The Misinterpretation Of Individual Liberty

By: Stephen K. Ainsah-Mensah

The liberty of the individual, propounded as a theory, discussed on paper or in public has frequently been divorced from established structures that contribute chiefly to the enhancement of liberty or its suppression. Economic structures, in particular, are significant determinants of the composition of individual liberty. When they are excluded in discussions of liberty, what takes place is far from practical. If this is the case, then it will be very inaccurate to elucidate the thesis of individual liberty solely in terms of the liberty to think and act without unwarranted constraints.

Societies from before until now have frequently faced terrible pressures that are the result of inequalities produced and intensified by varied human actions. The inequalities produce groups; and the groups are identified in relation to what they do, how and why they do things in characteristic ways, and, often, the degree of the power or/and authority that they wield. It is an undeniable fact that much as we claim that we are all humans, our respective lifestyles tend to be different precisely because of differences in our mental structures, the perceptual experiences that correlate with the mental structures, and the resulting dispositions. There is no need to ask about why this different-ness is the case other than likeness. The fact, furthermore, that our respective bodily compositions are different brings about corresponding psychic differences in concert with the correlated percepts and dispositions. Those who exemplify feisty dispositions matched with the kind of intelligence that stimulates the will to conquer are predisposed to be masters of life much more than those, on the other hand, who are filled with gentle, modest, cooperative dispositions. The latter group of people is inclined to occupy subordinate positions in the affairs of life or positions that are not, in general, in relation to power but spiritual or religious matters - or allied affairs. Subordinates are likely to pursue wants, execute thoughts without the aggressiveness typical of the said masters of life..

Sometimes, subordinates are lucky to win the recognition and sympathy of superiors due to their sheer diligence - and are rewarded as such with prominent positions. In some other cases, subordinates simulate the thinking style and dispositions of masters, which may lead them to express domineering personalities. The danger in this acquired personality is that it flows pretty unnaturally since it does not correlate with the natural biochemistry of the individual and is inclined to produce disastrous consequences. In most cases, however, subordinates are naturally dominated, controlled by the masters, and it is only a matter of time that they may rebel against the masters if they are pitted against them in a kind of daily interaction, directly or indirectly, that are meant to produce the “bread” for living. The rebellion, if it is gentle or soft, could produce better conditions of service for the subordinates. Violent rebellions could be crushed by the masters, or if the masters are overwhelmed and subdued by the subordinates, new human arrangements will evolve for the better or for the worse but, usually, for the better.

It may be asked: why will subordinates rebel? Are they not being ungrateful, silly? How will they survive, it may be further asked, if masters do not devise strategies to energize the spirit and material conditions of the society with innovative ideas and plans? Freaks of this master-subordinate arrangement are ready to insist that this duality is naturally induced and should not be tampered by human forces with the aim of controlling its surge. The surge proves that the master has the praiseworthy talent necessary and adequate to move the society to the height of progress. Besides, the master, unlike the subordinate, is a genius and ought to be encouraged as much as possible to bring out the best in him/her for speedy progress. On the contrary, the subordinate is destined to serve the master, to be in a low social-economic position compared to the master because he/she naturally does not have the qualities of ingenuity, or he/she does not naturally have what it takes to be a genius, a man/woman with talent . Some school people may even state that any violent confrontation that happens to occur between the masters and the subordinates comes, naturally, as a blessing; for it brings about progress in leaps, a kind of progress that does not yield to the silly interferences of authorities at high places.

It should be expected that in such a society where unbiased teamwork, rivalled dignity and respect between the master and the subordinate is disappointing, membership or access to social or economic groups will depend largely on one’s social-economic status. The supreme criterion for determining how significant a person is is via the economic route; and since economic power determines one’s status in life, it can confidently be claimed that the confidence and courage to do what one wills will depend largely on one’s economic status in life. Herein lies how the liberty of the individual is put to use!

One principal difficulty about this social-economic arrangement is that it gives room for the building of personalities that depend largely on economic doings and accentuates, with time, this arrangement. The masters marshal all the courage and confidence at their respective disposals to advance the course of their creativity; the subordinates, unable to compete with masters, settle for unambitious enterprises or vocations. In fact, this misfortune has plagued societies for a long time such that it erodes the fabric of institutions that turn out masters vis-à-vis subordinates. In addressing the key problems of the society, authorities must have brushed aside or failed to see how the master-subordinate duality contributes to this unpleasantness. Suppose institutions that exist are merely to enhance the kind of progress that arise from the doings of masters, then the doings of subordinates do not count - or they count very little - in institutionalized progress. Hence, the individual talents of subordinates will be sidelined even though they need to be encouraged to reflect on the true image of institutions to be established - or institutions that have already been established. We often think of talent in terms of some unique kind of creativity inherent in the individual; but uniqueness resides in every individual and is a matter of unearthing and advancing to the highest level whatever special proficiency one knows one has.

How badly societies will continue to deteriorate in the presence of this master-servant duality? There is no certain cure for the mental and emotional fatigue of both the masters and subordinates except to rearrange and, in addition, establish institutions to cater equitably to the talents of both personalities. For sure, authorities need to establish two parallel institutions with equal significance and merit that can draw into them both individuals with the master mentality and those with the subordinate mentality. The prize to gain from these institutions is very welcome in the sense that two groups of personalities are unintentionally created: groups whose members express, for the most part, individualistic instincts and very ambitious impulses, and groups whose members are in favour of cooperative endeavours. As we can see, masters will mostly belong to the first group while subordinates will drift towards the latter group. With time, there may be voluntary migration from either groups to the opposite group insofar as both groups retain their comparable quality and distinction. Societies need the equal attention and contribution of members of both groups to offset dangerous imbalances that could prematurely terminate laudable progress. For to downgrade subordinates or obstruct their progress, or to hinder the progress of masters is to project unnatural human strivings unto the society. These are avoidable mistakes.

If it happens, then, that the choice to be a master or a subordinate is purely voluntary, if it happens that such choices are, nevertheless, equitably rewarded, then an optimum expression of talents will naturally occur. A government ought to realize in advance that very unregulated economic forces that determine and entrench masters and subordinates are a foil to peaceful progress. And what this means is that the timely intervention of government is necessary to forestall this unpleasant human arrangement from developing into a canker. If a government realizes this problem, then goes ahead to establish different institutions and programs that appeal to the sentiments and temperaments of both masters and subordinates, then a lasting solution to disquieting progress would have been found. But, then, a government should make sure that whether a program or an institution is founded to please either a master or a subordinate, it should have a comparable value and dignity to any other programs and institutions. In that sense, the utilization of any program or institution would entirely be related to one’s uninfluenced preferences and inbuilt talent, not according to economic forces. We are used to saying that the liberty of the individual is the first sure step to grant the individual the inalienable right to pursue personal advancement; yet, we do not pause to ask: in what circumstances is the liberty to be found? Let us further ask:: what structures inhibit or advance the liberty of the individual? What an unrestrained economic system - that breeds the master-servant duality - does is to widen the scope of liberty for the master while the liberty of the subordinate narrows.