John Locke Freedom

Freedom is typically posited as an intrinsic characteristic of being human (i.e. “we are all born free”), and one of the primary functions of the state is to enforce it. However, this begs the question of to what this concept of “freedom” is referring. Being free can easily be seen as not able to be conflated with being a good person, as the freedom to do whatever one wants cannot ethically extend to harmful actions, which can be argued as infringing upon another’s freedom to live without fear of harm, but this simply leads to more questions, primarily of who can define this harm, as well as wouldn’t being totally free entitle one the right to commit harm if one wish to do so? Should one even wish to be as free as possible at if it is at the

In Locke’s state of nature, people are in a “state of perfect freedom” (Locke, p. 243), governed by natural law, which allows them to access resources they need and get rid of what they don’t need independently of others. All (for the most part, as Locke comes from a high position of privilege as an educated white man and does not necessarily expand his thinking to include marginalized groups) are equal in this situation, as “creatures of the same species of rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection” (Locke, p. 244). These people all have liberties regarding themselves and their possessions, but cannot “destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it” (Locke, p. 244). Natural law means that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (Locke, p. 244) and that one is “bound to preserve himself [...and] as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind” (Locke, p. 244) by not invading the rights of others by “impair[ing] the life, or what tends to the preservation of life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another” (Locke, p. 244). If such a transgression occurs, they will have set themselves as against the rule of

In fact, in western tradition, freedom is often tied with inequality and violence and defined in opposition to forms of enslavement and other oppression, which refers to impediments based on membership in a group, particularly if said group has historically lacked power. Frederick Douglass illustrates this in a speech on “what to the slave is the 4th of July?” He views the U.S. Constitution as a “glorious liberty document” (Douglass), but also acknowledges how the existence of slavery still legally occurred despite flagrant transgressions on the principles of freedom the document says it upholds. Douglass, who was asked to give a patriotic speech in celebration of the holiday by what would be considered a relatively progressive group of abolitionists, invites and even requires his hosts to consider the hypocrisy of this request and how the failings of the system make him unable to fulfill their request and is an offense against the injustice his people have suffered as slaves. One can see that there are problems with varying degrees of state involvement in maintaining and limiting freedom, and there is no clear answer on how freedom should be defined, or if there is even a definition that should be had of it. We cannot hope to find an easy solution to the question of “what is freedom?”, only work to develop nuance in