What is true freedom? Discuss...

Freedom. Liberty. Two words thrown about as a weapon by the right against perceived state intervention and by the left against a corporate takeover of civil society. But who is right? Both? Neither? I can tell you my version of freedom, because I have recently given much thought to it. I am sure some others have already thought up the same, so I apologise for reinventing the wheel, but I wanted to cast an eye on it at this current time when politics in the Western world are in an ultra-rapid state of flux.

I was sitting in various places in my garden and on my terrace one late-spring weekend last year, looking at the newly-planted apple trees and watching a family of blue tits flitting from branch to ground to wall and back to branch. It is one of my greatest pleasures to watch the wildlife enjoying the product of several summers' worth of planting and landscaping, experimenting and seeking advice over attracting all manner of living things with wings, hooves, antlers or tails to grace my garden and the meadow just beyond it.

I rarely play music in the garden; the songbirds make its theme tune. It has been visited by deer, foxes, kites, hawks, song thrush, squirrels, wild boar, even a trio of stray cows that had broken out of their meadow on the hills above our land and fancied a nibble of our grass. Sitting out there is better than anything else. Apart from the exhilarating and highly amusing company of my children, of course.

And that's when it hit me.

This was freedom: the absence of worry. Here I was, sitting in the garden I had conceived, smoking a cheap cigar, listening to the sounds of nature, contemplating life's knottiest questions.

But why?

When I sit outside, the only things that bother me are if I see some weeds have grown back where I  or my gardener had recently removed them, or when a neighbour decides to light a fire. Pretty petty stuff, really, in the general scheme of things. Freedom, to me, is the absence of worry, and the cleanness of the conscience. Let me explain.

Absence of worry includes not having to think where your next meal is going to come from. Or not having to decide whether to default on the electric bill to pay school lunches. Or having utility bills low enough to not notice the payments leaving your account. Freedom is being able to walk down any street knowing you're nearly totally safe from accidents, fights, shootings, natural disasters and reckless driving, unless you do something reckless yourself; leaving a hospital after treatment without a huge life-changing bill hanging over you; the ability to jump in the car and drive across three international borders on a short road trip; not needing to worry about your children's safety in school as the only drills they practise are fire drills; and being able to sit in my garden typing my own opinions on anything I feel like.

What about the cleanliness of the conscience? I don't mean piety or sinless behaviour, as I get the feeling most religious types are never free of their torment. I mean feeling not guilty for the actions and decisions you take. No regrets, in other words. I am a firm believer that not every crime is immoral and neither is every lawful action moral. I give you the example of activists, whether protesting the climate emergency, LGBTQ rights, the destruction of public land, or just supporting the opposition. In other words, those who believe in their causes to the extent that they get put into prison, not just in countries like Russia, China or Equatorial Guinea, but in Poland, Hungary, the UK and the US too.

I also mean the compromising of morality for the sake of profit, for example Western countries that turn a blind eye to the horrors of Chinese brutality against Uighurs, Tibetans or Hongkongers to keep trade going, or the selling of weapons to inhumane regimes such as Saudi Arabia. Where does one sit with Israel? I deplore antisemitism, or indeed any -ism against fellow sentient beings, but I am very comfortable in saying that I am passionately, even fervently, anti-Netanyahu and everything he stands for. Peace must come, but it cannot come while anyone who believes in the right to statehood and self-determination for Palestinians is accused of being anti-Jewish. This is an overreaction designed to silence anyone who questions them and their unlawful behaviour.

As I sit here typing this out on a Chinese laptop, with a Logitech keyboard made in China, I realise I am also contributing to the suffering of others, but consumption guilt at this level is only avoidable with extreme pickiness and a lot of hours spent questioning sales staff in computer shops as to the provenance of their wares. Instead, we need to make it clear to suppliers that their pursuit of profit is what is driving this enriching and rewarding of nasty regimes, and that we are willing to pay more for these products if their production is moved to a place in an enlightened and democratic nation where jobs are needed. We need to pay more for our products; bring them in-house, so to say, and create more jobs in our backyards. This means we need to communicate this loud and clear to companies who switch production to places with cheap workers to save more money.

Also, cleanliness of the conscience goes for how we treat others on a personal basis. I have done things to others that I look back on with regret. I am not alone here at all. I cannot change the past and go back to rectify it, but I can show sincere remorse and make up for it by never doing it again. There are other things I have done which others would find immoral but which I have thoroughly enjoyed. I did not harm others or even come into contact with others while doing them, or even make anyone feel uncomfortable or embarrassed. There are people who would consider them immoral, nonetheless. I really don't care what they think, as the only thing that was harmed was their squeaky-clean and vacuous imagination.

I used to be very conservative in my views on life. I used to be quite sanctimonious and I took life very, very seriously, to the point where I had no fun at all, which was mainly due to nurture, not nature, sadly. I also expected those around me to do the same, believe the same, and act the same, so as you can imagine, I had very few friends. But slowly, as I met people who loved life, tried everything out that does not kill or harm, accepted failure and celebrated success, I realised my view of the world was silly, fuddy-duddy, old-fashioned, and was not a way to keep friends. I rejected the moralistic, moralising, morale-reducing harbinger of self-righteousness that I had become, and opted for the flexibility and open-mindedness that I had learned from various people I met on the way to being me. It was a long and tortuous journey, but it led me to finding contentment and spiritual peace.

Why am I saying this? Because in the manifestation of my former self, I was not free. Freedom is in the head more than anywhere else. And it starts with how you act towards yourself, then other individuals, then society in general, in that order. Acting honestly towards yourself is where freedom begins. It means thinking those thoughts that you used to suppress, it means switching off your own internal censor and investing in your own happiness, not brushing it to the fringes of your mind.

Freedom is a concept, not only a legal item, and we need to exercise it without encroaching on others' sensitivities or causing fear, misery, discomfort or anger in them. This is why, when I read stories about Americans and their attachment to guns, I cringe. If Second Amendment zealots really want to have their weapons, they should also balance that up with the sensitivities of other individuals and general society, especially around those who have victims of gun violence in their circle, of which there are many. So compromise needs to be found. Think of it like this: I like to play golf, but I don't play it in the town centre park; I go to a golf course, a place specifically dedicated to this activity. Likewise, people with guns should balance their wishes with those who prefer to have the freedom to walk the streets or send their children to schools without worrying if they'll come back.

Likewise, religious people can have whatever views they like, but they have no right to impose them on other individuals, or society in general. If they don't agree with women's rights over their bodies, equality of the sexes, alcohol consumption, polyamory, soft drugs, euthanasia for the terminally ill, or anything else for that matter, they can believe and practise that amongst themselves, but they should leave the rest of us well alone and not impose their narrow views on the rest. This is why, in true democracies, religion and the state are kept far, far apart. Let's face it, the teachings of most religions evoke the same basic rules: look after your fellow human being, do nobody harm, live to the full, don't judge. But it is precisely that fourth one that has made its way from religion into politics. And we should slam it straight back into its box.

For this is what true freedom is - practising what you believe is right for you as a conscientious and mature citizen, and keeping your nose out of others' business, unless you can see clearly that it is having a detrimental effect on them or those around them. This is by no means an issue of keeping the state out of our affairs; this is in fact a personal and societal one, and the sooner these matters become mainstream, like public smoking did, the more effectively we can deal with those who still seek to impose their views on us all.

I find it horrific that the very same people who complain about the encroachment of the state on their daily lives also want to use the state and the law to limit people's rights in areas they have problems with. For them, it's okay to let the state take a back seat over healthcare, guns, education, corporate responsibility, youth issues and social security, but they clamour vigorously for state "intervention" in matters as diverse as abortion, bailing out failed banks and even freedom of expression when it questions their own beliefs.

To recap: freedom is not about the ability to carry weapons in public or impose your views, religious or not, on the rest of society: it is the absence of these things, and most importantly, the absence of worry. Now before you think, "well yes, but that requires earning money to a certain level". No, it doesn't. It means that, whatever your salary (or not), you should not need to worry where your next meal is coming from. Let us take social democratic countries where it is more difficult to die of hunger than not, what do they do right? They maintain the idea that we're all in it together. Part of your taxes goes directly to providing for the most vulnerable in society, and making sure they can integrate as much as possible into normal life.

In rampant capitalist countries, it is claimed that low taxes and trickle-down economics will sort out the poverty by allowing companies to invest what they would have paid in taxes to hiring more workers. But this is a fallacy, as not only do companies cream off their profits for their shareholders first and foremost, it also encourages individualism and selfishness in the fact that people start to covet their own wealth and treat colleagues, neighbours and even family members as competitors rather than team players. Another side effect is, although you can become fabulously wealthy, you can also die destitute and hungry, or rejected by your health insurance.

We need to balance the right to live in peace with the duty we have to provide for those less fortunate than us. And that means doing what is right by our fellow humans - let us give everyone the right to live without worry: let us use our taxes to support those who need it most, whether it is by providing everyone with proper medical care, adequate and affordable housing, essential supplies, or opportunities to feel useful in society. For freedom is the right to live your life without worry, and that means money needs to be much less important. Societies need to extricate themselves from their reliance on budgets and markets.

I remember in the past when I was working for a pittance and still had to pay the bills, rent and living costs. In the UK, I dared not rock the boat even one little bit for fear of losing everything. I was not permitted to have any self-pride.

In order to deliver a society free from this in the 21st century, we need to move away from our addiction to news outlets and newspapers run by media moguls, our exaggerated commercial activities, and our feelings of inadequacy brought about by comparing our lives to our peers on social media. We need to reconnect with the society we live in, be true to ourselves, and stand by our principles. But most of all, we need to drastically change the way we live: this starts with taking steps to ensure all of us fit into the society where we live and work; be less cynical about helping others; entreat our leaders to enforce the rule of law; pay more for products and commodities to ensure their ethical cleanness, and be prepared to give up outdated privileges that encroach on the well-being of others.

Finally, we need to wean ourselves off those things that destroy or harm our planet, our only home. Cars are a necessary evil, but we can do a lot more to avoid using them too much. It was once said that to gauge the level of advancement and collective wealth of a civilised society, we should not count the number of fast cars on its streets, but the number of rich people who take public transport.

In these testing times, we all need to take mental stock of what we have and what we are going to lose if we continue to let society slide further into the abyss. We should not be reacting glumly whilst watching it happen; we should be proactively stopping the cynical takeover of our cherished freedoms by those who seek to reduce or remove our rights to freedom of conscience and make us worried about everything around us.

What is democracy?

The world over, there are different ways of viewing, for want of a better expression, "people power". In some countries, this takes the form of a revolution every ten or so years, installing another dictator. In others, it is the complete opposite, where governments cannot so much as change the VAT rate without a referendum. Extremes in the crazy systems governing this planet. What is clear though is that, with a couple of seriously wacky exceptions, in all countries of the world, the system is bigger than any individual.

What, though, is the most bizarre thing, is the sheer number of organisations, corporations, state-owned bodies and self-governing regions that bypass any form of public scrutiny. There's the Bilderberg group, the City of London Corporation, OPEC, any number of multi-billion-dollar company, media outlet or bank to name but a few. These organisations generally accept the widely-held opinion that politicians in democracies (at least those who make it) are malleable, popularity-hungry, attention-seeking, shallow petty criminals, loan sharks and dangerously crooked property owners in need of a place to legitimise, consolidate and widen their shady dealings through networking and rubbing shoulders with other like-minded individuals. A kind of LinkedIn for criminals who want to do everything officially.

These organisations also know that there are those who genuinely come into politics wishing to change the world. Visionaries, fresh-minded academics, talented individuals with imagination and a steely eye on the goals they wish to achieve. Of course, when they come up against the might of the machine, they also find their dreams dashed, their hopes halved and their ambitions annulled, either through being told that the thought is a valiant one but totally impractical, or by being ridiculed, scandalised or hounded out of office by the more sinister factions of politics, and their media buddies. This of course depends on how close to the bone the visionary entrant comes when airing his or her new ideas.

So the large firms single out the right politicians for their dirty work: they give them special deals, assure them of seats on their boards of directors and pushing their candidacies for posts where they can be of use to them after their political careers are over. This is why nothing truly pleasing to the people ever gets done; because it's not in anyone's interest. It's not in the politicians' interests, because they would be putting themselves out of use; it's not in the corporations' interests because they'd not have anyone to represent their shady interests at international level, and it's not in the people's interests because it would make us all jumpy, to think that everything was going so swimmingly well. We'd think there was a catch and start petty paranoid skirmishes with traditional foes.

Leaders in the democratic world these days are so uninspirational, so faceless, so full of themselves, that we cannot really blame the Chinese for viewing democracy with suspicion, when they see how the Greeks behaved. How can you respect a politician who, in order to secure another term in power, promises to reduce taxes, or the retirement age by a year, or unemployment by hiring another few thousand people to do meaningless tasks that could be handled by half a dozen job students? How can you respect a politician who fakes his own country's economic situation in order to join a currency union his country has no hope of keeping up with?
I'll tell you how.

Let's take each country as being a person, and the Eurozone a little like marriage. So before the Eurozone was set up, when each country was in the singles market, so to say, they put on their best outfits for summits and kept the smiles going long into the evening, a little like singles have done for decades. Once they get married, of course, the partners start noticing little niggling habits that irritate them, like too many referenda (Ireland, Denmark) or inability to save money (Ireland gain, Italy, Greece). In the end, what happens to most married people? They let themselves go. They get unfit, lazy, start putting on weight and neglecting their personal hygiene. The same has happened in the euro marriage. Now they're tied together in an eternal bond of "till death us do part" those newlyweds feel that they'll be saved by the others if things go wrong. And then the mid-life crisis sets in, where the man decides to get a Porsche convertible and go trekking in the Arctic. The woman (Germany in this case) stays at home, horrified. No wonder she (Merkel) wants to limit the manoeuvrability of the Greek economy.

Now, returning to the original question - what is democracy? For me, you can' t let the people decide everything, because we'd reintroduce hanging and expel anyone with an accent. That's unfortunately how it goes, because those with opinions, principles or views are usually a lot louder than those who just get on with their lives worry-free, and are more likely to bother to vote in any referendum, which is why David Cameron refuses to give the UK a referendum of staying in the EU. On the other hand, you can't let politicians carry on governing forever, or they get too big for their boots. They get to know the system too well. So well, in fact, they do things like rein in the national media (Italy, Hungary), reduce freedom of speech (UK, France) or change the constitution to make it harder to remove them, or to indict them for any wrogdoing during or after their terms of service (Italy again). This was not planned when democracy was conceived. It was not the main idea.

So, how has this shrinking of democratic values occurred in historically democratic countries where politicians are traditionally accept their fates every four or five years at the ballot box? In Europe, this has happened because the EU has made it necessary. On one hand, the European Council of Ministers has replaced many of the features of national government because a great deal of decisions take place at European level, and are implemented nationally under the pretext that they were actually decided by the national politicians. And on the other, because of the turbulence they knew they were about to unleash on everyone. Don't tell me that five years ago, or even ten, those politicians had no idea of the storm they were kicking up when they introduced the euro, allowing Greece, Portugal and other such ClubMed nations into the club. I cannot believe for one moment that after so many errors of judgement on the way, so many wrong moves, so many contrived agreements and forced referendum decisions in the last decade, that there is no alternative agenda. You cannot tell people "you will have democracy, but only if you vote our way". Democracy has to mean something, and it has to be binding.

On the other hand, what is it like living in a country without democracy? In a country like the People's Republic of Korea, it's probably a living nightmare. I would not wish to spend 24 hours in that country. I think the same about Myanmar and Zimbabwe. But in Belarus or pre-election Azerbaijan or Bhutan, I could imagine living, despite not having much in the way of freedom of speech. It poses the questions, "is democracy over-rated?" and "is democracy something for everyone?" When you look at China or Russia, two vast countries, are either of them capable of further democratising without keeping a firm grip on the people for fear of independence movements springing up everywhere? Would the Chinese people really know what to with full voting rights? Do they really need it? I think they are doing very well with their systems as they are now.

Let us look at something simple: if a little village in, say, Nigeria applies to the EU for funding of a bridge over a dangerous river, the European Commission will firstly send it to a committee, who will then decide whether it is viable or not. Within months, they will dispatch a surveyor, an engineer and a budget analyst to the location to draw up plans and make an offer to the Nigerians. Once this has been approved, it will go back to Brussels for ratification, and within the next budgetary outlay, funds will be made available. Months later, the bridge will be built using ethically sourced materials and properly paid skilled workers, but the whole process will take about 2 to 3 years. Then there's the Chinese. They'll just turn up in the village, ask where they'd like the bridge and get to work. The material for the bridge might not be so stable or Kosher, and the builders might be less capable, but the whole thing would take 3 months, maximum. That is the difference between an ethical democratic process and a one-party state: the bridge might take a lot shorter to build, and the shorter waiting time will mean fewer will be killed whilst the Europeans are still discussing the proposal, and there will be

So, could the slow eradication of democracy in Europe be a necessity, clandestinely being introduced to be able to compete with China and Russia in the long term? Could the lack of transparency at European level be something to do with politicians' need to hide something far more worrying from us? I doubt it. But there's still a little thought cloud in my head which does not rule it out entirely. What I think is most likely, is that the current crop of politicians is grasping at any way at all to distance themselves from the mess they made of the last 10 years.

To finish, when asking what democracy is, we cannot put a finger on it because everywhere is different. In the politically disengaged countries of western Europe, democracy has been compromised. It has shifted from parliament to talent shows, from local government to online polls and customer satisfaction surveys. Panem et Circenses is the motto of our civilisation. With the coming of the Occupy movement and the sudden unpopularity of the European Union and what it stands for, I think the day is coming where people power, in whatever form is most suited to each country, will take back control. But in the end, it's the power-hungry that corrupt the system causing an endless cycle of bad governance. That makes no difference if in Asia, Africa or Europe, dictatorships or democracies: the sharpest elbows win.

The world in 2050 - part II, the EU vs the USA vs China

When comparing Europe with the USA, the most obvious place to start would be with the military roles each side of the Atlantic plays in the world. The USA has had a long tradition of military intervention, and the EU has a great amount of nation-building expertise due to its colonialist past. You would think, therefore, that they were perfect for each other. No. Despite that, the USA has not really admitted that had Europe been given a greater say in its endeavours to establish nation states in the Middle East and central Asia, it might not be in the current situation of fighting on at least two fronts almost a decade on from "that" event. The USA has always deemed itself more capable than others in its military prowess, more prestigious in its powers to negotiate and more respected - or feared - in battle situations. This is far from the truth. As it happens, there is a chasm separating the ideals, purposes, abilities and capabilities of the military in Europe from that in the USA, and one of the basic differences is in intelligence. Both senses of the word.

In Europe, most military personnel is trained in warfare as well as peacetime skills, but those who sign up are also given an opportunity to gain a degree or qualification for after they have completed their service or if their careers are prematurely cut short (disability, illness, injury, etc.). In the USA, the majority of new members of the basic army are found at recruitment drives at supermarkets on week days. These are people who are already unemployed, sometimes long-term, often because they do not have any basic qualifications. They may have been deemed unemployable. In other words, I am not sure this is the sort of person you would give a gun to. Not all, of course. Many are career soldiers, naval officers and pilots, but a lot are going to give you a hard time in areas concerning discipline and approachability. I met some US Army personnel a while back and they seemed quite personable, if a little incapable of pulling a different face other than what I might call "haunted".

And in the other intelligence area, namely that of information gathering and execution, the USA has always been stubborn in accepting others' tip-offs and alarm-raising. But vice-versa seems to be working well, namely recently when a cargo plane from the Arabian Peninsula was found to have a package containing highly explosive material. The USA suffers from a superiority complex and in military affairs, its days as the world's only superpower are numbered. This is also due to its budget and operating costs. It is spending far too much time and money in two conflict zones in Asia and if a third theatre of action were to open, it would probably be incapable of coping.

For this reason, Europe needs to assert itself more on the military front. Its proposals to begin a proto-European military through British and French members is a start. But its intelligence and investigative skills could also benefit from a boost, especially considering it has the added bonus of being seen as a lot less aggressive than China and a lot less opinionated than the USA. Militarily, Europe could easily cut its field operations budget by joining forces, and at the same time developing its intelligence services. It can also show its credentials in nation-building and spreading democracy simply by listing what it has done to keep the EU's 21st-century member states from the wolves of dictatorship. Only 20 years ago, eleven of its new member states (the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania and the eastern part of Germany) were shaking off five decades of communist dictatorship. Prior to that, Spain, Portugal and Greece had lived under Franco, Salazar and the Colonels respectively in various autocratic fascist or military régimes. It is only thirteen countries, less than half its current membership, which have been free of dictators (the UK, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy, France, Austria, Malta, and to some extent Cyprus).

The EU is setting itself up as a benign semi-superpower, able to help in a crisis, but less willing to spend great wads of cash on US-style intervention. The US, however, is a superpower on the wane, and within the next ten years, will find itself in the position the UK was in when Margaret Thatcher swept to power: it will need to downsize and sell of a lot of its own assets to keep afloat. It will also need to take a step back and look at itself because unlike the British at the end of the Empire, the Americans will be a lot less keen on relinquishing their title as military masters of all they survey. China is waiting to take over a large amount of American property and business, having saved up enormous amounts of cash, and soon India will enter the race. A new competition is about to begin, where those two battle it out for supremacy. My money is on a democratic India siding with the EU, other large Commonwealth countries, Japan and to some extent the USA, and China with its own sphere of influence, probably including its own backyard (Vietnam, Myanmar, North Korea, the 'Stans) and parts of Africa, its newly-extended backyard.

I can see China and the USA going head-to-head in some areas where they most want to exert influence, and cancelling each other out. This is where the EU can step in. It needs to focus on its own game, and not be too much influenced by others' squabbles. The EU can save money by keeping out of the buying game China is playing, vacuuming up all the gold, silver and diamonds it can, as well as all the banks, service enterprises and factories. The USA will try to match it, but they should not either. Eventually China will get too fat and explode. What we have to do in Europe is keep playing our own game, try to remain neutral, indifferent even, and attempt to extricate ourselves from some of the more worrying political and business deals we made with outside entities to reduce our debt.

The EU needs to keep to its own agenda, needs to shine a light of hope in dark times, and be a guide for democracy-loving people everywhere. What it should not be doing is competing, trying to be top dog. It does not need to do this because it is above all that. And all the armies in the world do not mean you are the best. You are the best if your streets are safe, if your nature is well-tended and preserved, if your hospitals are efficient, if your people do not have the worry of poverty if they cannot find work, if your politicians are held accountable to the forces of justice and can be easily removed, if your industrial base is well-regulated and has a good reputation and finally if you can say what you please, go where you want and learn the truth from an actively inquisitive press and get a free education in schools which do not force you to believe in an ideological right or wrong. It mostly does well here, with some countries being exceptions proving the rule.

This is where Europe excels and where it needs to stay. Leave the posturing to the Americans, Chinese and other would-be dominators and Europe can get on with the serious business of liberty and equality.