Human Freedom and Liberty: Threats and Solutions
The ideas of John Stuart Mill can be seen as the continuation of a long line of democratic thinkers to come since the Enlightenment. Mill echoed concerns that existed amongst liberals that as governments became more centralized and run by elites they would start to stifle the creative processes of mankind. Free speech would become a mere fa�§ade, as the elites would know that the public clamors for freedoms of speech and of civil liberties. These elites and their government allow token amounts of time for the public to voice concerns but they do not allow them to act upon these lest they are cast as rebels and revolutionaries. In short, Mill felt that the conservative elements of society and the strong search for a return to the status quo were creating an impenetrable wall against freedom of speech and action for the common person (Ebenstein/Ebenstein 608).
The solution for Mill would seem obvious just from his critique: the allowance of certain civil liberties to ensure that all vantage points would be seen and heard on every issue facing the public. This included allowing a greater deal of individuality for all because from such individuality would come a greater progress toward equality and enlightenment (610). Freedom of speech, and opinion, was seen as paramount for a more intelligent and “eccentric” people; opinions were valued as necessary to public discourse even if they were wrong (614). Mill warned against suppressing against opinion, saying that opinions, even when wrong, may hold some truth and provide a counter point and a more critical approach to discussion of issues (591).
The results of such freedoms would be more progress toward a better community. Mill stressed the importance of allowing human ingenuity and “eccentricity” to flourish because such creativity is the ultimate catalyst for reform and change in society. Mill can be seen as a comparative contemporary of Thomas Paine, who was one of the firebrands behind the literature of the American Revolution and the French Revolution. His fiery condemnations of the British monarchy and aristocracy were due to the suppression of the American peoples, and later his condemnation of the monarchy in France helped spark a fire in the bellies of many French revolutionaries. The comparison between the two philosophers can be seen in their theories, not their methods necessarily. Mill did want change but did not find that violent revolt would be necessary, just a gradual change from the status quo to a more responsive and citizen based system of making decisions.
Karl Marx saw suppression of a different sort than Mill and was by far the most radical of the four theorists presented in this paper. Marx, a member of the German middle class, saw that the bourgeoisie and capitalism were blights upon the landscape of society and culture. The tools of suppression were primarily economical but leading from this were numerous problems that turned man into a mere laborer for the capitalist machine. The largest worry seemed to be the mechanization of labor, which led to laborers losing their personality and destroying the earlier individualism and craftsmanship of previous economic systems (666).
The solution for Marx would be the gradual destruction of capitalist devices that would allow laborers to be free from their bonds and become individuals again (667). Marx seems to marvel at how the proletariat comes to become a growing and disgruntled class because of the very tools that capitalism used to organize them and depersonalize them. Marx, and Lenin later, would say that the most important way that laborers come to realize their need for rebellion would be their placement in crowded factories and their constant transfers to other factories, which solidified different pockets of resistance (668). These laborers and small business owners, also subject to the restraining structures of capitalism, would be protected by fellow Communists and would eventually become common owners of all that they created.
This idea of the abolition of public property and redistribution amongst the majority proletariat was the crux of what Marx wanted accomplished with the communist movement (673). The main purpose of this whole theoretical exercise was to show that the proletariat was the rightful owner of their creations and of the resources that they had previously not own. The end result would be that there would be equality amongst the majority and that those in the new minority (previously the bourgeoisie) would be subjected to the same economic punishments as the proletariat had at one time endured.
The modern critiques of threats to human freedom and liberty encompass very similar scopes of concern as those that existed in the times of Marx and Mill. Friedrich Hayek, writing in the early 1930’s, was concerned that socialism and the promulgation of the welfare state was creating a government that was too coercive and paternalistic. Hayek felt that there was a tremendous decline in individualism in the hundred years previous to his writings, especially with the increase of socialism as an acceptable ethos (826). The increase of socialist thought in Western thought was creating a deficit in freedom of action and thought, creating a stagnate atmosphere that stifled creativity and ingenuity (828).
Hayek’s solution was a very libertarian solution, which was to allow the free market to run its course and encourage cooperation amongst people, not force it upon them as a mandate. When free market, not command, economies are allowed to flourish, according to Hayek, there is an unchaining of individual energies that reveals a magnified growth in progress and the fulfillment of human potential (821). The government is not seen as an integral part or even a partner in such progress and ingenuity; rather, the government needs to make sure that they are not doing too much rather than worrying about if they are doing too little. Like present libertarian thinkers, Hayek condones the minimum amount of government possible in order to maximize the abilities of the people to help themselves.
Another libertarian thinker that shares at least some of Hayek’s sentiments is Milton Friedman, who was writing on the topic of what the government’s role should be in society and what limits should be put upon the government. Friedman takes his thoughts a bit more to the middle of the political spectrum while still respecting the libertarian tradition. Friedman sees the problem of the government as one of an entity that does not have an idea what its boundaries or limits should be. But he feels that the government does have a role in society, as an arbiter and enforcer of law as well as a guiding hand for competition and progress (846).
The problems with government lies within the difficulties in drawing the line where government can and cannot impose their structures and policies. Friedman feels that many of the public’s conflicts cannot be rightfully resolved or decided through legal or political channels. Many of these issues have to be resolved in a micro-societal level, amongst individuals and small groups (841). The market, as in Hayek’s argument, is seen as the main device of conflict resolution and progress in modern society. But Friedman also says that the market is not the end all, be all of problem resolution; indeed, some problems can only be resolved through political channels.
The examples of the postal service and the national park system are used in Friedman’s analysis of what the government can and cannot do. With the postal service, it is seen that there is an overstepping of boundaries by the U.S. government in the case of law that makes it illegal for anyone else to carry mail besides the U.S. Postal Service (844). This is seen as a prevention of competition and, according to Friedman, if competing firms were allowed to carry mail, there would be progress and reform in mail carrying that would allow such service to become quicker and more efficient.
The case of national parks is a much more complex and less obvious example of Friedman’s idea of monopoly and neighborhood effects. He feels that it would be difficult for the government to force a toll upon the users of a city park, because those who benefit are many and fluctuate too much for such a system to be effective. The national park system, however, has a limited enough point of entry that it is feasible to exact a poll tax on those who wish to use the park system. But, it is possible for other independent and private enterprises to create parks that will cater to demographic and economic sections of the population that seek something beyond the national parks. In summary, there is an interesting dynamic between the free market and the national government, one that is constantly changing and that is both complimentary to and in conflict with each of its participants.
All four thinkers express very similar beliefs and their underlying belief is that the government is too pervasive a part of society and that human freedom and liberty is sacrificed with the increase of dependency on government. The government, according to these thought processes, is too paternalistic and gives away too much to the public. This can be seen in modern arguments against welfare programs, saying they are merely programs that give handouts to dead beats and those who are too lazy to find work. The freedom of human individuality in society produces unlimited potential and when this potential is exercised, society improves to an enormous degree, according to these thinkers. Mill, Marx, Friedman, and Hayek all express concerns about where human ingenuity and individualism were going in the grand scheme of society. They would probably not be pleased with the way things have turned out, especially in America and European welfare states. But they would be pleased with the devolution of government responsibility and the growing choir of voices carried by new media outlets, which seems to at least be a start toward as total a freedom of expression, speech, and human spirit as is possible within the modern world.
