Progress pill
Freedom or Power

There are only two political philosophies

A Philosophical History of Freedom

There are only two political philosophies

  • The task of philosophy
  • Philosophy of freedom and philosophy of power
Why title this course: A History of Freedom? Because we need to understand the relationship between ideas and events to judge our era more effectively and act with discernment. It is in the past that we find the elements for a better understanding of what freedom is and the reasons why we must cherish it.
When the past no longer illuminates the future, the spirit walks in darkness (Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy in America).
At the same time, Auguste Comte said, "One does not fully know a science until one knows its history." This truth could be applied to the idea of freedom. Indeed, freedom is not a new idea. It is a legacy passed down through generations. The entire history of civilization bears witness to a relentless struggle for freedom.
However, the goal of this course is not only to shed light on the history of freedom, but also—and more importantly—to develop critical thinking. Indeed, history alone is not enough to judge the present and the future. It needs to be accompanied by critical reflection and a judgment on past mistakes. This is the contribution of philosophy. That is why I have titled this course 'A Philosophical History of Freedom.' It is indeed about exploring how philosophers have conceived of freedom throughout the ages.

The task of philosophy

From its origins, it has had a dual purpose:
  • Firstly, it is to give meaning to vague and confused concepts. What is good, true, just, beautiful? Just as history's function is to illuminate the past, so philosophy is the art of defining concepts correctly. That is why we need to start this course by understanding what freedom is.
Freedom is a concept that encompasses a multitude of variants, which are as many possible declinations of the same reality: political freedom, economic freedom, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, religious freedom, freedom of association, and so on. What reality are we talking about?
Freedom can be defined as the ability to make choices over one's affairs. It is an inherent faculty of the human being. It is a reality that is essentially individual. Only the individual can think and act, that is, make choices. This does not mean that the individual is alone, nor does it imply that he owes nothing to others. On the contrary, he lives in society and must cooperate with others for his good. But everyone remains free to cooperate or not and must assume the responsibility for their choices.
The notion of responsibility is corollary to freedom because every choice has consequences. The responsible person is the one who assumes the costs of their own decisions and does not shift this cost onto others. In other words, freedom is demanding. It is a moral notion that implies both rights and duties towards others, including the duty to respect their freedom.
Secondly, philosophy is normative, whereas history is merely descriptive. Thus, political philosophy is distinct from political science. Political philosophy is normative, meaning it prescribes values and judges human actions by a criterion of justice. On the other hand, political scientists are content to describe regimes and make the history of institutions, without making value judgments.

Philosophy of freedom and philosophy of power

From this perspective, there are only two kinds of political philosophies: the philosophy of freedom and the philosophy of power.
  • The philosophy of freedom is based on the natural right of property and asserts that the sole purpose of the law is to protect private property and contracts. Everyone should be able to do as they wish with what belongs to them, provided they do not harm anyone. It is a philosophy that defends equal freedom for all to dispose of oneself and one's property under the condition of responsibility. It is the philosophy of the free market.
  • The philosophy of power justifies the authority of certain collective entities, such as the State or society, to decide the limits to be placed on the market and property, and therefore on freedom. Within this framework, it is the law's responsibility to organize the economy, health, housing, culture, education, and other aspects of society. This constructivist philosophy has always had its defenders, in the name of collective interest, equality, protection, and well-being.
The antagonism between these two philosophies exists in all eras. But we can illustrate it with the philosophy of the Enlightenment. There is clearly a dividing line between the two types of thinkers.
Those who defend the first philosophy in France are the Physiocrats, with François Quesnay at their head. They call themselves physiocrats (the name comes from the Greek "Physis", meaning nature, and "Kratos", meaning rule) because they develop an economic and social thought based on the natural rights of man. For them, society, people, and properties exist before laws. In this system, Bastiat explains,
It is not because there are laws that there are properties, but because there are properties that there are laws. (Property and Law).
For Turgot and Say, disciples of Quesnay, there exists a natural law, independent of the whims of legislators, which is valid for all men and predates any society. This philosophy comes directly from medieval scholasticism, the Stoics, Aristotle, and Sophocles. The unwritten laws come before written laws and superior to them because they stem from human nature and reason.
The second philosophy is found among authors such as Rousseau, Robespierre, or Kant, who embody the republican tradition, in which the sovereignty of the general will is considered the true source of law. A contemporary of Quesnay, Rousseau is an anti-physiocrat. For him, the legislator must organize society, like a mechanic who invents a machine from inert matter.
"He who dares to undertake the establishment of a people," says Rousseau, "must feel capable of changing, so to speak, human nature, of transforming each individual who, by himself, is a perfect and solitary whole, into part of a greater whole from which this individual receives, in a way, his life and being." (Social Contract)
From this perspective, the legislator's mission is to organize, modify, or even abolish property if deemed necessary. For Rousseau, property is not natural but conventional, like society itself. In turn, Robespierre establishes the principle that "Property is the right of every citizen to enjoy and dispose of the portion of goods guaranteed to him by law." There is no natural right to property; there are only an indefinite number of possible and contingent arrangements.
Quiz
Quiz1/5
What is the difference between history and philosophy?