Does my freedom end when yours begins?

We hear this phrase frequently, used almost as a principle. I have never heard anyone question it. But, thinking of the underlying assumptions and of their possible consequences, we must seriously question it. It involves the typical freedom defended by liberalism as a political philosophy.

With the fall of the socialism that truly existed were lost some virtues that, for better or worse, socialism had developed, like the spirit of internationalism, the importance of solidarity and the prevalence of the social over the individual. With the assumption of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan to power, the ideals of liberalism and capitalist culture with the exaltation of the individual, supremacy of private property, delegated democracy and free markets returned with a vengeance. As a consequence, we can see that there is now much less international solidarity and concern with change which favors the poor of the world than before.

It is against this backdrop that the phrase, « my freedom ends where yours begins » must be understood. It is an individualistic understanding, an understanding of the «I» alone, apart from society. It is freedom « from » the other and not « with » the other. For your freedom to begin, my freedom must end. Or, for you to start to be free, I have to stop being free. So, if the freedom of the other does not begin, for whatever reason, then my freedom has no limits and can expand at my pleasure, because it does not encounter the freedom of the other. It occupies all the space and inaugurates the empire of egotism. Then, freedom « from » the other transforms itself in freedom « against » the other.

This understanding underlies the current concept of territorial sovereignty of the national states. It is absolute until it reaches the limits of other state. It is void beyond those limits. The consequence is that there is no room for solidarity. To search for convergence and for the supranational common good, neither dialogue nor negotiations are promoted. We have seen the neoliberal concept of freedom and of individual sovereignty demanded by many at work during the natural gas crisis between Brazil and Bolivia. When this paradigm comes into play, usually a conflict is set up that is resolved by force. The sovereignty of one crushes the sovereignty of the other, sacrificing freedom. It has been President Lula’s wisdom not to follow that logic and not to have desisted–to the chagrin of people of the old paradigm of force and barter–from tireless dialogue and a search for convergence with President Evo Morales. That gave, effectively, good results.

This is why the correct phrase should be this: « my freedom only begins when yours also begins. » It is the perennial lesson left by Paulo Freire: we will never be free by ourselves; we will only be free together. My freedom grows in the measure in which your freedom also grows and together we work to create a society of free and solidarian citizens.

Behind this understanding of solidarian freedom is the humanist principle: « do unto others as you would have others do unto you. » No-one is an island. We are beings living together. All of us are bridges that link each one with the others. This is why no one is without the others and free « from » the others. We are all called to be free « for » the others and « with » the others. As Che Guevara wrote in his Diary: « I will only be truly free when the last human being has also won freedom .»

Leonardo Boff