Freedom is ... Freedom of the citizen. Law and freedom

The definition of the concept of freedom at all times has caused many discussions among lawyers, philosophers, historians, thinkers and writers. In view of this, three interpretations are distinguished: ordinary (historical), philosophical and legal. In addition, it is impossible to consider this concept in one specific context.

The notion of historical freedom

A person throughout the whole of his existence seeks liberation from something or someone. This is due to the fact that people's dependence on circumstances, be it the influence of nature or the state, is perceived as limiting the living space and encourages liberation by any means. Scientists define basic freedoms as the main factor of technical and political progress. In the understanding of historians, freedom is the very process of liberation from oppression and influence of the past. Even Homer understood her as life in his native land, being not under the power of anyone. Plato also saw in the will a striving for a better good, not separating himself from society. In his reflections, he defines the concept of higher freedom - friendship. Aristotle is in opposition to this definition, stating that a person is an actor, distinguished by a space for choice, unlike other creatures.

In the Middle Ages, views on freedom make a new turn, and the will is understood as something bestowed by God. And such theological motifs are traced throughout most of this period. At the end of the Middle Ages, Martin Luther's works in one row put the law, law and freedom.

The Renaissance is characterized by anthropocentric twists, that is, freedom is an orientation toward oneself, a pledge of redemption of one's sins and the possibility of approaching God. By the end of modern times in history, the definition of the concept we are considering has spread in the modern sense, namely, the absence of restrictions on the will of a person who has the right to choose.

Philosophical concept of freedom

The understanding of freedom by philosophers practically did not differ from the perception of historians. But Democritus argued that laws - this is a bad invention, the sages should live freely, not obeying the laws. This definition, rather, has a practical load and acquires the features of anarchy, rather than a true definition of freedom. But anarchy is destructive in its essence for the state and any society. Spinoza treated liberty as disobedience and refusal to live according to the requirements of God's laws because of the fact that piety and humility were considered a burden. In turn, Hegel a little later expressed his understanding and determined that freedom is an abstract striving for liberation from restrictions and dismemberments within the state. But specifically in philosophy the concept arose in the period of its appearance and institutionalization. This time is characterized by an understanding of freedom from the point of view of the theory of natural law, according to which all people are initially equal and exclusive, subsequently this theory formed the basis of the civil law norms of Roman law. The oldest philosophers clearly realized, no matter what the freedom, it can not be unlimited. This understanding was consolidated by representatives of classical German philosophy, which then formed the basis of the philosophy of Marxism. The subjective side understands fundamental freedoms as something created by the human mind in response to the same imaginary limitations. From the philosophy of Kant can be identified objective side, which has limitations, but already created by the state in the form of a legislative framework. As a result, philosophical understanding boils down to the fact that freedom is something beyond the control of any limitations, be it the boundaries of reason or the word of law, but without boundaries there is no thirst for will.

Formation of legal freedom

As already noted, the basis of the concept of "legal freedom" was laid part of the philosophical significance. Although the theory of natural law calls everyone equal, but any state regulates the constitution and outlines the boundaries of various criminal codes.

Human rights

The concept of human rights, like the interpretation of the definition of freedom, is inextricably linked with the theory of natural law. On the wave of development of social relations, human rights are consolidated in international and state legal documents. The fundamental factor of democracy is right and freedom. The constitution of the state ensures the consolidation of rights, but if the legislative framework at least somehow infringes on natural rights, dignity, freedom, then a democratic society becomes totalitarian or authoritarian.

One of the first documents that systematized and actualized human rights was the Declaration of 1776, which later evolved into the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. A little later, during the Great French Revolution, the Declaration of Human Rights was put forward in 1789.
Having summed up and united all the basic freedoms and rights, the UN Assembly proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The entrenched human rights at the legislative level for any state acquire the significance of the rights of a citizen.

Citizen's rights

A set of provisions, enshrined in any normative and legal document, are the rights and freedoms of a citizen. Their jurisdiction extends to all residents, is guaranteed and protected by the Constitution of this or that state. The Constitution should guarantee the inviolability of the individual, the right to freedom of speech and expression and protection of a citizen even outside the country. These rights are universal because of their widespread prevalence and concern most aspects of human life at the present stage of life.

Differences between human rights and citizenship

Citizen's rights, like human rights, have passed the age-old test of time, but there is one significant difference: human rights are what is given from birth, as well as natural rights, while the rights of a citizen are vested in the law on Reaching a certain age, they can change over time. Human and citizen's rights are the basis of any society and modern state. They can not be abolished or radically changed at the whim of one person or in the interests of the ruling elite.

The legal basis for freedom of speech

A person in any field of activity strives for will, and in many ways independence of activity is associated with freedom of speech as a form of consolidation of a modern democratic society. Liberalism in statements should not justify violence, slander and enmity, although freedom of speech is an inalienable and fundamental right of man and citizen. Many states try to regulate freedom of expression to avoid racial clashes and hostility on religious grounds, which can lead to violence and hatred. The principles guaranteeing this type of independence must be enshrined in the Constitution, but not lead to the emergence of strict censorship, which infringes on the rights of ethnic or social minorities. It may seem that these statements contradict each other, and what kind of freedom of speech can be regulated and controlled. But a democratic state must maintain its balance, protect and at the same time not allow statements that result in intimidation, violence and hatred within the state.

Constitutional right of freedom of religion

In today's world, the independence of utterances is inseparable from the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of religion, which presupposes the right to choose one's own choice of religion. You can refer yourself to a confession and preach together with others or individually, or be an atheist. This right assumes a free change in religious beliefs, the ability to disseminate and act on their beliefs. But the absence of restrictions can also damage the democratic state, as a large number of religious organizations and sects have recently appeared, which not only preach their ideas, but also harm society, spread drugs or extortion.