Freedom and authority always go hand in hand with each other in any political theory. Perhaps the most important problematic of political philosophy is the relation between state and individual, the former represents human’s inclination to live together in order or ‘sociability of man’ as Aristotle posits, the latter, on the other hand, represents alleged human nature motivated with freedom or autonomy.
There is not any political system to overcome the antinomy between human’s first liability of freedom and state’s determining role of authority. In general, freedom means ability to act whatever individual wills.
Liberty on the other hand means the absence of restraint. When one thinks liberty as the absence of external restraint, liberty should be related to power; on the other hand, if we understand liberty as voluntary or uncoerced action then it should relate to responsibility. The problem is that idealists are confusing the freedom of choice with freedom of inner harmony, or with freedom of conscience. Considering the example of a slave who is contented with his lot and genuinely does not want any different status, if freedom is defined as the absence of restraint or satisfying present desires it follows that the contented slave is not unfree.
For this reason, the concept of freedom is restricted neither with freedom of choice or equal to our wills and desires nor with the absence of restraint, it is a combination of both. Freedom connotes much more moral and social meanings, liberty on the other hand gains its meaning more in political and judicial manners. authority and freedom are needed for protecting the right of property, and freedom is assured and sustained only under a legal framework.
Sovereignty should be indivisible, unlimited, and everlasting.
We will not be slaves. We will not be contended. We are free. We will fight for our liberty.