The Paradox of Freedom: Part I

The PROBLEM as I see it: We find our selves as a country wrestling with a conundrum, a living hypocrisy that is eating away at our body politic. That is, our country has been founded on the notion that there are some things that we as a collective society of individuals must agree to do together, in order to maintain our status as individuals. And therein lies the problem. Having accepted the premise that there are some things in which we must work together on (and hence sacrifice our sense of individuality), it now becomes difficult to argue which other things we must not be required to work together on.

Put another way, our founders decided that a nation of individuals, being a most high ideal, could not be obtained by those individuals remaining completely such. That is, for an instant in time they were indeed individuals, complete and sovereign (politically), owing no allegiance to anyone but themselves. But immediately after that moment they began to choose to join in compact with other sovereign individuals, for the purpose of defending against those that would remove their individuality.

But was this a bargain with the devil? When the first colonial said to the second colonial, "let's take up arms together, so that we may protect ourselves. We'll stand back to back so that no one may sneak up on us," was that the end of their lives as pure individuals? Or was the choice they made as individuals the very validation of themselves? After all, they chose to join together, and no one else made them to do so. And when a thief did sneak up and was shot by the colonials, did not they preserve themselves, to go on making choices?

"The freedom you enjoy, is the freedom enjoyed by others to use against you," they reason to themselves, after all while they walked where they would, so could the thieves! "But the freedom you sacrifice is the freedom sacrificed of others that they can no longer use against you," they reason further, and decide they have done a good thing. After they were joined, they could only walk where the other desired and vice-versa, but the thieves were denied walking behind the one or the other now.

Of course, the real question is can you make a choice to have no more choices? Can the first colonist choose to be joined forever to the second colonist? And is it really a choice if you cannot return from it?

Let us suppose that the colonists find themselves among many other like minded individuals, so many that the use of them all for a defense requires an overseer to coordinate the project. The overseer is chosen by a means agreed to by all the individuals, and performs his function of coordinating the defense of the group of individuals. The overseer then decides to coordinate the building of a wall around their dwellings, which the overseer says is also arguably for the defense of the group. The overseer then coordinates the building of public sewer systems within the walls, in case of prolonged siege, again for the defense of the group. Hospitals follow, along with safety regulations and management regimes, to ensure the group's resources are properly used, and that everyone is well fed and healthy to be ready for action "in defense of the group."

Soon the overseer has taken charge of every aspect of every individual action the "individuals" of the group might make. Many of the more trivial actions are permitted, such as which street to walk down, but the extent of those actions is approved by the overseer and documented in the group's laws. Did the individuals desire this outcome? The original purpose of appointing an overseer was so that they could conduct their individual affairs more freely by denying those who would seek to control and conquer them a divided and easy target. But in the end result, they have become precisely what they sought to avoid.

The first colonial decides, after reviewing the affair, that he would rather be shot in the back by a thief and at least have the freedom to walk where he liked without the by-your-leave of the overseer. After all, he reasons, "it is better to die trying to live free than to live as a slave forever. Perhaps I'll invite the second colonial as well, and we can go on protecting each others backs again as we used to."

The overseer cannot find anything in the book of the group's laws that say that "individuals" are allowed to leave the group. In fact, on closer inspection, the overseer cannot find anything about individuals at all any more, as everything has come under the purview of "the defense of the group" which does not contain the sense of individuals any longer. In fact, anyone who does not recognize themselves as being part of the group is then jailed for not contributing taxes for the "defense of the group."

The second colonial gives up and works within the group, since he'd rather have the illusion of freedom than to be jailed and have no sense of freedom at all, although he'd still rather walk freely and risk being shot by a thief, given the chance. The first colonial tries to make a run for it, but he finds there is no where to run to. The walls of the group have extended to the very sea itself. So the colonial decides to start over again right where he is, and is promptly arrested for non-payment of taxes, and thrown into jail.

While he sits in jail, he contemplates the paradox that has brought him and his follow colonials to this point. Namely, that they agreed to have any of their liberty as individuals taken away, in order that they might preserve their status as individuals, and thus eventually had all of their liberty taken away, and became individuals no longer! He reckons this in two ways: By the first reckoning, when some amount of liberty was removed, he was protecting the latter half. But by this reckoning, it implied there was a happy balance of liberty lost to liberty gained. Why, he could even lose up to half of his liberty to protect the other half and still come out even in the end! But was it possible to have a happy medium? Is not a single shackle just as constricting as ten shackles?

And so he tries to reckon a second way. How does a shackle not become a shackle? When you have the key, of course! In fact, forget the shackle, and turn those agreements into ropes, ones that we hold on to, and more importantly can let go of any time we would like. In fact, the only shackle he wishes to have any longer, is the one that will prevent all others from taking hold. The only agreement he wishes to make is the one whereby he will always be able to "let go" of the rope. And therefore the only agreement of freedom without paradox is ironically to agree to be able to break an agreement.

"But surely this is Anarchy, is it not?" says the colonial to himself. Ah, but then he considers that the freedom to break an agreement is also the freedom to make agreement anew. The freedom to make and break agreements is not a statement of Anarchy, it is only a means to either Order or Anarchy, as seen fit by the individual. "Wherever agreements breakdown into Anarchy, individuals may choose to make new agreements to bring Order to Chaos." Or so his thinking goes, as he ponders the paradox that is the basis of the government of his world.