Liberty
Modern man likes to call himself free. Individuals tend to seek freedom from social constraints and imposed beliefs. But the fundamental question remains static: freedom from what and for what purpose? The drive to survive and grow is rooted in all biological beings, yet the dependence on nature, the environment, and other living creatures is crucial. The wholesome act of survival and growth, along with the human will of freedom, clash over the contradiction on a very fundamental level: liberty. Structurally, human society is bound to the laws and regulations, while the individual often aspires for more freedom. The modern Western societies have emphasized individual rights, while many non-Western societies place normative weight on collective welfare. As humans are societal creatures, we can’t ignore the fact that various problems arise when a single entity acts independently, and it generates conflicts and instability within the social order.
The meaning of freedom is often assumed rather than examined. A linguistic misunderstanding might arise from the term itself, where "freedom" comes from the English word "frēodōm," meaning belonging to a community and standing in opposition to slavery or exclusion. So, in modern times, everyone might consider themselves free, but with the evolution of language, freedom has expanded to signify the ability to act, speak, and choose according to one’s own will. Democracy is considered the best form of governance, and the democratic systems are founded on this notion of freedom.
Liberty, however, carries a quite different meaning, which itself is a derived Latin word from "libertas," meaning freedom in a civic and political sense. In this sense, modern societies are not purely free but liberal, where individuals possess liberty rather than unrestricted freedom. Freedom basically is an unrestricted personal ability to think and act, while liberty is a social protection against oppression and arbitrary power. Along with the freedom comes unrestricted possibilities, which can lead to chaos if unregulated, but the regulation very defies the core idea of freedom. Here, liberty stands as a better alternative; it provides rights along with the responsibilities that tie people to society and strengthen them through the framework of civil liberty.
There have been many revolutions defending liberty against tyranny, seeking to secure both freedom and protection for the people. And modern-day democracy is based on those revolutions. The structure of society indeed changes over time, but such transformations often occur when authoritarian forms of governance rise. Authoritarianism, however, does not arise from excessive freedom but from the concentration of power in the absence of legal and structural constraints. The will to rule certainly affects the whole society when the ruler rises above accountability, and it reshapes the society, choking the individual’s freedom. Yet in the absence of law and order, society collapses, but with restrictions, freedom ceases. The challenge comes not in abandoning freedom, but in structuring authority in a manner that restrains power while preserving liberty.
Can human civilization thrive along with unrestricted freedom, and the fundamental question remains: freedom from whom, and freedom from what? Historical experience suggests that cooperation, rather than absolute individual freedom, is crucial for human civilization to thrive. Democratic governance emerges from this collective logic, and individuals consent through voting to those who rule and to the laws intended to serve the common good. Yet alongside security, democracy brings power, and social structures are often designed to protect those who hold it, which in many cases can be seen misused. When power is misused, the purpose of representation is undermined, and it threatens liberty itself. The authoritarian regime also usually arises through this process, and such a regime that came to power through electoral legitimacy can show domination as it is exercised under the guise of popular consent.
Throughout history the human communities have been fighting with each other either for territory or resources, but in the modern day, access to resources is largely mediated by political authority. The modern act of revolution is done not just for the demand of civil liberties but also for access to resources and struggles over economic access. The authoritarian government doesn’t let everyone access the resources; it only provides for those who align to keep the government in power, thereby eliminating genuine liberty. Which basically means there is no liberty. Human desires are not made just in isolation but are largely shaped and structured by social needs. A societal structure generates demand, intentions, and subjective reality. And the authoritarian government exploits it for its benefit through religion, ideology, nationalism, and militarization, often shielding them under the label of ‘public sentiment. These entities were brought into existence for the common benefit. The religion came, so people were made more moral and social; the ideology fought for the basic needs and often overthrew the authoritarian regime, the government was made for the equal distribution of resources and armies for protection, but their legitimacy depends upon transparency and accountability. In authoritarian systems, such safeguards are absent, and liberty is systematically eroded.
The desire to rule and exercise power is widespread, as positions of social hierarchy have historically conferred greater security and social advantage. Also, evolutionary and social behavior have shaped human behavior in ways such as authority with survival and status. But the fundamental question is, is the ruler free and liberal? On the throne, there is much more responsibility, and alongside the deprivation of liberty from others, it does not produce liberty for the ruler.
Fundamentally, an individual acts for survival, and with evolution, we have become social creatures where, of course, the freedom clashes and, for the collective goodness, liberty exists. True liberty, therefore, cannot be achieved through control over others, but only through a political order in which power is limited, accountable, and shared.