Recently, the concept of "freedom of choice" has acquired some negative connotation in certain circles. The same as "liberalism", "tolerance" and other concepts associated with Western democratic values. And this is at least strange.
Evolution of freedom of choice
Actually, what is freedom of choice? In a broad sense, this is the right of a person to determine his own destiny in accordance with his 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 he is given, lives where he is allowed, does what he is told. Even such a seemingly natural right to love, to choose the person with whom you want to be, the slave does not have.
And the farther a person goes from slavery, the more opportunities he has to choose. Family. Location. work. Lifestyle. Religion. Political convictions.
Freedom of choice in no way means permissiveness. It does not cancel discipline, does not cancel responsibility to society, does not cancel a sense of duty. Moreover, it implies full awareness of the consequences of one's action.
Choice and Responsibility
Even in childhood, everyone heard a fairy tale in which the hero, standing in front of a stone, read:“You will 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 acceptance of responsibility for the consequences. After all, it would never occur to anyone that at the end of the story, faced with the fulfillment of the prediction, the hero suddenly shouts indignantly: “How is it - I will lose my horse? Are you out of your mind? You never know what and where it is written?!”
The same is the case 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 what distinguishes freedom of choice from permissiveness.
Actually, that is why a person receives the right to make any important decisions only after reaching the age of majority. He becomes old enough to assess the consequences of his actions, which means he will be able to make an informed decision. The right to freedom of choice implies the 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 troubles. They argue that a state that makes 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 people in the mass are not too smart and far-sighted, unlike the official government.
Sounds not very 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 government, consisting not of representatives of the same short-sighted population, but of completely different people, obviously brought from somewhere far away, from places where smart people live. But is it really not the task of the authorities in this case to work on educational programs, on raising the cultural level of the country? Just like parents raise and teach a child, and do not lock him up forever in the nursery, motivating this with the inexperience and naivety of the ward.
Freedom and the evolution of the political system
Even Winston Churchill said that democracy is bad, but, unfortunately, nothing better has been invented yet. Because only a free being can grow and develop.
The cogs of the empire are, of course, wonderful. And majestic in its own way. But the horizons of metal parts are extremely limited, and there is no desire for development at all. All that a cog can do is work. Or not work, depending on the situation. Not much to choose from.
Alas, according to historical examples, the higher the level of development of society, the higher the level of freedom of an individual. These quantities are obviously correlated.
Evolving from the slave system to the feudal, from the feudal to the capitalist, the state increasingly pushed the boundaries of personal rights and freedoms of citizens.
Evolution of static states
History clearly proves thatfreedom of choice of a person as a citizen and individual is the basis of progress. No dictatorship has achieved lasting success. All of them sooner or later collapsed or adapted to the changing world. Even the most famous and successful, such as China or Japan, existed for decades, but practically did not develop. Yes, they were perfect in their way, just as a perfectly balanced mechanism is perfect. But their whole history is not a path of creating something new, but an endless improvement of what is already there.
And a qualitative leap in the development of these states occurred only after the boundaries of the old system were broken. The level of personal freedom of a twenty-first century Chinese is nothing compared to the nineteenth-century Chinese. But the country has also turned from a closed state, practically devoid of real influence, into one of the heavyweights of world politics and economics.
Freedom of choice and rule of law
In the modern world, the concept of "freedom of choice" is not an abstract philosophical term at all.
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 freedom, equality, security and the right to freedom of expression for everyone, regardless of race, age, sexual orientation or creed. The same norms are guaranteed by the constitutions of many countries and their current legislation.
Of course, this is not at allmeans that a police officer cannot hit a peaceful demonstrator with a baton. Maybe. But by doing so, he is breaking the law. And there is at least a theoretical possibility of official trial and punishment of the offender. And even a hundred years ago, there would have been no talk of any official pen alty - simply because no one forbade policemen to beat with batons those whom they considered criminals.
A world without freedom of choice
The freedom to choose one's place of residence is also now perceived as something absolutely natural. Of course, a person can live where he wants - provided that there is enough money to buy a house or apartment. Even the thought of applying for permission to move seems strange.
But serfdom was abolished 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. Why is there a place of residence … The landowner could sell the peasant, judge him with his personal will, up to physical reprisal or exile to hard labor. At the same time, the serf had no 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 faced a fine or even arrest. Thus, the peasants were tied to their collective farm. And this is just 45 years ago.
Customer's Choice
Freedom of choice is not only a term from public and political life. This is an essential 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, you do not consider the option "Buy this or not buy at all." At least one alternative is required to select.
And it is the possibility of choice that is the lever that pushes the economy forward. The manufacturer does not need to improve the quality of the goods. What for? Extra effort, extra cost. 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 made it possible to produce cars of extremely low quality and not worry about the presence of a clientele. But as soon as the consumer had the opportunity to choose, such an approach to business turned out to be unacceptable. The manufacturer was simply forced to update the lineup and modernize production. Otherwise, there would simply be no buyers.
Manufacturer's Choice
Employers enjoy the same freedom of choice.
Man decides where and how he wants to work. State institution, industrial enterprise, freelance, entrepreneurship - all paths are open. You can even not work at all if you really don’t want to. The main thing is not to complain later thatnothing to eat. In a free country, a person's labor activity is his personal choice. The entrepreneur himself decides what and how he will produce, the task of the state is to ensure that the products comply with all norms and requirements. This is what freedom of choice is all about. The economy is a living organism, it strives for self-regulation in the same way as a natural system. The task of the state is to ensure that the free market does not turn into a kind of jungle.
