Bellamy's Definition Of Freedom

The definition of freedom depends entirely on how the phrase “freedom from…” ends. Perhaps a most straightforward understanding of freedom is the laissez-faire emphasis on limiting the power of government to interfere in economic and social matters. In this state of absolute freedom, however, inequalities exist between people, so that freedom from a controlling government does not imply individuals’ freedom of contract, movement, legal protection, equal rights through citizenship, or political voice. In light of the persistence of slavery in the US through the 19th century, freedom as an individual’s legal status separated people who could be citizens from people who were lifelong slaves. Even among legally free people, economic inequalities

Citizens in his world cannot buy at any price the freedom to avoid physical labor (if physically able) or the freedom to accumulate monetary wealth for heirs, both of which humans tend to try to do. If they try to rebel against the schedule of labor laid out for their lives, they are placed on bread and water rations until they consent to return to work; emigration is not even a practical option since the other major nations of the world have the same sorts of governments. The freedoms of minority ethnicities, if such minority groups remain unconverted to homogenous American traditions and modes of consumption, are no doubt limited, particularly in the matter of obtaining goods. Bellamy’s scheme of government responding to sufficient consumer demand as evinced by petitions before a new item may be manufactured or imported is quite limiting, and it raises questions about the extent of social control the government holds. When the Leetes explain that their contemporaries view most luxury items as burdens rather than assets, one wonders how much propaganda the government issues encouraging people to be thrifty, and imagines that it might enforce frugality and eliminate elitist forms of recreation by banning the production of items like yachts. Among his happy and wholesome future population Bellamy probably imagines that alcoholism and drug abuse will decline like murder and theft

Raised with the proper mind set, I would probably accept the mandates of the central government, work hard in school so I could enter a profession, spend my free time on whatever hobbies I found interested me, share my home, meals, and free time with friends, and look forward to traveling around the world when I retired. As a product of the late 20th century, however, I find his claims of his utopia’s bureaucratic efficiency, social harmony, and economic prosperity more than a little unrealistic, and the uniformity of life that he describes more than a little repressive. Though our world is certainly more troubled than Bellamy’s in some ways, and though we still have plenty of room for improvement, our more moderate approaches to stabilizing the economy and providing for social welfare have improved the situation since the 19th century. Legislation establishing minimum wage, safety inspections in workplaces, workman’s compensation, a graduated income tax, welfare and social service programs, family medical leave and maternity leave, affirmative action, anti-discrimination statutes, public schools and universities, federal grants for post-secondary education, social security for retirees and those with disabilities, and a host of other reforms over the last century have proven that the democratic government structure that existed