Executive director :
R. LEONARD, Professor, Agrege in Liberal Arts
The Article 4
of the French Declaration of Human Rights and the Citizen of the
26 of August 1789 stipulates: "Freedom consists in being
able to do all that does not harm others. Thus, the exercise of
the natural rights of each man has limits only to the extent of
those which ensure that the other members of society obtain the
pleasure of these same rights. These limits can be determined
only by the law."
The Article 5 further claims:
"The law has the right to proscribe the actions harmful for
society. All that is not forbidden by the law cannot be prevented,
and no one can be constrained to do what the law does not specifically
order."
Resulting from this, the mechanisms
and factors that are restricting liberty must imperatively evolve
or a dangerous drifting will occur.
Liberty obeys to the theory of closed
spaces: during all his life, every individual finds himself/herself
prisoner of an undetermined number of circles (his/her mother's
womb, family, religious, social, spiritual, Gnostic, and many
other circles). The progressive conquest of each of these spaces
contributes to the acquisition of a new degree liberty.
However, we notice that the rapid
evolution of human civilization leads to a fulgurating development
of technologies. Man himself -apt to understand throughout analysis,
deduction, synthesis and intuition? is a creature that the Universe
has created in order for him to discover it. But the expression
of this qualitative potentiality, although inducing ecstasies,
inevitably leads to uncontrolled drifting. Science does not always
lead, as it should, to more liberty and the law creates rules
that are a hindrance to the expression of liberty. Moreover, the
rights of the different countries on the planet are not all on
the same path. Populations have an individual and ideal conception
of liberty: it is an irrevocable and absolute right. This notion
seems even more idealistic because of the impressive evolution
of the world population's density, which constitutes a powerful
and inevitable inhibitor. Society itself creates its own inequalities
and injustice, source of ongoing conflicts. Poverty and wealth
gaps, religious intolerance, racism, political scissions that
are purposely maintained, power or absence of power, propriety,
prevarication, harassments of any sorts, rapes, wars and terrorisms,
all are an insult to liberty.
|
So
the questions are:
· Should we create laws for everything and constrain always
more?
· Should we restrain the spaces and degrees of liberty?
· Should we definitely annihilate the "raison d'être"
of human being, that to which he tends in time and spirit?
· Should states take alone the responsibility of human species
by definitely confiscating the absolute individual liberties, in order
to favor a qualitative development of a few privileged at the expenses
of the multitude?
· Will man be capable of transcending his genome by freeing
himself from the relation prey-predator that reigns within him, because
of his very nature since the beginning of times, and that leads him
to dominate, possess and exclude?
· Isn't the inevitable inequality at birth contradictory with
the notion of liberty itself?
· Is freedom the true goal of democracy of just a lure to manipulate
people?
· Can democracy exist without guaranteeing liberty?
· Is liberty an utopia, a purely theoretical view for philosophers
yearning for social morality?
· Has liberty only existed in the mind of a few lunatic or
visionary individuals?
Such questions never found answers
considering the institutional basis that allowed for managing the
rise of civilization. Prehistoric man gave birth to the historical
man. The 16th century Renaissance helped the Western world to take
a new rise by returning to antique sources. The 20th century Renaissance
freed itself from this umbilical cordon and now desperately seeks
for new references. Dictatorships, oligarchies, democracies, plutocracies,
all failed. Therefore, 21st century man must change or disappear.
In this regard, the Commission has
started a fundamental debate on this notion of liberty, which we
will not be able to show off hypocritically anymore as a virtual
and fallacious 'banner' on the facades of our states' palaces that
manage the planet.
Bases are to be redefined. The past can no longer guarantee the
future by playing with words that have been too much abused for
demagogic purposes.
We need to imagine a better and true world.
|