This is how I see it. Absolute freedom would imply that I face absolutely no aggressive coercion (and require absolutely no defense against such). Absolute slavery would imply that aggressive coercion compels my every action. While both are technically possible, neither are likely.
Nevertheless, I advocate reducing aggressive coercion as much as possible, which means preventing or rectifying it as efficiently as possible. Successful defense against coercion today likely means less coercion tomorrow. So defense is a valid tactic towards absolute freedom, but it is likely ineffective if unpaired with persuasion and education about why others should also seek to minimize aggressive coercion, and what political arrangements best accomplish such. On to your post…
I am not opposed to acts of rebellion. I only wish to illustrate that if done improperly (in futility), they will diminish rather than increase that individual’s freedom. And even when performed successfully, they do not guarantee freedom.
As I said, defending against or thwarting the goals of coercive actions is a good tactic to reduce their presence or reliance in the future. Civil disobedience and violent rebellion can be noble actions and achieve real results. But so can persuasion, education, and even voting (or working within whatever political system). Of course, some regimes only leave enough room for violent rebellion.
First, I don’t know about this binary condition of freedom. I can determine if I am more/less free in one situation than another. This stretches all the way to how I define absolute freedom/slavery.
From what I understand, Somalians do not accept outsiders into their legal system, which revolves around extended families or clans and customary laws. I would likely face more aggressive coercion there than I do here (even when accounting for the massive taxation I suffer here). Perhaps I could successfully defend myself against such, but that may likely be a full-time job, whereas paying off the state here is only a part-time job. So I’d likely be less free, even if my chances of thwarting my aggressors on any given day is higher in Somalia.
A hermit that chooses to avoid all human contact meets my definition of absolute freedom. No social interaction = no aggressive coercion.
The problem is that many of us desire to have human contact. Can one choose to come into contact and transact with as many others as he chooses without facing aggressive coercion? If so, then he is truly free. If one chooses to become a hermit simply in order to avoid aggressive coercion, then he cannot consider himself free. The existence of aggressive coercion alters his action preference.
I disagree. Of course some forces will always work against you, like physics and nature. These are outside the realm of political discussion, which rests upon purposeful human action. Your freedom is contingent upon the actions of others.
This is different from the ability to enforce one’s will in defense of their rights. That might be better termed autonomy or sovereignty. I don’t know - we shouldn’t argue about what words mean what but about concepts.
Let me try another example. Let’s say I want to make a painting. So I have my supplies and I’m ready to paint. But an endless mob tries one after the other to take my supplies before I can get started. I can successfully prevent them, but this is how I spend all my time, never getting a chance to paint. How can I be considered free? Aggressive coercion prevents me from expressing my will, whether I prevent the coercers from expressing theirs or not. This example is clearly unrealistic, but it underscores my theoretical point - freedom is contingent upon the choices of others to refrain from aggressively coercing you.