The most compelling argument for the restriction of individual rights.

As human beings we conceptualize Freedom in different ways, no matter where you put your finger on the historical map, you would get various and uneven interpretations of what it means to have Freedom. Theoretically, Freedom with a capital “F” means the ability to act, speak and think as an individual wishes in a self-determining manner without constraints or obstacles. I am bound for the sake of the argument to lay some groundwork to be able to better get the message through. If we take a look around us, we notice how the universe in its vastness and yet-to-be uncovered mysteries is subject to the same natural laws that we are bound to here on earth. Planets, stars, and galaxies move according to the same law of gravity that dictated the trajectory of the fall of that one apple that hit Newton’s head and the same goes for the light that travels incomprehensible distances from a star we call the sun to our retinas…

In a remote corner of the universe, on a small blue planet gravitating around the sun, organisms arose. From lifeless objects that have zero autonomy to creatures with complex brains like ours, contemplating our existence and place in the vast universe. To better understand the dynamics of human society it is very important that we talk briefly about our closest relatives, Apes, for example, chimpanzees, are social and smart animals; they have rules and each individual has a specific place in a clan’s hierarchy. Individual chimps have limited mental and physical capacities, they are subject to the laws of nature plus the social laws they managed to create and behave accordingly. Social movement on the hierarchical scale is possible with a lot of risks to be taken into consideration, moving upwards can lead to big gains, and moving downwards can sometimes lead to social expulsion and can get to the loss of life. this introduction pre argument stating has a specific purpose, which is to help us understand that every object in this universe is dictated by the laws of nature such as (Gravity) and every living being on top of the Natural Laws is governed by Biological and Social conditions. Now as humans, we are a more sophisticated species on the social, intellectual, and various other levels.

Being that said we acquired more and more knowledge throughout history and used that knowledge to advance on the collective and individual level, the same way chimpanzees establish rules and limitations to individual freedom and social mobility we too as human beings established rules and limitations to what an individual can do within a society, yet those rules and limitations are constantly changing and I’ll allow myself to say, constantly improving and expanding the borders of individual freedom. However, being in a society we are faced with the conflict of interest dilemma, how can we as individuals have the maximum amount of freedom to do what we please without colliding with another individual’s pursuit of the same thing? On that account I will present my argument that draws borders for individual freedom, flexible enough to move, yet clear enough in a way not to encroach on other individuals’ freedom.

I remember vividly what we were taught in a civil education class at school: my freedom ends when someone else’s freedom begins. Of course, the value is in the interpretation, and multiple interpretations can derive from such a statement. I will use this argument in approaching the problem of the Restriction of individual freedom. For the past two years, we have been living through a major historical event, the Coronavirus pandemic destabilized our modern way of living, the globalism, and interconnectivity have worked as a catalyst to the spread of the virus, crippling all kinds of socioeconomic movements, later on opening an existential debate around the subject of governmental intervention under the form of lockdowns and the restriction of individual freedom. As a citizen, it is your right to be under the protection of the state just like it is also your duty to respect the laws within that state, therefore you have rights and duties and that’s a part of the hypothetical Social Contract we sign when we are born and become citizens in a certain state. Jean Jacques Rousseau emphasized the importance of the social contract where individuals reap the benefits of being part of the state, and when it comes to obeying the general will he says that when self-interested individuals try to enjoy the benefits of citizenship without obeying their duties as subjects, they are forced to be free! Such a controversial claim from Rousseau, nevertheless in society the general will that has consent from the people, is effectively the cornerstone of individual freedom. Rousseau’s general will does not reflect in any way a tendency on his part to downplay the personal and individual will, on the contrary, it is precisely aimed to preserve and protect each individual’s freedom within this society. Let us continue threading the needle with Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. The German Idealist argues that to truly be free in a state, freedom cannot be unconditional, it needs clear borders. In Hegel’s state, only by accepting to obey the same laws can the individual citizen truly enjoy the benefits of collective freedom. To connect Hegel’s theoretical idea to the practicality of daily life, take the example of a person driving his car down the road, he suddenly realizes that he needs to make a U-turn, but to do that, he needs to go down the end of the road to reach the roundabout because there is a sign signaling that it is not allowed to make a U-turn before that.

In this case, the driver is confronted with a direct restraint to his individual freedom. He is free to ignore the sign yet he is free to obey it, that choice is autonomous in a way that no person but the driver is responsible for making that decision. In Kantian moral philosophy, autonomy is acting in accordance with one’s moral duty rather than one’s desires. By acting in accordance with his duty the driver is actualizing his social freedom, allowing other citizens to move safely on the roads knowing that he can be on the other side of that road one day and some other driver is faced with the same dilemma where he has to make the same decision…because of these restraints on the individual freedom taking the form of rules and regulations the driver is able to use the roads freely. The driver’s example sheds light on a specific point of confusion, where people tend to reduce the meaning of freedom to acting upon their individual urges and feelings. So, if I need to make a U-turn and for some reason my will is restricted that means that I am unfree. That in itself negates freedom because not only you are a slave to your urges at that particular moment whether it is understandable or not, but also you are robbing others of their freedom to be safe. For Hegel, the authentic citizen is the one who actively promotes the public interest. by doing so he fully realizes his true freedom. We must remember that according to Hegel, the citizen’s happiness, understood as the best possible exercise of his own freedom can only translate and thrive if in accordance and harmony with the state’s objectives.

Now that we have built a premise for understanding individual freedom and its limitations, we should address the most pressing problems that we face especially in democratic societies. Such as to what extent and in what way is it allowed for any democratically elected government to intervene in limiting the individual’s freedom. Although we can logically agree that an individual living in a democratic state in the 21st century has much more freedom than his predecessor from the feudal ages, where the individual got as much freedom as the king allowed, the sovereign here is the king! The simple life… fast forward to nowadays, the state gives all its citizens equal rights under the law, the citizen by various forms of elections transfers the power of the sovereign that throughout most of our recorded history belonged to god and/or the king to the state in exchange for protection.

Now decentralized and downgraded from the realm of deity, the power of the sovereign is prone to more criticism and challenges, especially in democratic countries where the people down to every individual elect a minister that represents them and allegedly carries their concerns and helps deliver their voices in the parliament where decisions concerning the state and the citizens are taken. This style of political life has released the individual from the tight grip of oppressive authority and obedience, giving each the right to speak their minds freely. John Stuart Mill one of the most influential philosophers of the 19th century in accordance with the importance of individual freedom said: “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he… would be justified in silencing mankind.” Every individual is entitled to total freedom to express their lives the way they please, Also Mill proposes a single standard for which a person’s liberty may be restricted: “That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” Here we get to a critical phase, where we need to go back to the definition of harm. According to the Cambridge dictionary, Harm means physical or other injury or damage. Damage can also be inflicted mentally and emotionally which makes the subject more complex, should the government interfere and arrest someone that is verbally abusing another person? If yes who is responsible for making such decisions? Is it the police officer or an ethics committee?

Such questions poke the relativist in me, not an absolute relativist but rather a layered one. To explain that briefly; take some moral values such as freedom, equality, autonomy, and individual rights. These values should be universal therefore let’s consider them the core or the deepest layer of the hypothetical construct I am drawing. The further we stray from this core, layer by layer, the less universal and more relative the values become, take for example freedom of speech which ranges from publicly being able to adopt an offensive speech criticizing the president in open societies and countries like France, to being scared( for your life or reputation)to privately criticize authority in countries like North Korea. Both cases are dealt with differently because of the different norms of morality adopted by each country. Translating that into a universal law that is applied unanimously is difficult because as we mentioned in the example of moral relativism, cultural norms in the form of written and unwritten rules differ in each country, that is why the restriction on individual freedom can be exercised in order to protect the values of a certain culture, especially in collectivist societies, or it can be applied after the consent of the majority of the voters in democratic, individualistic societies. The reasons used in the former are rooted in respect, obedience, honor, and loyalty… in the latter, the reasons are rooted mostly in freedom, autonomy, and equality under the law.

We can all agree that any restriction on an individual’s freedom will be perceived by the individual as an act of oppression, surely it can be on different levels but let’s face it, nobody likes less freedom! Now contextualize and rationalize those same restrictions and give them a purpose where the individual will benefit in the long run, you will find that most people will accept restrictions as long as they understand that this compromise is not an end in itself, but rather a mean to facilitate your life as a citizen in this state. Take the marshmallow test experiment as an example where a group of kids (around 4 years old) are recorded individually where they are offered 1 marshmallow now, or 2 marshmallows if they restrain themselves and wait. One crucial conclusion among many was that 70% of kids did actually wait to get more marshmallows.

This experiment proves that although there are no restrictions on acting according to one’s instant urges, even children were able to contain themselves and choose more gratification later over instant gratification. The reason I am using this example is to establish a comparison between the marshmallow test (delayed gratification) where 4-year-olds were able to restrain their urges after they were promised a better outcome and being a citizen in a state where decisions sometimes are made with the common good and/or later gratification in mind. Along the same lines as rational beings, we understand that in order to reap the benefits of the state, and that includes using its infrastructure, health system, security, and economic stability… we need to chip in by paying taxes and obeying the Law. The citizen’s loyalty to the state should not only be innate, shackled by blind emotional attachment but equally rational, allowing the citizen to criticize in order to correct, and move forward. In this reciprocal, two-way relationship where both citizen and state benefit from each other, you compromise not only for the collective good but also for your own good otherwise when the scale of benefit tips against the interest of the majority the situation loses stability and chaos arises, putting everyone’s benefit in jeopardy.

After establishing the major overlap between a healthy well-functioning state and a happy citizen, while not failing to emphasize the role of compromise a citizen must make towards the state in order to help translate an abstract, broad concept of freedom into actual civil liberties or personal freedom protected by the state under the rule of law where all citizens are equal, it is highly important to state that in any form of governance we choose it is of the highest importance to maintain and preserve an open discourse where ideas are debated and the power of the better argument prevails, let us remember that this is the best self-correcting mechanism where laws are subject to scrutiny and whether or not those same laws enhance the quality of life of the collection of individuals that make up the state. Socrates and Martin Luther King both were principled historical figures, both agreed that it is fundamental to respect the law, but the difference between them is that the former chose execution over standing up to an unjust verdict and the latter chose to fight unjust laws in legitimate ways and got to change them. It is rational to say that we owe loyalty to the state that protects our lives and our interest, but more so, we owe ourselves intellectual honesty and the duty to be loyal to our principles, therefore we may compromises and accept restrictions on our individual freedom ( for reasons I mentioned earlier) but if the compromise becomes excessive and put our principles in jeopardy it is our duty towards ourselves and the state to correct that pattern for it is unacceptable for individuals to give up their principles for the advantage of anyone.