Recently, the concept of “freedom of choice” has acquired a certain negative color in certain circles. The same as “liberality”, “tolerance” and other concepts associated with Western democratic values. And this is at least strange.
The evolution of freedom of choice
Actually, what is freedom of choice? In a broad sense, it is a person’s right to determine their destiny in accordance with their own desires, tastes and beliefs. The complete antithesis of freedom is slavery. A position in which a person cannot choose anything at all. He eats what they give, lives where they allow, does what they say. Even such a seemingly natural right to love, to the choice of the person with whom one wants to be, the slave does not have.
And the further a person leaves from slavery, the more opportunities he has to choose. Family. Location. To work. Lifestyle. Religion. Political beliefs.
Freedom of choice does not in any way mean permissiveness. It will not abolish discipline, does not abolish responsibility to society, does not abolish a sense of duty. Moreover, it involves full awareness of the consequences of her act.
Choice and responsibility for him
Even as a child, everyone heard a fairy tale in which a hero standing in front of a stone read: “You’ll go to the left … You will go to the right … You will go straight …”
So, in fact, the freedom of choice of a person looks like. Awareness of opportunities and taking responsibility for the consequences. After all, it would never occur to anyone that at the end of history, faced with the fulfillment of a prediction, the hero suddenly shouted indignantly: “How is it that I will lose my horse? Are you crazy? Who knows where it is written ?! ”
Similarly, the situation is with free, meaningful choice. The person got acquainted with the prospects, considered everything and made a decision, fully aware of its consequences and taking responsibility for them. This is precisely what makes freedom of choice different from permissiveness.
Actually, that is why a person receives the right to make any important decisions only after reaching adulthood. He becomes old enough to appreciate the consequences of his actions, which means he can make an informed decision. The right to freedom of choice implies an obligation to answer for this choice.
Dictatorship or democracy
There are always supporters of a “strong” vertical of power, who consider democracy and liberals to be the root of all ills. They argue that a state making decisions for citizens is a much more promising and reliable option than a state whose political system is based on the law of freedom of choice. Because the people in the mass are not too smart and far-sighted, unlike official authorities.
It doesn’t sound too humane. But let's say these people are right. Indeed, there is such a hypothetical country with an exceptionally stupid people who do not know what they want. And the power, consisting not of representatives of the same short-sighted population, but of completely different people, obviously brought from somewhere from afar, from places in which smart people live. But is it really in this case that the task of the authorities is not to work on educational programs, on raising the country's cultural level? Just as parents raise and teach a child, and do not lock him forever in the nursery, motivating this with the inexperience and naivety of the ward.
Freedom and the evolution of the political system
Winston Churchill also said that democracy is bad, but unfortunately they haven’t come up with anything better. Because only a free creature can grow and develop.
The cogs of an empire are, of course, wonderful. And in its way is also magnificent. But the horizons of metal parts are extremely limited, and the desire for development is completely absent. All that a screw can do is work. Or - do not work, depending on the situation. Not so great a choice.
Alas, according to historical examples, the higher the level of development of society, the higher the level of freedom of an individual. These values obviously correlate.
Evolving from a slave system to a feudal system, from a feudal system to a capitalist system, the state has increasingly expanded the boundaries of personal rights and freedoms of citizens.
The evolution of static states
History clearly proves that the freedom to choose a person as a citizen and a person is the basis of progress. Not a single dictatorship has achieved long-term success. All of them sooner or later collapsed or adapted to a changing world. Even the most famous and successful, such as China or Japan, existed for dozens of centuries, but practically did not develop. Yes, they were perfect in their own way - just like a perfectly balanced mechanism was perfect. But their whole story is not a way to create a new one, but an endless improvement of an existing one.
And a qualitative leap in the development of these states occurred only after the borders of the old system were broken. The level of personal freedom of a twenty-first century Chinese cannot be compared to the standards of life of a nineteenth-century Chinese. But even the country from a closed, practically devoid of real state influence has turned into one of the heavyweights of world politics and economics.
Freedom of choice and the rule of law
In the modern world, the concept of “freedom of choice” is not at all an abstract philosophical term.
This phrase has a very specific semantic content, enshrined in the norms of both international and state law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees everyone freedom, equality, security and the right to express one's own beliefs, regardless of race, age, sexual orientation or religion. The same standards are guaranteed by the constitutions of many countries and their current legislation.
Of course, this does not mean at all that the policeman cannot hit with the baton of a peaceful demonstrator. Can. But he thereby violates the law. And there is at least a theoretical possibility of an official trial and punishment of a criminal. And a hundred years ago, there would be no talk of any official punishment - simply because no one forbade the police to beat with batons those whom they considered criminals.
A world without freedom of choice
Freedom of choice of residence is also now perceived as something completely natural. Of course, a person can live where he wants - provided that there is enough money to buy a house or apartment. Even the idea that you need to apply for permission to move seems strange.
But serfdom was canceled only in 1861, only 150 years ago. Prior to this, almost half of the inhabitants of Russia did not have the right to change their place of residence without the permission of the landlord. What is the place of residence … The landowner could sell the peasant, personally judge him, up to physical reprisal or exile for hard labor. At the same time, the serf did not have the right to complain about the master. They were officially forbidden to submit petitions to the king.
In the Soviet Union, collective farmers did not have a passport until the 70s. And since it was impossible to move around the country without this document, the peasants could not leave their place of residence. Otherwise, they would face a fine or even arrest. Thus, the peasants found themselves attached to their collective farm. And this is only 45 years ago.
Buyer Choice
Freedom of choice is not only a term in social and political life. This is an integral attribute of economic realities.
The right and opportunity to buy the thing you want, not the one you can. If there is only one kind of bread on the counter, there is no question of any freedom of choice. Unless, of course, consider the option "Buy this or not buy at all." You need at least one alternative to choose.
And it is precisely the possibility of choice - the lever that pushes the economy forward. The manufacturer does not need to improve the quality of the goods. What for? Extra efforts, additional costs. But if a competitor appears and offers the consumer an alternative … Then it makes sense to try.
An excellent illustration of this thesis is the domestic auto industry. The lack of competition allowed us to produce machines of extremely low quality and not to worry about the presence of the clientele. But as soon as the consumer had the opportunity to choose, such an approach to business was unacceptable. The manufacturer was simply forced to update the lineup and modernize production. Otherwise, buyers simply would not be found.
