Freedom to choose a person. The right to freedom of choice

Since recently, the concept of "freedom of choice" has acquired in some circles a certain negative color. The same as "liberalism", "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, this is a person's right to determine their own destiny according to their own desires, tastes and beliefs. The complete antithesis to freedom is slavery. A situation in which a person can not 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 you want to be with, the slave does not exist.

And the further a person leaves slavery, the more he has the opportunity to choose. The family. Location. Work. Lifestyle. Religion. Political beliefs.

Freedom of choice in no way means permissiveness. It will not abolish discipline, does not abolish responsibility before society, does not cancel the sense of duty. Moreover, she assumes full awareness of the consequences of her actions.

The choice and responsibility for it

As a child, everyone heard a fairy tale in which a hero stood in front of a stone and read: "To the left you will go ... To the right you will go ... Straightly go ..."

So, actually, freedom of a choice of the person looks. Awareness of opportunities and acceptance of responsibility for consequences. After all, it does not occur to anyone that at the end of the story, faced with the fulfillment of the prediction, the hero will suddenly shout indignantly: "How can I lose my horse? Are you out of your mind? Little does it, what and where is written ?! "

The same is true with a free, meaningful choice. A person got acquainted with the prospects, thought over everything and made a decision, fully aware of its consequences and taking responsibility for them. It is this freedom of choice that differs from permissiveness.

Actually, that's why a person gets 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 can make a measured decision. The right to freedom of choice presupposes the duty 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 the state that makes decisions for citizens is a much more promising and reliable option than the 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 authorities.

It does not sound too philanthropic. 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 it wants. And the power, consisting not of representatives of the same short-sighted population, but quite from other people, obviously brought from somewhere from a distance, from places in which intelligent people live. But is it really the task of the authorities not to work on educational programs, to raise the country's cultural level? Just as parents educate and teach the child, and do not lock it forever in the nursery, explaining this by the inexperience and naivety of the ward.

Freedom and evolution of the state system

Winston Churchill also said that democracy is bad, but unfortunately, nothing has been invented yet. Because only a free being can grow and develop.

The cogs of the empire are, of course, beautiful. And in its own way is also majestic. But the horizon of metal parts is extremely limited, and there is no desire to develop at all. All that can be a cog is to work. Or - do not work, depending on the situation. Not so great a choice.

Alas, if you believe in historical examples, then the higher the level of development of society - the higher the level of freedom of an individual. These values are obviously correlated.

Evolving from the slave system to the feudal system, from the feudal to the capitalist, the state spread the boundaries of personal rights and freedoms of citizens more and more widely.

The evolution of static states

History clearly demonstrates that the freedom to choose a person as a citizen and a person is the basis of progress. No 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 ones, such as China or Japan, existed for dozens of centuries, but they practically did not develop. Yes, they were perfect in their own way - just as a perfectly balanced mechanism is perfect. But their whole history is not a way to create a new one, but an infinite improvement of what is already available.

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 the Chinese of the twenty-first century can not be compared to the norms of life of the Chinese of the nineteenth century. But the country from a closed, practically devoid of real influence of the state turned into one of the heavyweights of world politics and economy.

Freedom of choice and legal norms

In the modern world, the concept of "freedom of choice" is not at all an abstract philosophical term.

This phrase has a very concrete meaningful content, fixed by the norms of both international and state law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees everyone freedom, equality, security and the right to express their own convictions, regardless of race, age, sexual orientation or religion. These same rules are guaranteed by the constitutions of many countries and their current legislation.

Of course, this does not mean that a policeman can not strike a peaceful demonstrator with a baton. Can. But he thereby violates the law. And there is at least a theoretical possibility of formal investigation and punishment of the criminal. And a hundred years ago there would not have been any talk about any official punishment, simply because no one forbade policemen to beat with batons those whom they considered criminals.

A world without freedom of choice

Freedom to choose a place of residence is also now perceived as something absolutely natural. Of course, a person can live where he wants - provided that enough money to buy a house or apartment. Even the idea that you need to apply for permission to move, it seems strange.

But serfdom was abolished only in 1861, only 150 years ago. Before that, almost half of the inhabitants of Russia had no right to change their place of residence without the permission of the landowner. Yes that there is a place of residence ... The landlord could sell the peasant, his personal will to judge him, up to physical punishment or exile to hard labor. In this case, the right to complain about the master's serf was not. They were formally forbidden to serve petition for the tsar.

In the Soviet Union, collective farmers had no passports until the 1970s. And since without this document it was impossible to move around the country, 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 only 45 years ago.

Buyer's choice

Freedom of choice is not only a term from public and political life. This is an inalienable attribute of economic realities.

The right and opportunity to buy the thing you want, not the one you can. If there is only one grade of bread on the counter, there is no freedom of choice. If, of course, do not consider the option "Buy this one or not buy at all." At least one alternative is needed.

And it is the choice opportunity - 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 there is a competitor and offers the consumer an alternative ... Then it makes sense to try.

An excellent illustration of this thesis - the domestic automotive industry. The lack of competition made it possible to produce cars of extremely poor quality and not worry about having a clientele. But as soon as the consumer has the opportunity to choose, such an approach to the case was unacceptable. The manufacturer was simply forced to update the lineup and modernize production. Otherwise, buyers would not be found.

Select a manufacturer

The same right to freedom of choice is enjoyed by entrepreneurs.

A person decides where and how he wants to work. State institution, industrial enterprise, freelance, entrepreneurship - open all the ways. You can even not work at all if you really do not want to. The main thing is not to complain afterwards that there is nothing 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 state's task is to ensure that the products comply with all norms and requirements. This is freedom of choice. The economy is a living organism, it seeks self-regulation in the same way as a natural natural system. The task of the state is to ensure that the free market does not turn into a kind of jungle.