Everyone claims to love freedom. Who doesn't want freedom? Who doesn't want to be able to do whatever they want without fear of consequences? That's absolute freedom.

But there is no absolute freedom. First of all, physics, chemistry and logic will stop you from doing literally what you want. But second of all, if you have the freedom to kill someone, you basically have the freedom to reduce someone else's freedom to zero. That means that your absolute freedom is at the expense of someone else's freedom. Compromise is necessary. But pretty much everyone knows this already, and what I just wrote is nothing new.

So, with absolute freedom out of the way, what does freedom actually mean in a society? Well, it depends on your political views...

As written in a previous article of mine, the concept of simplicity is a matter of a point of view, and depending on the point of view, it can actually mean two completely opposite things. From the point of view of a software developer - like me - a "simple" program is one that requires the least amount of code to implement, but from the user's point of view, that results in a complex, hard-to-use program where the user has to manually input all sorts of parameters that should be self-evident... not to mention, the fact that a user expects an easy-to-use intuitive GUI, which obviously takes effort to program, and makes the codebase "complex" from the programmer's point of view.

With absolute freedom thrown out of the window, what we're left with is interpretations that may or may not clash with each other.

So, I am going to focus on three main interpretations on freedom, each based on the extremes within the political compass.

Auth-Right

People on the Auth-Right believe in freedom of association, as well as collective freedom (that is, national sovereignty).

They hold the belief, that any attempts at stopping discrimination - whether racial, religious or sexual - inherently clash with property rights, and they obviously prioritize property rights.

Under this interpretation of freedom, certain individual freedoms - such as freedom of movement and freedom of trade - clash with a nation's or collective's freedom of self-determination, i. e. deciding whether they want someone or some type of foreigner to live amongst them.

Lib-Right

People on the Lib-Right focus on freedom of commerce, freedom of business, the complete or near-complete absence of regulations. They believe, that business regulations clash with their property rights, and they obviously prioritize property rights.

Under this interpretation of freedom, certain individual freedoms - such as one's right to self-determination - clash with some else's property rights, e.g. in case you own slaves.

It may sound cold to many, but yes, under this interpretation of freedom, employers absolutely have the right to make you work in terrible working conditions (though you always have the right to just quit), because forcing employers would need to be coerced into improving working conditions at the expense of their profits.

Basically, under the Lib-Right interpretation of freedom, freedom is effectively synonymous with private property rights and the right not to be coerced by any third parties - especially the government - out of your own property.

Auth-Left and Lib-Left

These two quadrants don't differ much in their interpretation of "freedom", except maybe that Auth-Left maybe focuses more on basic elemental human needs, while Lib-Left focuses more on the freedom to do certain actions (e.g. freedom of movement).

However, on both of them, there is a focus on freedom of choice. Despite not being a leftist myself (quite the opposite, I'm on the Lib-Right), my previous article's exploration of the concept of consent might hit very close to home for a lot of Leftists, because ultimately, they're saying the same thing that I am: if you are forced to make a binary choice between an unpleasant existence (work) and death (by starvation, because no money = no food = you starve to death), you don't really have a freedom of choice. Yes, on paper, you do have a choice, but unless you have a death wish, you don't really have a choice.

However, just like absolute freedom, this kind of freedom comes at the expense of others' freedom. If you are to be freed from the negative consequences of refusing to work, someone has to be forced to produce the food and shelter that you require to survive (or we just rely on robots and have Fully-Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism), while you give nothing back. Either that, or those who work have to be taxed to make sure that you don't suffer the consequences of your choice. And that clearly violates the freedoms of others.

Lib-Left also puts a strong emphasis on freedom of movement, which clashes with property rights and the rights of collectives to determine whether someone is fit to live among them or not.

Can they be reconciled?

Well, if you compromise - sure, to a degree, you can.

The Auth-Right and Lib-Right interpretations of freedom certainly don't clash, or don't seem to clash at first sight (since both put a strong emphasis on property rights), but they do when you factor in how much emphasis does Auth-Right put on collective rights, while Lib-Right is individualist to the core. Under the Auth-Right interpretation, a community should have the freedom to decide if they want X or Y on their streets in plain sight - while under the Lib-Right interpretation, it should be up to each individual to do whatever they want as long as they don't break the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle - basically, don't aggro people, violence is only okay out of self-defense).

The Auth-Right interpretation of freedom wouldn't clash with the Leftist interpretation of freedom, if you toned down the emphasis on things like freedom of movement. However, the Leftist interpretation of freedom clearly comes clashing hard with the Lib-Right interpretation, which effectively makes freedom synonymous with property rights, something the left is rather weak on (intentional understatement).

Except, there is one way, I can think of...

UBI: The Great Reconciliator

At this point, it's becoming a running gag that my articles start as something, but always end up turning into advertisement for the concept of Universal Basic Income by the end, but hey, it's relevant, isn't it?

Universal Basic Income, in a way unifies - or attempts to unify and reconcile - all the previously mentioned interpretations of "freedom", because for it to work, you require a system that respects and unifies all of them, save for freedom of movement.

• UBI obviously cannot coexist with a reckless open-border immigration policy (if it did, it would immediately cause a huge strain on the whole system and collapse), so any government that implements UBI must have respect for the collective national will to have sovereignty over who is and who isn't allowed to enter and settle down in the country. And if the government is literally giving every adult citizen 1000$ per month, the fewer people the better.

  • This means that you have to have some degree of Auth-Right streak to have UBI.

• UBI obviously cannot exist without a degree of respect for private property rights. The whole point of UBI, is that instead of collectivizing anyone's property, we simply directly give people money, which they can spend on growing their private property.

  • Because UBI is implied to make welfare, pension and minimum wage redundant, you could even say that it's more of a Lib-Right policy than anything, since the recipient has full control over how they spend their money, and it's implied that things like roads and healthcare would be at least partially privatized.

    • Seriously, even for a borderline Ancap like me (if we temporarily disregard the fact that my support for UBI is mainly motivated by my laziness and spoiled background), giving everyone 1000$ per month to shut up is the lesser evil compared to all those business regulations, red tape, etc. Not to mention the amount of bureaucracy we would be rendering redundant by it. Let's just have this compromise with the leftists: they can have UBI, but in exchange for privatizing everything. The private sector does everything better than the public sector anyway.

• UBI cannot exist without a degree of respect for individual freedoms. If robots took all our jobs, the government could just expand the public sector massively and employ everyone in it - giving people money for no reason instead betrays a respect for individual freedoms. You get the money, and you get to decide what you spend it on.

Pretty much all four quadrants of the political compass can find plenty of motivation to throw their weight behind UBI.