Hasnain Ali

December 1, 2024
University of British Columbia
Prompt #5

Introduction
The relationship between law and freedom has been a central topic of over centuries of
political and philosophical discourse. The common understanding of law and freedom seem to be
opposite sides of the spectrum, as law is traditionally percieved to restrict actions, while freedom
is achieved in the absence of any restrictions. However, a deeper analysis showcases a more
distinguished symbiotic relationship between Law and Freedom. This paper will argue that law
and freedom are not contradicting but rather reinforcing concepts when viewed through the
perspective of complete autonomy. By observing a variety of works from recognized political
philosophers such as Jean-Jaques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and Karl Marx, Friedrich Engles
will display a framework that breaks down the interaction between law and individual liberties
(freedom). In exploring this complex topic, we will explore Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” to
grasp the concept of freedom within a legitimate society. Secondly, we will examine Immanuel
Kant’s “Theory and Practice” to understand and analyze his perspective on autonomy and the
influence of law on our freedoms. Lastly, we will utilize Marx and Engels “Communist
Manifesto” to draw counter claims to Rousseau and Kant, with the goal of demonstrating how
the concept of freedom being treated as autonomy can calm the disparity between law and
freedom.

Rousseau Social Contract and the General Will

In Rousseau’s “Social Contract,” he identifies a complex problem in finding a structure
that will “defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each
associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and
remain as free as before" (Rousseau, The Social Contract, Book I, Ch. VI). “The Social
Contract” , assembled by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, provides a historical framework in
understanding the relationship between law and freedom. Rousseau claims that true freedom is
not attained through the absence of any public policies or laws, but it can be attained by
individual participation in self-government in creating and maintaining laws that appropriately
reflects the general will of the citizens of the state. This notion presents a claim that by
acquiescing to the laws that were created by the general will (collectively as a state), we are
subconsciously practicing our rights and freedoms rather than surrendering it. Rousseau puts
heavy emphasis on the “general will” as it represents the common good and interests of the state,
rather than just a small minority group. He adds that there stands a major distinction between the
will of all and the general will. By definition the “general will” pertains to the interests of the
community as a whole (common interests), it is the will that accurately represents the common
good and strives to achieve what is best for the society as a whole rather than private interests.
On the contrary, the “will of all” consists of primarily individual wills within the state (private
interests). It represents the citizens' various desires without necessarily reflecting the best interest
of the state as a whole (Rousseau, The Social Contract, Book II, Ch. III). As long as several men
regard themselves as a single body, they have only a single will which is concerned with their
common preservation and general well-being. He says, “As long as humans condense themselves
to a single body, they have only one primary will which is involved with self preservation and
well being” (Rousseau, The Social Contract, Book 6, Ch.1). Furthermore, by settling down our
individual wills and cooperating with the general will through the social contract, we can attain a
certain variation of freedom, one that satisfies both the personal and common interests.
Additionally, he sets the tone of the importance of general will where he quotes “Whoever
refuses to obey the general will be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing
less than that he will be forced to be free" (Rousseau, The Social Contract, Book I, Ch. VII). The
quote effectively represents Rousseau's belief that true freedom does not grant the individual the
ability to do whatever anyone wants, but rather the ability to participate in the process of creating
laws that govern the society. As every individual sacrifices a component of their freedom, in
order to have the ability to self-legislate and be governed by their own rules— this is what
Rousseau would describe as autonomy.

Kant’s Moral Autonomy

Immanuel Kant’s “Theory and Practice” further develops the concept of freedom as
autonomy, specifically under the moral and political realms. Kant argues that true freedom is
found in the rationality of self governance as the ability to act in relation to the principles of the
self constructed laws of society. Kant says: "The idea of freedom is inseparably connected with
the concept of autonomy, and this in turn with the universal principle of morality, which ideally
is the foundation of all actions of rational beings" (Kant, Theory and Practice, Part II).
Additionally for Kant, autonomy is not about acting on your emotions or for our desires, but
really about using reason to determine moral laws that could be applied. Kant relays, "The public
use of one's reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among men"
(Kant, Theory and Practice, Part II). In the relation to law and freedom, Kant does not observe
laws to be impositions on individual freedom, but rather sees it a method of self-government,
allowing us to abide by our own regulations with respect to every person of the state. Kant
applies the aspect of autonomy to the realm of politics. He argues that in a self sufficient and just
state, citizens should see themselves not only as subjects of the law but also the foundational
creators of it (Kant, Theory and Practice, Part II). Law and freedom are theoretically mutual
through autonomy. The law must be of a certain criteria that is mutually and rationally agreed
upon by the people. Thus, we should not perceive law as a restrictor of freedom but an inhibitor,
by restricting the possible evil and harmful acts that may endanger citizens of the state,
individuals can only then truly experience freedom within autonomy (Kant, Theory and Practice,
Part II. What if someone is not binded to the power of law? Any individual outside the realm of
law is not really free. Freedom is the ability of rationality and self-legislation, without those two
components an individual is acting primarily on the basis of their impulses and desire, not
through rational reasoning. Any imposing acts outside of the law are thus seen as illegitimate.
Henceforth, the missing “restriction” can lead to the violations of the natural rights of others,
which leads to a state of unruliness that negatively impacts the collective freedom of the state. As
rights are inherently linked to a legitimate establishment of laws through a social contract, it
results in freedom with an expectation of the protection of individual freedom and growth.
Concisely, law and freedom are harmonious, laws are extracted from our moral principles that
provide a criteria for genuine freedom. Lastly, Kant strongly states that true rights exist only
within a legal system that endorses the fundamentals of autonomy.

KARL MARX AND ENGELS COMMUNIST MANIFESTO

“The Communist Manifesto” by Marx and Engels is coupled under the impression of
freedom critiquing existing legal institutions under capitalism. They argue that within a capitalist
framework, freedom cannot prevail as individuals are valued more so as commodities than
citizens of the state. Thus, capitalism inherently leads up to the oppression of the working class
(the proletariat) as they are vulnerable to exploitation by the bourgeois class. Marx and Engles
strongly believe that the purpose of the law within capitalist system leads ted by the ruling class
as an instrument to mainly control the proletariats, cementing the status quo, and protecting
private interests over the complete freedom and liberation of the proletariat class (Marx and
Engles, Page 488)— a perspective that heavily contrasts Kant’s views on the role and influence
of the law. Furthermore, class structures prevent collective ownership which prevents the ability
for the individual to gain wealth, thus they vouch for the abolishment of class structures and
instead the placement of a more communal system, that aims to achieve a more collective
freedom, persuading a more intertwined cooperative society, where true freedom can be
accomplished through a collaborative struggle, growth, and ownership amongst the people (Marx
and Engles, Page 482). This criticism of the capitalist system is applied to Kant's “theory and
practice” where Kant's perspective is centered around the cooperative relationship between
individual autonomy and moral law is directly challenged by Marx and Engles assertion that true
freedom is reliant on social status and socio-economic conditions. Furthermore, “The
Communist Manifesto” challenges Rousseau’s Social Contract, which relays that individuals
come together to form a social group that embodies the “general will” thus accomplishing
freedom through shared governance. Marx and Engles counter that Rousseau’s structure fails to
acknowledge that natural inequalities are created by economic systems. Additionally, Marx and
Engels both add that forms of social contract does not grant liberty to the citizens but instead
masks the alienation and exploitation of the proletariat class under capitalism (Marx and Engles,
Page 495). The main premise of the Communist Manifesto is to present that legal systems,
institutions, social contracts, etc., can’t accomplish true freedom unless they restructure the state
to reflect the natural rights of the proletariat class (Marx and Engles, Page 483) Marx and Engles
call to action is that freedom calls upon the proletariat class to join their will and overthrow the
capitalist order. They believe that with the collective efforts of the working class true liberation is
accomplishable. Concisely, Marx and Engle's perception of freedom criticizes the restrictions
forced by capitalism and provides a advocative framework for societal reform that aims to
authorize individuals through collective ownership to abolish the capitalist system that has
confined them to the state that does not acknowledge their natural freedom.
Conclusion
The connection between law and freedom is observed by many political philosophers
such as Rousseau, Kant, and Engels. Their work shines light on a conceptual understanding that
confronts the conventional restriction and liberty. Rousseau presents that true freedom is
accomplished through the power of the general will. Where individuals capitulate a small amount
of their personal interests for the common food, ultimately leading to the presence of autonomy
within a social contract. Kant dives deeper into this context by creating a chain between freedom
to rational self-legislation. Additionally, they argue that laws blessed with universal principles do
not restrict our freedom but instead enhance it by curating a symbiotic and harmonious society
where our natural rights to life, liberty, and property are mutually agreed upon. Conversely, Marx
and Engles criticize this perspective. They strongly state that the institutions of capitalism have
inherently cursed the relationship of law and freedoms— from reducing a human's value to a tool
to systemic inequalities. They believe that these institutions must be dismantled as genuine
freedom demands the collective will and emancipation of the proletariat class and the placement
of a communal, egalitarian society. Both Kant and Rousseau’s claims showcases that the
development of laws does not have to result in the restrictions of our freedoms.

Together, Kant and Rousseau’s perspectives represent that the establishment of law does
not result in freedom by the means of constraint but rather freedom from the means of autonomy,
rationality, and self-legislation that strives towards the general will. By merging both law and
freedom it can present itself as partners not enemies in creating a society where self-governance,
law, and equality can prosper. The understanding of this relationship enables us to reconstruct the
foundations of many frameworks in order to ensure that they acknowledge and represent
collective autonomy.