

The suffix also indicates that the word is an adjective made into a noun. Adjectives can be used to describe the world. The adjective is “free”. When used to describe a person, this person is free to the extent that he is not interfered with, if others leave him alone. He is free if others do not censor him, coerce him, enslave him, attack him, imprison him, and so on. So the condition of “freedom” is only possible when the arbitrary wills of countless people align in such a way that they will all, each of them, refuse to interfere in the life of another. So it could be said that freedom is a condition dependent on the good, freedom-loving will of others, traits which are currently in short supply.

Just to add, Neo-Republicans Philip Pettit and Quentin Skinner propose that there exists a kind of liberty distinct from its negative and positive varieties. This Republican version, though rarely explicated, courses through the European and American traditions all the way from the Roman constitution until today, according to them.

Republican liberty finds its footing on the premise of “non-domination”, defined as the independence from another’s arbitrary will. It differs from the liberal tradition of liberty as “non-interference” insofar as one needn’t rely on another’s good will in order for Republican liberty to manifest.

Professor Pettit always uses Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House as an example.

The banker Torvald was so enamoured with his wife, Nora, that he’d let her get away with anything. Despite the glaring disparity in the equality of the sexes at that time and setting, both legally and culturally, Torvald never got in her way, so Nora had a kind of liberty not available to most women. She lived in that state of “non-interference” as defined by the liberal tradition because Torvald rarely interfered in her life.

But was Nora really free? Not according to Pettit. If at any moment the good will of Torvald went parabolic, he would have all the legal and cultural right to interfere with Nora’s life. In other words, Nora’s liberty was dependent on the arbitrary will of Torvald. If Torvald’s will was good, she was not interfered with; if it was bad, she was interfered with, and Torvald would have every right to do so. Thus, Nora was in no state of liberty at all—quite the opposite. Her status was that of the Roman servus. Her slavery was hung above her head, always present, even while Torvald refused to interfere.

Nora was still in bondage to her master’s will because she was forever dependant on it. This dependency is important to the neo-republican. Nora toiled towards keeping Torvald happy, and serving him in order to retain some semblance of her liberty. She had to self-censor. She had to be nice and pleasant even when she would prefer to do otherwise. This sacrifice, in combination with her status in relation to Torvald, is why Nora had no liberty despite Torvald’s non-interference in her life.

The Republican relies on the Rule of Law and the good will of the State to protect him from another’s arbitrary will, finally setting him free. For someone like Nora to be free, to have Republican liberty, the state must protect her status, and remove all the legal and cultural forces someone like Torvald might use to dominate her.