Individual Freedom Is Normatively An Absolute Right From God

Occasional Sunday Articles December 22, 2016

This occasional Sunday article dwells on a worldwide tendency of some individuals, groups of individuals, and particularly state and cultural administrative systems, to think that they have the right to prescribe unilaterally or unsolicited what other people should do with their lives. What these kind of world dictators are doing is totally against God's directions.

Due to its nature, the article, is also published at our Society's Silly Perspectives platform.

The article focuses on the following.

1. Essence of individual freedom

2. How state and cultural administrative systems safeguard or deter individual freedom

3. How people per se can enjoy, or willingly give away their individual freedom

We will start with a brief discussion about the essence of God given individual freedom.

God creates all people equal and free. There is no single person who is superior or special from the rest of us in any way, in God's eyes. To God, kings, queens, heads of state, laborers, homeless people, millionaires, billionaires, beggars, disabled persons, vicars, bishops, professors, engineers, doctors, celebrities, cleaners, etc., are exactly same! It is pure illusion to think that just because you are let say politically powerful, rich, or royal, then God looks at you differently from those who are less powerful, less rich, or non-royal alias commoners. If we were different in God's eyes, then we would not have been equally susceptible to same unpredictable human suffering from let say: sickness like the recent covid-19, all sorts of misfortunes, and death. To God, the above man-made social differences are totally cosmetic and literally meaningless, unless they are used as means for facilitating individual freedom and other divine courses.

Because there is no human being that is superior or special from other human beings, for any human being or groups of human beings to think that they are special and entitled to prescribe unilaterally or unsolicited what others should do with their lives is therefore ludicrous and literally playing God! We were perplexed by a recent report in the media, about a senior government official in a certain country, who told journalists that if he insulted a person and they report it, then they will be in for it! So here is a human being who thinks he is special, and that he is entitled to deny people their freedom of expression, even when he displays publicly silly and unbecoming behaviour. Is such a person not supposed to be a role model for safeguarding individual freedom given his official position?

It is also ludicrous that some ordinary people think that some people like kings, queens, prime ministers, presidents, rich and famous people, professionals, etc., are special despite having done nothing tangible for safeguarding individual freedom or other aspects of human well-being. Such perception by ordinary people may be out of mere silliness or perhaps naivety, unless if it is a result of pressure from those who claim to be the “special ones”.

Because individual freedom is a gift from God, it is therefore normatively an absolute right. For instance, individuals are expected to have divine freedom of, among others, expression; movement; choice of religion, tradition, custom, cultural norm, dressing style, beauty style, and other value orientations; choice of romantic relationship; choice of political orientation in terms of paradigms or philosophies; choice of means for earning a living; and choice of life style. Freedom of choice of the mentioned social variables emanates from the fact that all the variables are man-made! They should not therefore be imposed on anyone or restricted unilaterally by anyone. As such, there should be no such things like compulsory national cultural norms or traditions, national dressing code, national values, etc., unless if they are endorsed by all citizens through let say a referendum and constitutionalized.

From the foregoing, individual freedom therefore entails the bulk of human rights. As such, it is the very essence of the rights. This conception about the significance of individual freedom goes back to the medieval England's Magna Charta, a 1215 Latin document, that spelled the liberties and rights of people hence individual freedom under the law. With some modifications by the medieval King Henrik, it was applied to everyone including the King himself! With some further modifications, the Magna Charta formed the foundation of the modern British Bill of Rights that is now the country’s cornerstone for safeguarding individual freedom.

The principles of the Magna Charta have also had considerable influence on constitutional human rights provisions in USA as well as many other countries in the democratic free world that cherish individual freedom.

Individual freedom and democracy are inseparable. Without individual freedom, democracy can not exist, and vice versa. Because individual freedom ought to apply to all mankind hence universal, the concept of democracy should in principle be the same everywhere. Narratives like Western democracy, African democracy, Chinese democracy, etc., are therefore pure nonsense! Some of the narratives are often just used to try to rationalize bogus democratic systems that are based on gross violation of individual freedom and other human rights! Democracy anywhere should simply concern safeguarding and ensuring individual freedom! However, the so-called West could be said to be pioneers and staunch advocates of democracy because of their strong respect for individual freedom.

Individual freedom ought to give individuals freedom to do whatever they like with their lives. In other words, individual freedom ought to give individuals rights for making choices about what they wish to do with their lives. Notwithstanding, however, choices made by individuals must not adversely affect life of other people including children at all stages of growth/development, as well as freedom of others. Enjoying individual freedom therefore requires social responsibility of ensuring that life and freedom of others are not inhibited. Failure to observe that, enjoyment of freedom becomes anti-social and even criminal and anarchical.

Furthermore, we are totally accountable spiritually for the choices we make during enjoying our divine freedom, because God also gave us ability to understand what is right and wrong morally! However, whether we are wrong morally or not, is not the business of others as long as our moral wrongdoing has no harmful effects on them. Within this context, such individual moral issues are left for God to make judgement!

Also, it is important that everybody is aware that wrong choices made during enjoying individual freedom may have severe personal consequences. The latter may include, among others, sickness, financial problems, social problems, and even death! When wrong choices are made freely, other people or society should not be blamed for deleterious consequences that may follow. However, because we all make mistakes, people suffering from deleterious consequences of wrong choices should not be abandoned especially by the state.

State administrative systems like central governments, local authorities, and other public bodies, as well as cultural systems, are expected to facilitate and enable divine individual freedom. In other words, the systems ought to create conducive economic, social, and legal environment within which divine individual freedom can flourish. That is the normative basis of the essence of such systems.

Systemic decisions about which freedom choices by individuals deter or negatively affect life and freedom of others should be democratic and transparent, and should never be based on political, moral, or religious grounds. In other words, such interventionist decisions should focus solely on harmful effects of individual choices on other people. Therefore, when such systemic decisions like let say banning of smoking in public places are made, very clear and impeccable evidence on the harmful effects of smoking in public places should be provided in support of the decision. There should never be things like presidential, royal, ministerial, etc., directives for banning certain types of choices that individuals make during enjoying their individual freedom. Such kind of bans are obviously dictatorial, authoritarian, and unacceptable. Governments for example, should not out of the blue, ban wearing of certain types of outfits by girls and women, without proper public consultations and evidence that wearing such outfits has tangible harmful effects on other people! This example should apply to all other systemic decisions that regulate individual freedom for the sake of public good.

We must mention that, while it is the duty of state and cultural administrative systems to ensure individual freedom hence individual choices that do not harm the public, the administrative systems are not obliged to endorse individual choices that are immoral, controversial, or potentially deleterious to individuals. So, for example while adultery may be an open choice within the context of individual freedom, national governments may not endorse or support it. That may also apply to other similar choices that may be deemed immoral or controversial in some countries, like homosexuality. Under normal circumstances, non-endorsement should not by any means imply prohibition. What could be prohibited may be publicity and glorification of the choices or use of propaganda in attempts to get other people make similar choices!

It very important to observe at this juncture that because people who make immoral or controversial choices do not change from being human to something else, their human rights must be safeguarded just like those of rest of society. Human rights apply equally to all people irrespective of what they have chosen to do with their lives within the confines of individual freedom mentioned earlier!

State and cultural administrative systems should also refrain from taking advantage of vulnerability of individuals caused by poverty, illiteracy, health issues, drug addiction, and alcoholism issues, etc., to strip the individuals their freedom. This may be a growing and serious problem in pure capitalist countries that often associate respect and dignity with personal material wealth.

So those without money because of non-inclusiveness emanating from a pure capitalist system per se, will paradoxically be blamed for their poverty. As such, any state assistance in the form of social benefits like financial support for let say living expenses and housing will have stringent and degrading conditions attached, that often diminish individual freedom to very large extent. No state should be allowed to do that to individuals under any circumstances. If state benefits are to be given to vulnerable individuals, then that should be done without affecting the freedom of the individuals. It is as simple as that. State benefits ought to be means for facilitating the capacity of vulnerable individuals to enjoy their God given freedom.

We must be aware that state and cultural systems are made of individuals or groups of individuals like as mentioned earlier, heads of state, ministers, local government representatives, traditional leaders, etc. Spiritual accountability for deliberately flawed and unjust systemic decisions that deny or limit individual freedom, will therefore be on these people as individuals. It is important for everyone to know that there may be catastrophic consequences right here on earth for people who messes up with God given freedom to individuals. We know for sure that is true, because statistical evidence that we would not like to reveal here due to its sensitivity, supports the notion. What we can only say is when people who have denied people freedom unjustly suffer the consequences of their actions, the consequences are often never linked to the actions, as doing so may be very controversial due to lack of tangible scientific evidence, and possible political pressure to suppress that kind of reasoning!

In some cases, some individuals due to certain factors, may willingly surrender some or all their freedom to other individuals or state and cultural administrative systems. In this way, the individual per se becomes the main threat to his/her own freedom! Two examples can be cited and discussed as thus.

First, are individuals who surrender all or part of their freedom to their love partners because they think that is what love is all about; or are too dependent economically to them. Economic dependence is the worst personal threat to individual freedom. People and state administrative systems that like stripping individuals their divine freedom often prey on economically dependent people. Individuals should do everything they can to avoid economic dependence in order to safeguard their individual freedom.

Second and most important in this article, are individual citizens who in free and fair general elections in their countries, will choose to vote for political parties that they know very well that they have dictatorial political philosophies that deprive citizens their individual freedom, or harbor some leaders with such dictatorial attitudes. Such individual citizens who voluntarily vote against their own interests will often cry wolf later as they lose their freedom as if they were forced to vote for the dictators! Funny enough, they may even repeat the same mistake again in subsequent elections!

The above behavior of individual citizens in general elections is rather paradoxical, but we think we know what happens in such cases. We will explain as thus.

State administrative systems that deny individual freedom to their citizens are like haters. They are very manipulative through use of sophisticated rhetoric that falsely rationalizes the denial of individual freedom in terms of some development projects that were carried out during their periods in power. That is even more so in countries where majority of citizens have low education. Ruling political elites may for example tell voters who they have stripped their freedom, to look at what they have done for them, citing various development projects like new roads, new bridges, new airports, new skyscrapers, etc., that were done during their previous eras, and insist that no other political party can do that! But then, that is purely fallacious, because funds for national development projects do not come from the pockets of individual politicians or the bank accounts of political parties.

The funds alias public funds are from the national wealth, loans, and sometime foreign financial aid. As such, funds for carrying out national development projects in a country, are not created or limited to one political party only. As national wealth, loans, and foreign financial aid, funds for national development will often be available to any political party that is voted to power! The only difference is how different parties will plan and manage the funds to effect development on the ground. This difference among political parties is definitely important, but in countries with political parties or politicians who are dictatorial, it can not be overriding criterion for deciding new governments. Instead, facilitation and enabling of individual freedom should be overriding criterion. When individual freedom is guaranteed by all political parties, then planning and management of public funds to deliver development become top criterion!

In concluding, we would like to emphasize that God given individual freedom is the most important social aspect of any country, because a truly free country is a cumulative product of free individuals. Citizens who are free, are often happy, healthy, creative, innovative, and patriotic. As such, truly free countries are very likely to enjoy sustained social and political stability, as well as great potential for economic prosperity. There can never be sustained social and political stability, hence real peace in a country without individual freedom. Any claimed peace in a country where individuals are denied their divine freedom, is artificial and characterized by fear and sometime cowardice, timidness, and dependence, created by various oppressive and manipulative measures by the state. Such countries are like time bombs just waiting to explode, as citizens denied individual freedom are bound to get fed up of unjust state control with time, and begin fighting to reclaim their freedom until they get it back!

_________________

Video by

JK Freelance Productions

Video music by

https://www.bensound.com

____________________

Last update: December 30, 2020.

____________________