Hegel developed a philosophy of action in which the spirit is always active in the search of some aim, in realizing one’s potential or self-actualization. Hegel believed history is a progressive realization of freedom. The concept of freedom is one which Hegel thought of very great importance, indeed, he believed it to be the central concept of human history. Hegel’s concept of freedom can best be regarded as the answer to a problem – the problem of how a man can be free in a universe which is governed by necessary laws. You must find your own point in history, claims Hegel, and start to reflect on yourself in relation to the world. When asking searching questions of yourself, realize that freedom resides not in the brain, but in the traditions of critical thought and skeptical reason. Today we realize that true freedom is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.
Freedom doesn’t exist as the objective, it exists because there is another objective to obtain, and freedom is the means to obtain it. But what about when freedom is an end in, and of itself? When you have no end and make freedom the ultimate goal, anything goes. What are the consequences? The general premise would be not to use one’s talents and abilities to share with others, or make something that makes a difference. However this approach enslaves you to organizational practice, to careers and of course to the almighty dollar. In this system we are told what to consume, what is popular to ascribe to, give in to your passions – in return, it is supposed to be liberating. These things are the antithesis of freedom. Compliance to all of this that was supposed to set you free, has actually left you in chains and hurting.
Julius Evola claims freedom and equality are tools of manipulation, and after the movement leaders get what they want, they’ll toss you aside. Evola explains, “Practically speaking, it is only a revolutionary weapon: freedom and equality are the catchwords certain social strata or groups employed in order to undermine other classes and to gain preeminence; having achieved this task, they were quickly set aside.”1 Traditionalists believe that modernization be considered an anomaly in the history of mankind. Social life must be governed by ‘traditions,’ the forgetting of which brings about degeneracy. The problems of today, they claim, are the consequences of modern music, drugs, sexual egalitarianism that injured society, specifically marriage, the family and relations between the sexes. Traditionalism provides the ideological cement for the alliance of anti-democratic forces in post-Soviet Russia.
Friedrich Hayek described the connection between economic control and totalitarianism: “The economic freedom which is the prerequisite of any other freedom cannot be the freedom from economic care which the socialist promise us and which can be obtained only by relieving the individual at the same time the necessity and the power of choice, it must be the freedom of our economic activity which, with the right choice, inevitably carries the risk and responsibility of that right.” The economic elite point out, there is a threat to other freedoms with any reduction to economic freedom. An essential attribute of the good life is that people enjoy not just a range of personal freedoms, but a voice in public affairs. The outcome of individual economic freedom can be great inequality, which hollows out realistic notions of democracy.
Kant observed that man’s capacity to reason was not his most important quality. Rather, it is the capacity of free choice which all men share, no matter how refined their reason. Kant’s democratic sensibility, however, is not based on the interests of the common man, but on the common man’s moral worth and moral dignity. Democracy can be defined as the free and equal right of every person to participate in a form of government. However, when it comes to actual choice there are a limited number of candidates, hence only certain choices. Karl Popper claimed democracy is representative and not directly participatory. One’s only role is to judge and dismiss the government, a device to protect ourselves against the misuse of power. People never have any real power over politics. The best one can achieve is to determine which of a few candidates will exercise political rule over them. Democracy masks the true source of power in the hands of the few.
When democracy is an end in itself your vote matters more than who you vote for. In this case it does not matter how informed you are. What matters is that you participate. If truth is not knowable, then all should vote. The foundation of this perspective is agnosticism that means that truth is not knowable. Facts can be disputed such that no decision can be made about their veracity. Then it does not matter what one’s opinion is because we cannot determine what is real anyways. Hence all opinions are equal because there are no independent criteria for truth. In fact it is difficult to achieve a neutral opinion as the media and government have an incredible ability to mislead people which, in turn, leads to people having incorrect beliefs and make incorrect decisions. Currently democracy is treated as an end in itself and we must deal with the tension between freedom and necessity.2
It is time to end partisan gerrymandering Obama said: “we have to end the practice of drawing our congressional districts so that politicians can pick their voters, and not the other way around.” A gerrymandering of congressional districts, completed six years ago, sought to secure a Republican House majority for years to come by packing Democratic voters into fewer, often urban and minority districts and giving Republican candidates comfortable majorities in the ones they control. But those tailor-made districts yielded a new crop of hard-right, often uncompromising Republican members of Congress, running safely in mostly white, older and rural districts. Composed of nearly 40 of the most committed ideologues in the House, the Freedom Caucus has a simple mission: to get GOP leadership to deliver on the extreme, anti-government and social-conservative rhetoric that nearly all Republicans spout to get elected.
Policy details were lacking during Donald Trump’s campaign, but there were hints of a disturbing agenda on immigration, healthcare, gun control and women’s rights. His campaign’s constantly-evolving views – often championed as a way for Trump to use unpredictability to cut better deals for the nation – made it difficult to glean a political agenda, or even a set of clear, core policy views ahead of his presidency. Why would people who benefit from Obamacare in general – and its Medicaid expansion specifically – vote for a man who vowed to destroy it? Some anecdotal reports have suggested that people simply didn’t understand that the benefits they received were a result of the Affordable Care Act. Others elected Trump to change America and to serve the people instead of a political system that wants to serve itself. Their main hope was that he not pander to liberal interests and that he will help balance the budget, and help the economy remain strong.
Democracy treated as an end in itself ensures economic inequality is now part and parcel of power exercised in and through the state. Democracy as a means to an end is the view that voting in itself is not sufficient. People must become aware of what is really going on and understand and participate in political rule through mass participation. An informed opinion means more than an uninformed opinion. The philosophy that forms the foundation of this perspective is empiricism, which is the view that truth and reality are knowable. If truth is knowable, then all efforts to engage and inform the majority must occur. If the historic inequalities between those in power and those who are ruled are to be eventually overcome we must become more knowledgeable. When democracy is treated as a means to an end in itself, it results in the best decisions and social equality.2
What is freedom? Like many important questions it is something that will undeniably leave us with more questions than answers. Freedom is a balancing act. Doing what you want sounds a lot like freedom, but doing what you want does not always have an end that is freeing. If freedom has no limits, a potential consequence could be anarchy. But when you find true freedom, we realize that like most things that are good, it is not a drastic measure, rather something moderate. For most, we must realize that freedom gives us the right to do at all times what is right, even sometimes at the expense of what we want. Freedom is best exercised as a means to an end, but the end must be one that gives people the choice to make the best possible decision to reach their full potential.
1 Buhls, Thomas. Freedom Is a Code Word for Degeneracy. http://www.tradyouth.org/2013/09/freedom-is-codeword-for-degeneracy/
2 Is Democracy an End in Itself or a Means to an End? file:///Users/greghorsman/Downloads/Is%20Democracy%20an%20End%20in%20Itself%20or%20a%20Means%20to%20an%20End%20%20Articles-5.htm