Freedom is essential to our happiness and our ability to express who we are. Freedom is best exercised in a spirit of freedom, equality, ecological responsibility and solidarity, but where should the limits be set?
Freedom is a defining ideal. However, for the most part, it applies to freedom over what people want to do with their own bodies and their own lives. However, we are not isolated islands. So ideally our freedom should not harm others, at least not against their consent. Liberals in the 1800th century, however, argued that charging merchants with usury when they did not distribute grain for free in times of famine was abusing their freedom to harm others. This shows that we must have some right to harm individual interests in order to promote the common good. However, people have different lifestyles and what constitutes an offense or harm to one person does not to others or in a different context. It is difficult to make a general statement about where the limit for freedom should be set, but I believe that freedom under self-assessed responsibility should be great. Freedom is so crucial to human happiness and what makes us who we are.
Freedoms in conflict with each other
However, the freedom of the little person is at odds with the freedom of the big capitalists and politicians. Because while those up there are given the freedom to decide what they want, the freedom of those down there is radically limited. Thus, the more power you have over others, the more limited your freedom to exercise your power should be. If the employer had complete freedom to fire as he pleased, people would have little choice but to work until they fall under blind obedience.
The good job
At the same time, we must do a good job, but it is by no means certain that the best results will come from blind obedience under a tyrannical boss. In one factory, the assembly line was replaced by a more humane, individually adapted and at the same time more efficient facility. This new solution, like many creative innovations, came about and comes about under individual freedom or defiance. The more you work with execution, however, it can be difficult to maximize freedom. At the same time, people should not have to be constantly efficient and fast. If you want to force people in customer service to smile at customers, this might feel oppressive. But if the staff have enough freedom and respect from the managers, they might enjoy themselves and smile spontaneously.
The offending factor
In both working life and private life, it also applies that man is a fallible being. In addition, we need a lot of space for fun and play even during working hours. There should be some space for tokeries. This can lead to more job satisfaction and increased productivity in the end.
The power of politicians
After all, politicians must be able to limit people's freedom in order to prevent generally dangerous or other dangerous behavior such as speeding. On the other hand, people under a tyranny should have the freedom to depose or defy a regime that does not take into account the popular good. So civil disobedience may be justified in some cases, but it is difficult to say in advance when civil disobedience is justified or not. Therefore, politicians should be careful and reflect carefully when they limit the freedom of the little person.
No freedom without security
In order to be able to exercise our freedom, we need to enjoy economic and social security at the same time as long as we exercise our responsible freedom. Freedom without a safety net is just freedom to fall and no freedom at all. A generous social security system need not be at odds with an efficient but humane line of work shows this post.
The citizens do not see the conflict between the freedom of the big capitalists and the freedom of the little person. They want us to believe that increased freedom for all, including increased freedom to fire at will, leads to increased freedom for the little man. The citizens' view of freedom is also seen in their school policy, which increasingly restricts the students' freedom to the benefit of those who rule over them. Despite this, the number of failing students continues to increase and the general level of knowledge to decrease.
Caution with tolerance for the intolerance
But the little person's freedom should have a limitation. She must not plead for irrevocable unfreedom for others. For example. everyone should not have to follow a certain social code, moral code, sexuality or religion. It is difficult to maintain a tolerant society if you are too tolerant even towards the intolerant.
Equal, qualitative welfare most important
When freedom is at odds with equality and quality, I believe that equality and quality should win in terms of welfare. Welfare must be good and equal for everyone. Experiments with independent schools, private kindergartens and private care facilities have mostly shown that this freedom is mostly about the opportunity to pander to capitalists at the expense of quality. Read about how dangerous for health private care for example is. Private welfare is do not even more efficient, reveals Svenskt Näringsliv's own investigators. The free school choice is found by many researchers to be a decisive reason for declining school results and knowledge levels.
Freedom is best exercised in a spirit of freedom, equality, ecological responsibility and solidarity.
Hello! Many wise thoughts.
As Vilhelm Moberg says, Red is Right!