Up@dawn 2.0

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Chains of Freedom

Christian Brooks (H3)

This week's essay will be based upon an older discussion question from a previous CoPhi class. Essentially, it questions the nature of freedom and the circumstances under which the definition can be stretched.

Freedom is defined as ‘the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.’ Can a power like this be forced upon a people or a person? I see freedom, as a right, more like a state of being; freedom, to some varying degree upon the scale, is present in the subject location. The degree of freedom, as decided by some sort of group body or individual body, is then enacted upon those within the land, and they must then observe it accordingly. If they refuse, they are either removed from the equation or forced to observe it, like Rousseau suggested.

I believe that if the degree of freedom allows its residents to flee in the event that they disagree with the rules set by the land’s version of freedom, they are not forced into anything. Freedom cannot be forced upon a people who have the option to leave it, and those who still maintain the power to change it will not be forced under it forever.

Those who do not have the option to change or leave the land’s version of freedom are then forced to assimilate it, at least under the watch of those who care to enforce the degree of freedom. North Korea, for example, has a degree of freedom in this situation. They are a free people, but the laws laid upon the land are so strict that they do not have the power to change it or leave. They have a forced freedom.

What does this mean for those who are happy under their brand of freedom? As the grasp of freedom tightens around its subjects, the likelihood of satisfaction among the land’s subjects is reduced. However, in the event they are happy with their version of freedom, they may not feel as much weight in their chains. And in some instances, like America for example, the subjects may have forgotten the chains upon them.


  1. Some could argue that even though the laws make it extremely difficult, the citizens still have the free will to attempt to leave.

  2. Freedom can in fact be forced on someone if there are no persons that are willing to control another being if you do not in fact have an upper being to report to then like it or not you are in fact free.

  3. They may have free will to try and do these things but they do not have the freedom to do so. In my mind, free will and freedom are hugely different things. Everyone has the free will to do anthing, but they may be killed for doing those things and I don't believe that constitutes as free will.