What Is Freedom?

“I'll tell you what freedom is to me....no fear.”

-Nina Simone

Freedom — a supposed basic human right. Desired by all; experienced by a select few. As far back in history as we can go, it is evident that freedom has not been presented equally as a human right to all. Rather, it has presented itself as a privilege; a luxury granted to those who could afford it at the time. A right that is so valued, that people have been willing to die for it. A concept so powerful, that it has time and time again been taken advantage of. So much so that documents have had to be created in order to define and outline the very idea of what it means to be free.

Yet, as has become evident, definitions on the idea of freedom vary from one individual to the next. This may be due to the fact that, as history has proven, each individual experiences freedom differently. The privilege of experiencing freedom may be dependent upon two things: the leader or political institution set in place at the time, and things that can’t be controlled, such as the color of one's skin, their sex, their economic status, their heritage, their religion, and any other differences that would make one "stand out". From these instances alone it is evident that freedom has never truly been a basic right granted at birth to all. Rather, it is a right granted to one depending upon the circumstances under which they were born. For those who don’t fall under those circumstances, freedom then becomes something that is to be earned. A right that must be be fought for.

Many have put forth their ideas on the definition of freedom, some of which have stuck with us, and subsequently led to a severe impact on the course of history. Political philosophers such as Niccolo Machiavelli and Karl Marx have created entire structured political ideals based off of their interpretations on freedom. Each lived in a different time, and had different outlooks on life, leading to two quite opposing ideas on the same concept. Yet, as singer and political activist Nina Simone stated—freedom is not something that can necessarily be defined. Rather, it is something that is felt; something that you understand the meaning of only once you have it in your possession. Something very similar to love.

So how, and why, have we sought to define and redefine something that can not be explained? Is putting a label around something that can only be felt merely a way to understand it? Or does it lie deeper than that—its definition giving those who are already in possession of it the power to protect it. Or possibly control it? And which idea on the concept of freedom, if any, can be said to be the “correct” one?

Niccolo Machiavelli’s ideas on freedom and political structure derived from his views on human nature. Machiavelli, who lived in Florence during the Renaissance era, believed that “All men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature” (The Discourses, 117). It is important to note that despite this view, Machiavelli believed in people’s freedoms, and agreed that individuals should be allowed to express such freedoms in order to avoid feeling oppressed. However, he also felt that freedom without limitations was an idealistic concept that could not work in practice. He believed that this sort of freedom would eventually lead to corruption and self destruction. This is due to the fact that although each individual wants to be free, each also possess within them a natural tendency to want to oppress those below them; those that want something that they already have— “as though there were a necessity either to oppress or be oppressed” (The Historical, Political, and Diplomatic Writings of Niccolo Machiavelli, 232).

In response to this inherent nature, Machiavelli had to find some sort of compromise between freedom and oppression, because in his mind, “how we live is so far removed from how we ought live, that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done, will rather learn to bring about his own ruin than his own preservation”, (The Prince, 56).

It is from this viewpoint that Machiavelli’s ideas on political structure developed. Machiavelli strongly stood behind the concept of laws, seeing them as the perfect intermediate between freedom and oppression. He referred to this balance as “liberty”— a concept which he saw as being able to minimize oppression. Machiavelli felt laws to be necessary within a structured society, for he believed they would urge individuals to work for the good of the group, as opposed to just furthering their own freedoms at the expense of others.

However, in Machiavelli’s mind, in order for this liberty to function, it must also exist within a stable society. He theorized that freedom could not exist unless there was a strong governing force delegating these freedoms. He believed that laws need be enforced properly, for a law which is enforced inconsistently serves no function whatsoever. If a law is broken, then it would simultaneously weaken its authority, causing its entire function to break down. Machiavelli, however, did not believe in unnecessary laws. Rather, he felt that such laws must be suppressed, so that the ones that are necessary may be successfully obeyed.

Machiavelli perceived the Roman Republic as being the most ideal form of government. He liked them particularly for the fact that they had “privations imposed by laws”, (The Historical, Political, and Diplomatic Writings of Niccolo Machiavelli, 98). He believed that it was limitations on freedoms such as these that kept the Roman Republic free from corruption and destruction.

Though the tyrannical state is the one for which Machiavelli advocated for most in The Prince, he later made it a point to state in The Discourses that he regards tyranny as being, “…cruel and destructive of all civilized life, and neither Christian nor even human, and should be avoided by everyone.” Though many associate Machiavelli with a tyranny, in actuality, Machiavelli believed a republic as being preferable to a tyranny, not because it was necessarily “better”, but because he perceived the type of oppression brought upon by tyranny to be morally wrong. A republic, in his eyes, minimized oppression, yet still managed to maintain order and civility within a given nation. For Machiavelli, a republic—with it’s elected leader and set of laws—was the perfect way to preserve an individual’s natural born freedoms.

Karl Marx, on the other-hand, saw things quite differently. This contrast in the perception on the concept of freedom comes from the fact that unlike Machiavelli, Karl Marx believed all humans to be inherently good. Such a positive outlook on human nature is what caused Marx to develop his very idealistic views.

Marx believed the distinctive characteristics of all humans to be their social nature. He felt that if something, such as a law, were to infringe upon these social characteristics, individuals would then come to feel “alienated”. It was intrinsic thoughts like these that led Marx to ascertain that the goal of a political system must be freedom for its people. “Man does not exist for the law, but the law for man—it is a human manifestation.” (Contributions to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right).

Marx believed man’s inherent nature to be social, rather than individualistic— creating the term “species-life” to define this sort of individual. He argued that if the goal of a political system is to allow for individuals to act in accordance with their nature, then the perfect political system is one in which the individual is allowed to behave within the species-life, as opposed to the egotistic life established by things such as capitalism and religion.

It is for this reason that Marx so vehemently opposed a republican form of government. He felt as though its high regards towards a constitution stood against, rather than for, the will of the people. Marx argued in favor of a democracy, which he felt to be the best form of government, due to its separation between the personal and the political—guaranteeing individuals their freedoms.

When it came to capitalism, however, Marx believed that it’s concentration on forced labor took away from people’s freedoms. “External labor, labor in which man alienated himself, is a labor of self-sacrifice…it belongs to another. It is the loss of self.” (Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, 74). Marx claimed that the “forced labor” of capitalism, which forces people into working out of necessity, takes away from man’s “free and conscious activity”, which constitutes its species-life. Marx argued that man would work and create naturally, needing not to be forced into it, for man is fulfilled by “creating an objective world by his practical activity…in accordance with the laws of beauty.” (Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, 76). Marx believed that one’s freedoms could only truly ever be achieved if given the right to act as a natural, social creature.

Niccolo Machiavelli and Karl Marx each proposed engaging theories on the concept of an individuals rights to freedom. Unfortunately, over the years, their ideas became misconstrued; molded by particular leaders throughout the years in order to fit their own hidden agendas. Today, most view their theories as being far too severe, and instantly shut them down before even further researching their concepts. However, if one looks closely at each other these philosophers works, The Prince by Machiavelli and the Communist Manifesto by Marx, their ideas become much more understandable and wholehearted. It becomes clear that their intentions were never to control the public, but rather, to propose definitions on these concepts, in order to get individuals to understand their own limitations—and to either accept such restrictions (Machiavellian viewpoint), or possibly revolt against them (Marxist viewpoint).

Regardless of theories, one thing remains evident. One’s perception and experiences of what it means to be “free” has always, and will continue to always vary from one individual to the next, and from one culture to the next. Definitions seeking to conceptualize the idea of freedom may arise for various reasons: to educate individuals, to protect individuals, to control individuals, etc. Yet amongst all this chaos, one thing does seem clear—the fact that we seek to define this concept so often may reveal that we don’t truly know much about it to begin with.