Freedom. There’s as subject that’s banded around as if it’s a simple matter. It’s not.
Let’s start with Thomas Hobbes in the 17th Century. He says freedom is the absence of external obstacles. Thus, if a person is not restrained from doing what they will then they are free. That’s an individualistic view. However, what happens when the theory is applied to a murderer, a thief or conman? I would like to see such a person presented with obstacles. By the way, I’m taking liberties as Hobbes was more nuanced than my description of his philosophy.
Let’s say I’m more inclined to John Stuart Mill’s thinking. Liberty (freedom) is to be free to think, say, and act as one wishes on condition that resulting actions do not harm others. Autonomy has a condition. This is nice. Hold on, isn’t the range of what might be generally considered as “harm” a wide one? In the past, school children may have chanted: “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Quaint, and in the modern context a saying that is clearly utter nonsense.
In Britain individuals are free. However, boundaries are placed on that freedom by law and by social convention. Freedom of thought, speech and action are to be cherished and defended. In my mind that means challenging boundaries where constraints might be overzealous.
Words used with intent to harm others should face public objection. Words that may annoy or unsettle or question others, well that’s a different matter. A dynamic balance must be sought.
John Vincent 