Tyranny of Negative Freedom
Freedom is defined as the ability to act without constraints. People, therefore, have the freedom to do things that cannot be prevented by other forces either in theory or in practice. This paper tries to explain the impacts of negative freedom in terms of cultural and economic sources on the tyranny of negative freedom ideology. Furthermore, it is to understand the central notions of this ideology, as explained by the author. Negative freedom was displayed by the bourgeoisie’s historical progress period of overthrowing the aristocracy of political and economic power, which gave birth to liberalism. In America, the negative conception of freedom is the root of classical liberalism ideology. The legal protection of the property is a result of classical liberalism. This is used as the language for justification as well as being identified with the character of the American nation.
“Negative freedom is not merely a political doctrine but is a social condition and mode of being” (Thorpe, 2016 p.205). The argument here is that the isolation and the uncertainty accompanying the negative freedom are psychologically unbearable. According to Senator Graham, liberty means maintaining boundaries between an individual life and public authority. Real love is bounded within the family rather than within the community or the public. Furthermore, he insists that the relationship between the family and the individual is different in the market hence the assumption that everyone is a brother’s keeper does not hold.
On the other hand, the market commentator Rick Santelli attacked Obama’s administrations on the mortgage payment, suggesting that the nature of America should be kept unaltered or shaken to conserve the market. Since the mortgage payment was thought to have deteriorated the market in America, it led to the development of the Chicago Tea Party for the capitalists, as organized by Rick Santelli. This alliance was meant to restore and stabilize America’s market and political state. Therefore, after the market collapse in 2008, the American and global capital required the federal government and Federal Reserve to pay trillions to the banks.
The naturalness of America was borrowed from the notion of laissez-faire. This meant that the globality and complexity of the economic and social life are different from individualism as articulated by bourgeois ideology. “Capitalism produces both complex interdependency and atomization” (Thorpe, 2016 p.209). In the labor market, every individual can sell themselves as a commodity to satisfy their needs for private consumption. Therefore the atomized existence of individuals in the market as the buyers and sellers displayed a model of negative freedom. The bourgeois intellectual, according to Christopher Caudwell, implies that a man is freer and more at liberty when he is free from cultural pressure, social organization, and consciousness.
Concerning prepping, the prepper must be ready to protect their homestead, and therefore they are allowed to use firearms, but they should maintain solidarity as the crucial aspect. In contemporary America, gun-owning is not just a political theory, but it is considered a social order that makes a society polite. What matters, in this case, is the appropriate use of firearms such as guns for protection. Protection in this scenario is a cumulative term used to describe the political, economic, and social security concerning negative freedom.
In my opinion, the ideology of the tyranny of freedom is based on two ideologies the individualism and capitalism. The two ideologies about contemporary America and its political and economic stability have some arguments. However, the two doctrines have been of considerable significance to modern America in maintaining a stable political and economic state.
References
Thorpe, C. (2016). The Tyranny of Negative Freedom. In Necroculture (pp. 205-259). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.