Tuesday July 8, 2025
  • Venezuela
  • Mexico
  • Colombia
  • Chile
  • Brazil
  • Argentina
  • Podcast
Versión Español
PanAm Post
  • Home
  • Regions
    • South America
    • North America
    • Central America
    • Caribbean
  • Politics
  • Economics
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Authors
  • Contact
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Regions
    • South America
    • North America
    • Central America
    • Caribbean
  • Politics
  • Economics
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Authors
  • Contact
No Result
View All Result
PanAm Post
No Result
View All Result

Home » Are We Free To Give Away Our Freedom?

Are We Free To Give Away Our Freedom?

José Azel by José Azel
December 18, 2017
in Columnists, Featured, North America, Opinion, Policy, Politics, United States
FacebookTwitterTelegramWhatsapp

aSin-título-28-1

EspañolAre we free to give away our freedom? This is a profound philosophical question with very practical political implications. Yet, even for those of us that hold liberty to be the highest political value, it is not an easy question to answer, and I beg the reader’s patience.

RelatedArticles

CNN Fake News: The Network’s Efforts to Justify Its Actions May Be Worse than Its Actual Flawed Reporting

CNN’s audience in 2024 was the lowest in its history

December 21, 2024
The silence of the Democrats will be the main course on Thanksgiving

The silence of the Democrats will be the main course on Thanksgiving

November 28, 2024

All collectivist ideologies, racism, socialism, nationalism, fascism, communism, and their derivations, hold that people are free to give up their freedoms. For collectivists, the individual is not the holder of rights. For collectivists, what matters are the rights and interest of the race, the class, or the nation. And these collective interests are expressed through the power of the state to which the individual willingly surrenders his freedom.

This question of the legitimacy of the state over the individual was the subject of various “social contract” theories that developed during the Age of Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries. Essentially, social contract arguments conceive that we have consented to surrender some of our freedoms to the state in exchange for the protection of our remaining rights.

Some social contract philosophers, such as John Locke and Jean-Jaques Rosseau, argued that when governments fail to secure the natural rights of the citizenry, for example free speech, the citizens can change leadership or withdraw their obligation to obey. But others, like Thomas Hobbes, argued for the absolute authority of the monarch or parliament even if the edicts were arbitrary and tyrannical, as in Louis XIV declaration: “I am the State.”

To Hobbes, absolutism was necessary because if each person was allowed to manage his or her own life freely, chaos would ensue and society would descend into a brutish “state of nature.” An absolute ruler was necessary to impose order on the unruly masses and to have an overall plan for society. Absolutism holds that the ruler is above the law.
Modern collectivist ideologies posit, along Hobbesian lines, that the all powerful state must be able to plan and control economic activities and that citizens must renounce their individual freedoms in exchange for some common good such as security or social justice. Whereas free societies allow for self governance, collectivist ideologies distrust and reject individual freedoms.

But more to the point of my original question, other thinkers, like Hugo Grotius, held that liberty is our inalienable property. “Inalienable rights are things which belong so essentially to one [person] that they could not belong to another, as a person’s life, body, freedom, honor.” If freedom is inalienable, it cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another or to the state. Grotius asserted that individuals are sui juris (under their own jurisdiction.)

When we make the distinction between an ordinary right and an inalienable right, we recognize that we do not have the right to give up our liberty by placing ourselves in bondage to the state. All western societies have opted in favor of considering individual freedom an inalienable right. This is perhaps easier to see by the fact that, in modern societies, we do not have the right to sell ourselves into slavery, or even, as was done in antiquity, to risk our freedom by offering it as a collateral to secure a loan.

  • Read More: Why Income Taxes Are Immoral
  • Read More: Why Cuba Cannot “Get to Denmark” through Economic Development Alone

It seems then, that because freedom is an inalienable right, we cannot surrender it to collectivism for the prospect of avoiding the risks and costs that go with accepting personal responsibility. Philosophically, we are not free to give up our freedom to an absolutist government in the Hobbesian prescription.

Most of us trust that we posses a free will; that is, the ability to choose between different possible courses of action. Thus, when we choose to enter into a social contract, as the best way to ensure our welfare, the presumption must be for liberty. It must be a social contract of democratic self-rule where our individual freedoms are preserved under the rule of law.
This was the case in the United States Declaration of Independence that invoked John Locke’s concept of the social contract. It is only in this context that we are free to restrict our freedoms.

José Azel

José Azel

José Azel is a scholar and author. Dr. Azel‘s latest book is “Reflections on Freedom.”

Related Posts

CNN Fake News: The Network’s Efforts to Justify Its Actions May Be Worse than Its Actual Flawed Reporting
Ideology

CNN’s audience in 2024 was the lowest in its history

December 21, 2024
The silence of the Democrats will be the main course on Thanksgiving
Culture

The silence of the Democrats will be the main course on Thanksgiving

November 28, 2024
These are the 21 individuals sanctioned by the U.S. for fraud and repression in Venezuela
Elections

These are the 21 individuals sanctioned by the U.S. for fraud and repression in Venezuela

November 27, 2024
Yamandú Orsi, from the leftist Frente Amplio, wins the Presidency of Uruguay
Elections

Yamandú Orsi, from the leftist Frente Amplio, wins the Presidency of Uruguay

November 24, 2024
Can Socialism Compete “On Equal Terms” in the Field of Ideas?
Argentina

Can Socialism Compete “On Equal Terms” in the Field of Ideas?

November 20, 2024
"The people must come to an agreement," said Colombian President Gustavo Petro regarding the outcome of the elections in Venezuela, ignoring the fact that Venezuelans had already expressed themselves at the polls. (File photo)
Colombia

Petro Calls Venezuelan Elections a “Mistake”: What Lies Ahead for Colombia?

November 19, 2024
Next Post
Embattled Peruvian President Kuczynski Claims Opposition Seeks to Govern Despite Losing Elections

Embattled Peruvian President Kuczynski Claims Opposition Seeks to Govern Despite Losing Elections

Subscribe free and never miss another breaking story

  • Venezuela
  • Mexico
  • Colombia
  • Chile
  • Brazil
  • Argentina
  • Podcast

© 2024 PanAm Post - Design & Develop by NEW DREAM GLOBAL CORP. - Privacy policy

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Regions
    • South America
    • North America
    • Central America
    • Caribbean
  • Politics
  • Economics
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Authors
  • Contact

© 2024 PanAm Post - Design & Develop by NEW DREAM GLOBAL CORP. - Privacy policy

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. Privacy and Cookie Policy.