Freedom
Freedom. Perhaps the concept with the most numerous and varied meanings to different people. Indeed any discussion that professes to be a complete examination of freedom would either be a masterpiece or an arrogant boast. Henceforth I will not make such a claim. Instead, let us consider what the idea of freedom means subjectively.
In a nutshell, freedom is a state-the state of being at liberty. It is so complex a concept that it can only be broadly categorized into either personal freedom or the freedom of a collective group. Even so, within these two branches there exists many sub-divisions.
Consider national independence. Easy enough to grasp surely, but yet much has been made throughout the course of recent history on the subject of sovereignty. The United Nations, the one and only intercontinental and global body of nations, recognizes the sovereignty of every one of its member nations. At face value, this is common sense. After all, a country should, in order to preserve law and order and also to progress economically, must reserve the right to govern herself. Subjecting herself to the whims, fancies and interests of another, possibly more powerful country, would undoubtedly be to her own detriment. This is apparent especially in the era of the Soviet Union. Countries in the Eastern bloc, held together by the iron-fist of Moscow, found themselves financially weaker than their Western counterparts. This can be attributed to their inability to make decisions that would benefit them, but instead having to place Moscow’s interests first. The physical manifestation of the curse of a lack of freedom is the Berlin Wall, which thankfully stands no longer. East, restricted in all ways possible, was a pale shadow of West. In this context freedom must be advocated. We must all stand, as Pope John Paul II did in 1979 against evil empires that control other nations, depriving them of such basic rights as sovereignty and the right to self-determination.
Which then begets the issue. What happens if a nation' right for sovereignty comes at the cost of the rights of its own people. History has shown that the UN has proven ineffective in dealing with issues of genocide, in Cambodia for example, simply because it cannot intervene with the Khmer Rouge’s established independence. As a result of this, millions suffered and perished unnecessarily under a tyranny that arguably could have been stopped. On that example, we would probably agree that the freedom of a country to govern itself is less essential that the rights of the people that falls under the government. Is this argument logical? If so, then how do we account for the violent objections against the US-led invasion of Iraq? Was it not a process that led to the toppling and the capture of one of the most ruthless, and dare I say it, evil, dictators, comparable to Stalin or Hitler? Perhaps we can argue that it was unjustified and in the sole economic interest of the US. Yet is it not better for the world to be without Saddam Hussein for a wrong purpose than maintain our moral high ground and turn a blind eye to the silent unheard voices of those tortured by him.
Now to personal freedom. What is that exactly? There are so many aspects to such a simple phrase “personal freedom” that it would be impossible to cover it all. Let us however break it down once again. Let us start with fundamental human rights. Surely, unquestionably, no human person should be denied the basic rights, so summed up in the UN Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html). I assume this needs no further argument. No one should ever again have the control over another’s life or assets. Slavery is a thing of the past and never again should it rear its head in our civilized world.
While physical bondage is now frowned upon, dare I suggest a new way of losing our freedom. That is conformity. In this age, people are increasingly affected by the way others perceive them, otherwise to the responsibilities of living in the 21st century. My stand can be summed up thus. True freedom is the freedom to be who you really are. Too often we deprive ourselves of this right, consciously or not. We fit into a certain prototype, the type of person our society demands that we be. As such, we live in such slavery, not to anyone except ourselves. This may be easily agreed upon but hard to act out. After all, this thought is taught to us, succumb not to peer pressure, listen not to the media that demands we starve ourselves to look good. Yet subconsciously, we all fall prey to it. Who is not a lover of popularity? But in reality, it is this very love of popularity that causes us to be slaves, to the world, to society, and astonishingly to ourselves. To be a rebel is not to be free, it is to be a slave of another kind. One who truly knows himself, who truly is the person he is, does not require rebellion or the like, he is free.
At another level, which I suppose may be more controversial, is to challenge the traditional Asian concepts of responsibility to country and family. We suffer as much being slaves to the wishes of our parents who sometimes ask us to take paths we have no inclination to. Or the working father who is trapped in a job that he has no interest in but persists because it brings home the dough. You can choose to admire the heroic, noble nature of this. However, you must also admit that it is nevertheless a loss of freedom.
I have left out discussions on such issues such as the freedom of the media and the freedom of speech due to time constraints. I apologize but hey, could be saving me a jail term.
mark nicodemus at 7:16 pm