Freedom Is Phlogiston

I have been thinking about a line from John Ralston Saul's splendid little book, The Doubters Companion. It goes something like:

"Freedom is an empty space, that needs to be re-occupied each day."

This struck me as quite insightful. At first it led me to think about hippies in Guy Fawkes masks loitering in a financial district, but on deeper reflection it made more sense: Freedom, as a Thing, does not exist of itself; you cannot fetch a pound of it, any more than you can obtain a sack of Vacuum, or darkness, or cold. We all know what these things are, we all need them to survive,  but in actual fact these values are really just the absence of their supposed opposite.

Vacuum is a space with less pressure than its surroundings, darkness is a condition of less light, cold is the absence of heat energy. And Freedom, I would assert, is a space that is somewhat reduced in political power.

The little bubble of personal autonomy, we have asserted as our right in long and tedious conflicts with kings, presidents, priests, parents and vagabonds; we have asserted that there exists a social space from which we will not be moved, without a damned good reason.

I think that from this perspective, it becomes clear that Freedom is in fact like Phlogiston. It was invoked to balance an equation; the mass suggested is correct, but the value is itself on the wrong side of the equality, with it's sign reversed.

When we say freedom we either mean the political autonomy that is a manifestation of Power, or we mean the limitation on political power placed there by the collective might of the polity as a whole to keep locally concentrated power from seeping into the spaces that we have assigned the powerless individual: the small void in the power block afforded every citizen by way of right.

It becomes clear that from this perspective certain kinds of rights cannot exist, since it is impossible to negate a negative by subtraction. A good example is the Rights of the Child from the UN, which includes lots of fine ideas, but under a false premise. Children have a right to be Loved, it asserts; but if Rights are themselves a negation of power, it is impossible to create Love by prohibiting Not-Loving. It simply fails.

Rights must therefore be underwritten by positive obligations, which will inevitably negate other Rights. And if it is not possible to assign a binding positive obligation to underwrite a Right, it is easy to demonstrate that that right does not exist.

This perspective further calls into question the legitimacy of violent protest; put simply, if the essence of freedom is the restraint of power, it a intolerable to exploit the space afforded by freedom to attack that power, rather than seeking to restrain it by lawful means.

A guard dog must frequently be chained up during business hours to prevent legitimate customers getting chewed on, but it is intolerable to allow the dog so restrained to be kicked. And if the dog meets the kicker in the hours of darkness, it is almost inevitable that the reaction will be unpleasant.

I would assert, therefore, that unless the power is absolutely evil. seeking to annihilate a guiltless group who are not at arms against it. that there is no excuse for violent protest. I simply do not believe that it is justified. The obligation of every member of a democracy is to speak reasonably, as loud as is needed to be heard. If violence is first categorically and absolutely disavowed, then shouting is not an act of violence.

We need to make a rational noise, in defense of Democratic values, that will be heard. And restore the contention of Ideas, and not of people, races, parties.