Minuteman. Source: https://read.cash/@Mandem/re-discover-politics-with-good-manners-eae59fa1
The ideological ambiance of elections generally doesn’t help to talk about politics peacefully. Politics is, for many, a nauseous word that would just ruin a good meal or relationship.
However, disagreeing with others and remaining able to discuss various issues is necessary to avoid bigotry and civil warfare. One has to accept to discuss with others and listen to their opposite stance because it constitutes a cornerstone for a free and open society.
One way to achieve that is to accept the risk of absolute freedom. That is freedom without any constraints even in the worst cases. To limit freedom, on hate or violent grounds, will only nurture inevitable and stronger desires for such evil calls.
Freedom, to exist, needs to be nothing less than absolute as long as it grows with a proportionate sense of responsibility.
On Liberty Island, America installed Lady Liberty.
It was a good start but without aspiration for equivalent responsibility, liberty alone was similar to a man walking with one leg only. Absolute freedom ought to be balanced with duty, obligation, commitment…
That is why the freedom of the individual is limited by another person’s freedom. The old calamity of America is that it “forgot” to erect Lady Responsibility.
It is right that the notion of freedom itself is appealing enough to brush away other moral necessities. But to elevate the principle of human freedom above human duty is a receipt for division in society.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was an interesting milestone but it also failed to release a parallel document concerning Human Duties. The general assembly of the United Nations proclaimed a common standard of achievement for all nations to be free of oppression.
If all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, are they also equal in responsibilities? Do they have the same moral constraints to contribute to society and achieve the greater good? Actually, why should people have to care about rights when they receive what they invest in life?
That is to say what they did for others, the work they performed to improve their own personal situation and their contribution to a free society.
The definition of Liberty as stated by France’s Declaration Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen imply that Liberty consists of doing everything that does not harm others.
Such liberty is then the faculty to do as one pleases. Then the alcoholic or the selfish can continue focusing on their decay and personal interests. As long as they do not harm others, one shall tolerate their petty ambitions.
This is ambiguity at best is an excuse to avoid responsibilities. Also, arbitrary power can define what counts as a harmful, self-regarding action at their own discretion.
“Genuine freedom resides in doing what one ought to do, no what one wants to do.”
Absolute freedom leads to anarchy. Censored freedom leads to totalitarianism. To strike a balance, a courageous society needs to find the fitting adjustment of law and liberty. A suitable equilibrium of l(aw)berty is an instrumental key for deliberate and respectful dialogue.
Such a balance between liberty and responsibility is limited by our human limitations, historical perspectives, and customs among other aspects. But it cannot be a pretext to swing to one side of the polarized spectrum and deflect complex arguments.
In the wake of the US elections, many of us are being swirled in a frontal opposition between rival world views. The journalistic media bias, blogging out-burst fevers, unverified bombshell stories, overall passions, and this special human attachment for simple, bipolar solutions incline to reject a sound and reasonable intercourse with opposing mindsets.
We all know the pretexts and slogans for freedom suppression.
In the face of global warming, a little girl shouts “I want you to panic.” Consequently, western countries surrendered centuries of knowledge and dialectic for the lunatic calls from the new Jeanne D’Arc icon.
A pandemic strikes the world and human beings all over the world are forced to surrender their basic liberties. They are pushed in lock-down for weeks or months, they are forced to carry masks, they cannot see their relatives or attend burials… and all this happens without tangible dialogue with their representatives.
Even during the Spanish flu or the Black Plague, calamities that caused many more deaths, our basic liberties were not put at risk of such injustice.
Ideology is by essence an enemy of human freedom because it elevates one principle above others. Doing so, ideology is similar to religious heresy, for instance, Protestantism towards Catholicism. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn exemplified it perfectly in the gulag archipelago.
When one hears slogans that sound good and vibe cheaply, it is important to challenge these ideas via rhetoric, dialectic, and long-term vision.
Simply take the remarkable proposition into the field of absurdity and see if it can stand on its own feet. For that, it is critical to let everyone have the same rights to argue about everything.
Let’s consider this example: “All humans are equal and equality should be the top aim of human endeavors.”
I will agree to deem this proposition, although it doesn’t look like an acceptable idea. Nietzsche proposed that the value of a man resides in his ability to tolerate truth. Then shouldn’t it be the truth that ought to be the ultimate human goal? Isn’t it that equality is at best a means for a better end?
Again, humanity is more than welcome to interject and break down that argument. In this scope, errors and heresies must be tackled with additional information and human expertise, not by censorship and rejection of the unknown.
The paradox of life resides in change. One has to relinquish today’s securities for tomorrow's uncertainties. One can anticipate but cannot guess what the outcome will be. Life is indeed a paradox.
To gain something, you need to give something first. Surrendering wishful thinking and intellectual bigotry is thus the mark of the educated man. Giving up low qualities for higher ones is a path of sublimation.
As Edward Snowden hinted, to stay free, one has to tell the plain truth. And to be able to articulate truth, the audience must tolerate difficult ideas and complex dialogues.
A society that indulges a high level of free speech will become more educated and more immune to all forms of extremism.