Discussion of Power and Freedom

[The True Scotsman]

The purpose of this thread is to take serious endeavor into the question of whether power and freedom are one and the same, or if one is necessary for the other. For clarity I will simply discuss the political application of this question and will adjust my definitions thusly.

Power is often thought of, in the political sense, as having control over other humans. Freedom is often thought of, in the political sense, as a state of being in which one is not controlled by other humans.

It seems to work out, in theoretical models, that these are different things (as one is interactive, while the other is neutral), but as far as the practical world is concern, is there a case where one is free from others, yet powerless or not very powerful? If there is not, which I suspect is the case, then should we not conclude that power is freedom, or at least that power is required for freedom? It seems to me that this is the case, as it seems that one either has power held over him/herself or holds power over others or both. There seems to exist no neutral state in which one hold power over none, yet does not have power held over himself (at least in a state in which he/she is living among others). If all of what I have said above is true, then mustn't it be concluded that, if we are after freedom, we must seek to gain the most power possible (other things being equal) and that the more power one has, the more free one is?

[Francesca R]

As simply as possible: no. You have set out freedom as a zero sum competition with fixed supply that can only be obtained by depriving someone else of it. Quite incorrect.

[Soapy Sam]

as far as the practical world is concern, is there a case where one is free from others, yet powerless or not very powerful?

Nobody is entirely free from the control or influence of others for any length of time. For brief periods, possibly- is this not why people rock climb or ride fast morbikes?
Ultimately the only permanent way to reject the control or influence of others is suicide, even if you are rich and powerful. But that's a zero sum game of a sort, too.


If there is not, which I suspect is the case, then should we not conclude that power is freedom, or at least that power is required for freedom?

It gives you different choices. It also takes some away. Hitler had loads of power over others, but couldn't buy chips at Gt. Yarmouth Saturday market.

[The True Scotsman]

As simply as possible: no. You have set out freedom as a zero sum competition with fixed supply that can only be obtained by depriving someone else of it. Quite incorrect.

As a theoretical model, it seems that political freedom is not a zero sum competition with a fixed supply, yet, in the practical world, is there a case in which a person with no political power has the same amount of political freedom as a person with some political power, or a case where a person with absolute political power has the same or less political freedom than a person with no or little political power? It seems to me that a slave, who has no political power has no political freedom, yet if he were freed, he would then be a citizen in which he would either gain some political power or remain a slave under a different name.

[Francesca R]

I think your position is such that you'd find metrics such as this (http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw09/CompHistData/CountryStatus&RatingsOverview1973-2009.pdf) (from here (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=439)) flawed? That they are under-scoring freedom in the non-free places because they miss out a colossal amount of freedom concentrated with a few leaders?

[The True Scotsman]

Nobody is entirely free from the control or influence of others for any length of time. For brief periods, possibly- is this not why people rock climb or ride fast morbikes?
Ultimately the only permanent way to reject the control or influence of others is suicide, even if you are rich and powerful. But that's a zero sum game of a sort, too.

I agree that political power for an individual is sort of an ebb and flow. I suppose I can also agree that no absolute political freedom exists, yet if we are all seeking political freedom, then it seems self-evident that we should seek to obtain as much as we can, other things being equal.

It gives you different choices. It also takes some away. Hitler had loads of power over others, but couldn't buy chips at Gt. Yarmouth Saturday market.

I can agree that trade-offs always exist, yet are these trade-offs always equal?

[Francesca R]

Actually it appears that economic freedom is not all that closely related to political freedom. Or rather, there is a relationship but some striking exceptions.

[The True Scotsman]

I think your position is such that you'd find metrics such as this (http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw09/CompHistData/CountryStatus&RatingsOverview1973-2009.pdf) (from here (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=439)) flawed? That they are under-scoring freedom in the non-free places because they miss out a colossal amount of freedom concentrated with a few leaders?

Depends. If they are strictly speaking of political freedom and the political freedom of average citizens, then I don't find it flawed. If they are speaking of the country on the whole, including leaders, mostly likely, yes, I do find it flawed. It seems to be that citizens only gain political power by taking political power from their leaders. Of course this make it sound as though I am suggesting everyone seek to topple over the regimes that govern them, take control of their country as absolute dictators, and squelch all opposition, but I am not suggesting that so much as inquiring about the natural of political freedom and the nature of obtaining it.

[The True Scotsman]

Actually it appears that economic freedom is not all that closely related to political freedom. Or rather, there is a relationship but some striking exceptions.

I can agree with that. Certainly property rights are required, as far as political freedom, as well as perhaps the freedom to trade and make products, but economics is not zero sum, as Adam Smith so well demonstrated.

[DC]

Actually it appears that economic freedom is not all that closely related to political freedom. Or rather, there is a relationship but some striking exceptions.

Milton is Rolling in his grave :D

[Francesca R]

Not reallyHistory suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition. Fascist Italy and Fascist Spain, Germany at various times in the last seventy years, Japan before World Wars I and II, tzarist Russia in the decades before World War I -- are all societies that cannot conceivably be described as politically free. Yet, in each, private enterprise was the dominant form of economic organization. It is therefore clearly possible to have economic arrangements that are fundamentally capitalist and political arrangements that are not free.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ipe/friedman.htm