A variation of the myth of freedom.

definition

Absolute freedom is the "final myth" of modern times: 266. In this myth, the cognizing subject finally asserts his power over the subject of cognition, himself delighting in his absolute freedom. From this point of view, absolute freedom is a second reality absolutely isolated from reality, in which only a person can safely experience the false feeling of an autonomous personality. Absolute freedom is really vital for the ideologist, because it fulfills itself, creates itself and is based on itself. In essence, we have before us a myth about self-creation, about the birth of oneself by man.

Hans Blumenberg quotes Arthur Schopenhauer's Handschriftlicher Nachlass and comments: “Schopenhauer reveals the invaluable merit that the idealistic subject can no longer fear the experience of the world as being lost in infinite space and time:“ Turning to myself as a subject of knowledge, I realize that the worlds are my representation , that is, I, the eternal subject, carry within me this universe, which exists only in relation to me. "

Schopenhauer thereby sums up the entire sensation of delight, in which fear and horror from our experience of the universe, from the thought of countless centuries and endless worlds in the infinitely distant heavens, dissolves. “What happened to my fear? - asks Schopenhauer, - I only exist, and nothing else. Based on me, the world rests in the peace received from me. How can frighten me, amaze me with its greatness that in itself is only a measure of my own greatness, greatness that always surpasses it! ""

“This is how it happened! - says Hans Blumenberg about the birth of the "final myth", - The history of the world and its subject is told, and it fundamentally excludes any absolutism of reality. And this is a story that cannot be tested, there are no witnesses or evidence to prove it, but it has the highest of philosophical merit - irrefutability ”: 268–269.

The myth of absolute freedom is a rebellion against any truth, since any truth, even in the field of secular science, is in its measure compulsory for a person.

story

The history of the myth of absolute freedom is closely related to the history of such ideology as liberalism. For the sake of affirming the principle of freedom

1.2 Why freedom cannot be absolute. The boundaries of freedom

No matter how people strive for freedom, they understand that there can be no absolute, unlimited freedom. You cannot live in society and be absolutely free from it. First of all, because the complete freedom of one would mean arbitrariness in relation to the other. The freedom of each member of society is limited by the level of development and the nature of the society in which he lives. For example, someone wanted to listen to loud music at night. Having turned on the tape recorder at full power, the person fulfilled his desire, acted freely. But his freedom in this case infringed the right of many others to get a good night's sleep.

Arguing about the impossibility of absolute freedom, let us turn our attention to one more side of the issue. Such freedom would mean an unlimited choice for a person, which would put him in an extremely difficult position in making a decision. The expression "Buridan's donkey" is widely known. The French philosopher Buridan told about a donkey that was placed between two identical and equidistant bundles of hay. Not deciding which armful to prefer, the donkey died of hunger.

But the main constraints on his freedom are not external circumstances. Some modern philosophers argue that human activity cannot at all receive a goal from the outside, in his inner life the individual is absolutely free. He himself chooses not only the option of activity, but also formulates general principles of behavior, looks for reasons for them. That is why the objective conditions of people's existence do not play such a big role in their choice of a model of action. The goals of human activity are formulated in accordance with the inner motives of each person. The border of such freedom can only be the rights and freedoms of other people. Realization of this by the person himself is necessary. Freedom is inseparable from responsibility, from obligations to society and its other members.

Consequently, the freedom of the individual in society, of course, exists, but it is not absolute, but relative. All democratically oriented legal documents proceed from this relativity of freedom.

That is why the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights emphasizes that these rights in the course of their implementation should not infringe on the rights of other individuals. Consequently, the relative nature of freedom is reflected in the responsibility of the individual to other people and society as a whole. The relationship between freedom and responsibility of the individual is directly proportional: the more freedom society gives a person, the greater is his responsibility for the enjoyment of this freedom. Otherwise, anarchy, destructive for the social system, sets in, transforming the social order into social chaos.

Thus, a person cannot be absolutely free, and one of the limitations here is the rights and freedoms of other people.

With all the differences in the above points of view, it is clear that it is, of course, possible to ignore the necessity, the prevailing circumstances, the conditions of activity, the stable tendencies of human development, but it will be, as they say, “more dear to myself”. But there are such limitations that most people cannot accept and wage a stubborn struggle against them. These are various forms of social and political arbitrariness; rigid caste-class structures, driving a person into a strictly defined cell of the social grid; tyrannical states, where the will of a few or even one obeys the life of the majority, etc. There is no room for freedom, or it appears in an extremely curtailed form.

For all the importance of taking into account the external factors of freedom and its boundaries, even more important, according to many thinkers, is internal freedom. So, N.A. Berdyaev wrote: “We will be freed from external oppression only when we are freed from internal slavery, that is, let us assume responsibility and stop blaming external forces for everything. "

Thus, the goals of human activity should be formulated in accordance with the inner motives of each person. The border of such freedom can only be the rights and freedoms of other people. Freedom can be obtained, but the most difficult thing is to learn to live as a free person. To live in such a way that you can do everything of your own free will - but at the same time not oppressing others, not limiting the freedom of others. Realization of this by the person himself is necessary.

1.3 Freedom and necessity

The opposition of the philosophical concepts of "freedom" and "necessity", the denial or substitution of one of them for another for over two millennia have been a stumbling block for thinkers.

The philosophical solution to the problem of the relationship between freedom and the need for the activity and behavior of a person is of great practical importance for assessing all the actions of people. If people do not have freedom, but act only out of necessity, then the question of their responsibility for their behavior loses its meaning.

Different views on this problem are reconciled by the point of view, according to which necessity is considered as the impossibility of changing by people the objective socio-economic conditions of their life, but at the same time they have considerable freedom in choosing the goals and means of their activities.

Freedom as a cognized necessity - this is how many philosophers interpreted freedom - B. Spinoza, G. Hegel, F. Engels. What is behind this formula?

There are forces in the world that act irrevocably, inevitably. These forces also affect human activity. If this necessity is not comprehended, not comprehended by a person, he is her slave; if it is cognized, then the person acquires "the ability to make a decision with knowledge of the matter." This is where his free will is expressed. But what are these forces, what is the nature of necessity? Different answers are given to this question. Some see God's providence here. Everything is predetermined by him. What, then, does the freedom of man consist in? She's gone. “The foreknowledge and omnipotence of God are diametrically opposed to our free will. Everyone will be forced to accept the inevitable consequence: we do nothing of our own free will, but everything happens by necessity. Thus, we do nothing of our free will, but everything depends on the foreknowledge of God, ”the religious reformer Luther argued. This position is defended by the advocates of absolute predestination.

In contrast to this view, other religious leaders suggest such an interpretation of the relationship between Divine predestination and human freedom, i.e. God designed the universe so that all creation would have a great gift - freedom. Freedom, first of all, means the ability to choose between good and evil, and a choice given independently, based on one's own decision. Of course, God can destroy evil and death in an instant. But at the same time He would deprive the world and freedom at the same time. Consequently, the World itself must return to God, since it itself departed from Him.

The concept of "necessity" may have a different meaning. Necessity, according to a number of philosophers, exists in nature and society in the form of objective, i.e. independent of human consciousness, laws. In other words, necessity is an expression of the natural, objectively conditioned course of the development of events. Supporters of this position, unlike fatalists, of course, do not believe that everything in the world is rigidly and unambiguously defined, they do not deny the existence of accidents. But the general, regular line of development, rejected by chance in one direction or the other, will still make its way.

Let's take a look at some examples. It is known that earthquakes periodically occur in seismic zones. People who do not know this circumstance or ignore it, building their homes in this area, can be victims of a dangerous element. In the same case, when this fact is taken into account in the construction of, for example, earthquake-resistant buildings, the risk probability will sharply decrease. In a generalized form, the presented position can be expressed in the words of F. Engels: "Freedom does not lie in the imaginary independence from the laws of nature, but in the knowledge of these laws and in the ability based on this knowledge to systematically force the laws of nature to act for specific purposes."

Thus, the interpretation of freedom as a cognized necessity presupposes a person's comprehension and consideration of the objective limits of his activity, as well as the expansion of these limits due to the development of knowledge, enrichment of experience.

Freedom is a very complex philosophical concept, which in any case will always remain a myth. We will seek a reasonable understanding of FREEDOM, therefore we will immediately call it absolute, that is, ideal freedom for all people. First of all, we will proceed from the fact that ABSOLUTE FREEDOM is the absence of any restrictions and constraints, which we can express in words: everything is possible.

However, we immediately understand that when everything is possible, we are talking about COMPLETE AUTHORITIES, if you want licentiousness and willfulness. Thus, ABSOLUTE FREEDOM is the TOTAL PERMISSION. Although intuitively, any person will say that COMPLETE PERMISSION is something not just bad, but sometimes terrible and inhuman. Let's take the existing political system. What freedom do we have in a democratic state? Can we say that the laws are in effect? No. When people recognize money above all values, the law is bought and sold, as well as honor, and dignity, and love, and friendship, as principles and beliefs, stereotypes, knowledge, decency and freedom. But all this is bought, because each person begins to doubt that it is possible to value something above himself and the goods that he seems to be worthy. As a result, people believe that money gives them freedom, but in fact, money brings licentiousness, cynicism and indifference. In addition, they are able to completely change the stereotype of thinking in any person, which changes beyond recognition as soon as it becomes the owner of even not very large sums. This is because the consciousness that concentrates on money sees the meaning and benefits for itself and the body in it. Therefore, it can neglect the previous values ​​if they contradict the new, more convenient form of existence. Modern states are arranged in such a way that it is practically impossible to live in them with dignity, without having money.

A person in such a state becomes dependent on the existing order and is forced to find ways of survival. It is precisely the fact that it is very difficult to survive in society without struggle and constant stress and is the reason for increased irritation and exacerbation of egoism. As a consequence, we have the freedom to earn our living. Any means flourish here, including those that have nothing to do with the concepts of personality, person, and even individual.

This is TOTAL PERMISSION. COMPLETE LEGALITY is unlimited freedom from all social and human norms and rules. Here we say that the state and the governing bodies of society are helpless to change anything, moreover, the dependence of the state on money in the hands of people deprives the state of all meaning. Thus, those in power are only forced to defend themselves against the encroachments of those who want to take this power away from them. Let's get back to the concepts of ABSOLUTE FREEDOM - TOTAL LEGALITY. We will call ABSOLUTE FREEDOM, the freedom of a person's consciousness from anything: logic, feelings, instincts, opinions of other people, stereotypes of thinking and selfishness. ABSOLUTE FREEDOM is the freedom to choose and determine the personality of your place in society, the freedom to do whatever you want for people, finding flawless solutions aimed at striving for the perfection of oneself and the people around.

Let's go into the contexts of human formations. Capitalism, as a monetary system, gives only the illusion of freedom, because everything depends on money, and some are not free because they have money, and others because they do not even have the opportunity to have it. Socialism also gave only the illusion of freedom, firstly, because there was money there, which caused inequality among people, and secondly, because freedom was limited by the state, constantly directing people's consciousness to the wrong place. Communism is generally an incomprehensible system. He existed as a goal, but no one had any idea about him. We walked towards the victory of communism, not knowing where we were going and whom we were winning. It was an illusion of purpose.

Absolute freedom will be determined by the concept of meaning and general meaning. Today we have lawlessness, because everyone invents a meaning for himself and changes it at his own discretion if conditions change. For example, a person can devote his life to revenge for his murdered father, or maybe ice skating. Here, the narrowness of consciousness is the result of an illiterate upbringing, the parents should tell the child the meaning, and the society should be interested in that the parents correctly define the meaning of their children and compare it with the general meaning. The reason for TOTAL PERFORMANCE is, of course, a reflex and a misunderstanding of freedom.

In the existing context, a person considers freedom that he can choose what is important to him. Some devote their lives entirely to raising children, others - to making money, someone spends their years in libraries, someone in prisons, and someone in monasteries. Can all this be called absolute freedom of choice? Take a man who spends his life in prison. Did he choose this path himself, or was it imposed on him by conditions?

Let us be free to consider the conditions in which every opportunity is available to us. For example, we initially have an apartment, in order to live in it, the opportunity to live in isolation, in a prison, and we also have access to money and conditions for raising children. Having all this already available, we make a free choice, and this choice can be considered our own. If we are in such conditions when nothing is available to us for various reasons, and we understand that all this will never be available also for various reasons, then our choice will depend not on our desires and not on our aspirations, but on conditions that we have.

And here the permissiveness will be the paths that we choose in order to survive in the proposed conditions. And here a person can be infinitely inventive in finding means to achieve their goals, and society will have to put up with his ingenuity, adapting, at times, to absurd and contradictory facts of reality. As a result, the lack of freedom of choice is the main reason for TOTAL PERMISSION.

But one more reason for TOTAL PERFORMANCE is that we set ourselves the wrong goals, which are also imposed by the situation in which we live. For example, a person can devote his whole life to career growth and in this desire to miss his children, due to the lack of time for their upbringing. Moreover, he is sure that a career is more important in a person's life than upbringing, but rather he is sure of this because he manages to be an employee better than to realize himself as a parent. And here his willful choice is selfish in relation to his own children, for whom he should be responsible just because he brought them into the world. Thus, first of all, desires and emotional impulses make us unfree, that is, the inability to reason reasonably and to control ourselves. Let's go into the context of the person who drives the vehicle. He is driving alone, and other people ask him to give him a ride. The driver considers freedom of choice that he is free to choose whether to give them a ride or not. Here his freedom is limited by egoistic feelings and motives that force him to pass by and for a few more minutes mentally justify his choice or give him a lift and, giving him a lift, doubt that he is doing the right thing. The brain and consciousness bind us to our stereotype of thinking, which is never fully confident in itself, which means it is never free.

Is it possible to consider the presence of any restrictions in ABSOLUTE FREEDOM. Here we say that ABSOLUTE FREEDOM is reasonable freedom, when a person makes a choice with his own will and with his own consciousness, which does not depend on anything except his own mind. If there is reason, then the choice will be reasonable, free and correct. If the choice is selfish, then we will consider it logical and not absolute.

And this is already PERMISSION. A small child cannot make an independent choice. In any case, we will have to impose our idea of ​​reality on him. It is necessary to lay in him such a consciousness with which he could in the future make independent decisions that would be reasonable both for himself and for those around him. By making mistakes in upbringing, we run the risk of instilling a distorted understanding of all things in a person, which means we make him dependent on the wrong stereotype. In any case, there is no ABSOLUTE FREEDOM, there is only COMPLETE AUTHORITIES or dependence on an ideal stereotype and absolute consciousness.

Hypotheses and misconceptions that a modern person should know about Tribis Elena Evgenievna

Absolute freedom

Absolute freedom

Dreams of absolute personal freedom have been diligently cultivated throughout most of the history of world civilization by a variety of thinkers. In fact, every philosopher talked about the essence of freedom and its purpose. Some found freedom impossible, others harmful, while others considered it attainable only under certain conditions.

As a result of these philosophical disputes, usually affecting the organization of government, a firm conviction arose in society that absolute human freedom is, in principle, possible. Through revolutions or social reforms, one can sooner or later come to the establishment of individual freedom in the state, up to the elimination of the state itself as an obstacle on the path to maximum liberation.

Most likely, the broad support for the idea of ​​absolute freedom is due to its external attractiveness and alluring. If we abandon pleasant illusions and consider this idea from a critical standpoint, then its significant shortcomings will come to light.

It is incomprehensible how a person can gain freedom from his body. It is difficult to imagine freedom from conscience, responsibility, responsibility, discipline. Such freedom causes untold harm to the “free person” himself and to those around him. In the light of these facts, the possibility of absolute freedom seems doubtful.

The absolute implies abstraction, but freedom is never abstract. It is invariably specific, correlated with a certain situation, and therefore relative. If in some conditions the restriction of freedom is nothing more than a simple restriction and oppression, then in another situation it is the only way to empower a person. It is no coincidence that the well-known writer and scientist I. A. Efremov put into the mouth of one of the heroines of his novel "Hour of the Bull" the statement that striving for the absolute has always been the greatest mistake of man. The writer saw in the future of humanity a rejection of absolute freedom.

So, absolute freedom is impossible, a person will always remain a prisoner of something. However, it is not uncommon to hear about pleasant slavery. For example, love is called “sweet captivity,” and it is difficult to doubt the correctness of these words. There are many similar situations when a person is in a kind of captivity, but at the same time does not try to find freedom, because it is in this state that he feels like a real person.

In other words, you can find enough freedom to stop being a despicable slave. But at the same time, there is no need to strive for an illusory absolute. Prominent thinkers of the past have sought to define an acceptable boundary for individual freedom.

In the era of antiquity, simultaneously with the flourishing of slave-owning democracy, freedom was understood as equality in rights and before the law. A person in a democratic polis has ample opportunities to engage in arts, gymnastics, philosophize, housekeeping, and trade.

The founder of democracy, Solon, believed that freedom is opposed to slavery and that a truly free person cannot work under compulsion. The Athenian strategist Pericles, under whom Hellenic democracy reached the highest point of its development, considered the most serious achievement of his policy to provide people with the freedom to do interesting and favorite things and at the same time to improve spiritually, to show their talents as much as possible.

Ancient Greek thinkers believed that only democracy can give a person real freedom

In the ancient world, there were heated debates about freedom and democracy between thinkers, each of whom understood the essence of a free life and democratic government in his own way. The Sophists, whose philosophy preceded the ideas of the Socratic stage, were supporters of democracy, believing that it alone gives a person real freedom. Some sophists, including Alcides and Antiphon, demanded the expansion of democratic foundations and the abolition of slavery. A free life was understood as endowed with civic duties, but in no way slavish. Alcidam declared that "nature did not make anyone a slave", therefore, he opposed slavery invented by man to the natural order of things.

Socrates, who believed in the need to influence the policy of the will of the people, opposed democracy, because he considered it a decadent regime. He was not satisfied with the electoral system and the regime's use of support from merchants, since commerce "ruins the soul." Plato called the republican aristocracy the ideal state and also criticized the democratic regime.

For the first time, Aristotle accurately described the shortcomings of democracy. The philosopher opposed what is now called ochlocracy - the power of the ignorant crowd, which is manipulated behind the scenes by swindlers and talkers from politics. Aristotle considered the ideal state structure to be politeya (polity), in which a vast class of average owners rules. In general, Politeia copies the positive aspects of the social life of Athens under Pericles.

In Europe, during the time of bourgeois revolutions and the establishment of the institutions of capitalist democracy, slogans demanding freedom were first clearly sounded in England in the 16th – 17th centuries. and France in 1789-1793. Freedom was understood in the broadest sense, although mainly the people demanded political freedoms. People longed for freedom of voice, activity, religion, freedom from monarchism, and even freedom of reason. Freedom of reason implied freedom from church ideology, the ability to engage in science in the positions of atheism.

The ideas of anarchy as a policy of absolute freedom even at the turn of the 18th – 19th centuries. have not yet taken over society. The thinkers and ideologists of the new (bourgeois) democracy for the most part did not oppose the state, did not demand liberation from state power. However, at the same time, prominent economists in different countries, such as A. Smith, subsequently (XVIII-XIX centuries) advocated the need for freedom of entrepreneurship, which consists in limiting state intervention in the economy.

If the state ceases to dictate its terms to producers, then the market will automatically, through self-regulation through competition and the game of supply and demand, come to a stable state. The call of economists, who expressed the mood of the capitalists, received the French name lassez faire - "let it go as it goes." Often this principle is translated as "do not interfere with action."

The origins of these ideas go back to the teachings of T. Hobbes and J. Locke on natural law and the contractual state. According to these teachings, humans are naturally endowed with various rights that they intend to exercise. But if everyone begins to take into account only their rights, then there will be a war of all against all. To prevent this from happening, people agreed that they would retain their fundamental rights, while the rest would restrict in the interests of each other.

The society has secured the basic rights equal for all people without exception in its laws. Hobbes was convinced that the most correct regime was enlightened absolutism, while Locke relied on a constitutional monarchy. French educator and encyclopedist J.-J. Rousseau developed and deepened the theory of the social contract, along the way explaining the content of the true meaning of freedom, which was defined as "obedience to the law that we ourselves have established."

Following the logic of Rousseau, it is necessary to recognize that a person, entering into a social contract, significantly limits his individual freedom. The enlightener himself was sure that a person simply loses it. But in return, they acquire civil liberty and the right of ownership to everything that this person possesses. Rousseau did not oppose private property as such, but criticized only the large property of the feudal aristocrats and capitalist oligarchs, thereby expressing the interests of the petty bourgeoisie and the poor.

During the revolutionary events in France, the main elements of liberal democracy were formed, which were embodied in the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen." Adopted on August 28, 1789, this document served as the first printed propaganda of the ideas of liberalism. The failure of the revolutionary coups in France marked the collapse of bourgeois democracy in the form of liberal ideology, which was disgraced in the full sense of the word. In the same way as it was in ancient times, democracy was considered by many to be a dead-end path of political development.

The symbol of freedom on the Parisian barricades by E. Delacroix

According to the apt expression of E. From, “flight from freedom” began in the world, which formed two currents. The first was represented by right-wing conservatives who insisted on the revival of the aristocracy. Right-wing ideologists were represented by A. Tocqueville and E. Burke. The English economist A. Pig subjected liberalism to pejorative criticism, arguing that a democratic regime turns any country into an "assistive state", that is, a state of dependents.

The second trend was represented by left-wing political doctrines, in which the idea of ​​the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat sounded more and more clearly. Karl Marx was the leading spokesman for the ideas of the leftist trend. He completely denied the possibility of "pure" democracy, since it is a regime that only increases the possibilities of the ruling class. The concept of democracy in Marxism is opposed to democracy, which "does not contradict dictatorship and individualism" (V. I. Lenin).

End of the 19th century marked by the triumph of Marxist and anarchist views on personal freedom far from liberalism. The followers of K. Marx, like the followers of M. A. Bakunin, were inclined to believe that the state was an instrument of dictatorship and oppression, and therefore in the future it would appear in a historical museum on a par with a stone ax.

But the Marxists reasoned more sensibly about the essence of freedom than the Bakuninites and other anarchists, since they called for the immediate destruction of the state in the course of a social revolution. Marxism reasonably focuses attention on class exploitation as limiting the freedom of the working masses. In general, this teaching recognizes the political freedom of the majority, in contrast to the pro-bourgeois doctrines that preached economic freedom for enterprising people.

In the first half of the 20th century, in response to the social upheavals brought about by the two world wars, many fundamentally new doctrines about individual freedom and the freedom of peoples in general were born in the West. As a result, by the end of the XX century. many models of democratic governance were developed, and the most effective of them were the options for liberal democratic systems. Today it is obvious to most philosophers that there is no freedom outside of society and without society.

Freedom outside the state is also impossible, since the state machine provides regulation of various social processes. Man, as Aristotle said, is "a social being, a political animal." Nature itself has programmed us to strive to interact with society as efficiently as possible. Democratic political systems are most suitable for this goal, because they ensure the legitimacy of the political system, promote the active participation of the people in the formation, management of the state and control of the chosen government.

The Acropolis of Athens - a symbol of Hellenic freedom

The main forms of a democratic regime developed by society are called plebiscite and representative democracy. Plebiscite, or direct, democracy is based on the principle of the mandatory direct participation of the people in making the most important political decisions. The functions of representative bodies of power are reduced to a minimum, however, as is the number of these bodies themselves. At the same time, the power is maximally controlled by the society, and first of all this applies to the representative bodies. The positive side of this form of democracy is that it promotes the development of political activity and ensures the legitimacy of power.

Representative, or representative, democracies are found in many more countries, including Russia. State government, according to the concept of this regime, is representative. In other words, it is carried out by elected persons who represent the interests of a specific group of their voters in government bodies. It must be competent and fully responsible to society. The participation of other citizens in government is allowed, however, it has many restrictions, since the law provides for the necessary completeness of power functions solely for the people's representatives.

Today there are very few countries that do not proclaim democratic principles as the basis of their domestic policy. Be that as it may, democracy in different countries is understood differently, in accordance with the prevailing political views in society.

Scientists distinguish between two central trends in the development of the public administration system in our era. Regardless of the fact that a country declares itself democratic, its governing system can be either statist or de-etatist, that is, directly opposite in terms of the orientation of management methods.

Etatism (French etat - the state) is expressed in the strengthening of the role of the state and state structures in the life of society. Deetatism, or anti-statism, boils down to limiting state intervention in the life of citizens. As a tendency in the country's internal political development, statism and deetatism have certain advantages, and therefore are chosen in accordance with the current situation.

The correct choice determines the progressive development of democracy, the preservation of its institutions and the strengthening of statehood as a whole. The statist tendency is beneficial when, under the current conditions, the needs of society are aimed at the need to mitigate social confrontations, eliminate stagnation in the public sector economy, and establish control over negative spontaneous processes in society and the economy.

The deetatist tendency is beneficial when its choice is conditioned by public needs in the fight against bureaucratization, in limiting the expansion of the public sector of the economy, which occurs to the detriment of the private sector, as well as in increasing the political activity of citizens and providing them with greater opportunities for self-government.

An incorrectly chosen line of development leads to the fact that the tendency turns out to be detrimental to the democratic regime. Deetatism results in the growth of anarchist sentiments in society, while statism leads to an infringement of the private sector of the economy, restriction of citizens' independence and paternalism as an ostentatious concern for workers.

Thus, democracy can easily degenerate into authoritarianism, ochlocracy, plutocracy and other decadent regimes in which the civil liberty of the individual is limited in every possible way. In order to preserve the viability of a democratic regime and its most important institutions, it is necessary to create suitable conditions for this. The latter differ in content, methods and principles into three groups. First, these are socio-political conditions, which necessarily include civil society and the rule of law.

Civil society is a collection of real citizens who actively participate in the political life of the country and maintain public order primarily through their own efforts. The rule of law is a jurocracy (rule of law) that guarantees a wide range of rights and freedoms to citizens.

Conditions for the existence of democracy

Secondly, the condition for the existence of democracy is the culture of citizens (especially political and legal) as a guarantee of the successful construction of civil society.

Thirdly, specific economic conditions: stable and progressively developing commodity production, pluralism of forms of ownership (state, cooperative, municipal, private), and also, according to some political scientists and economists, free competition of commodity producers. Economic freedom is important because democracy itself is to a certain extent a "political market" in which various parties compete.

It often happens that one comes across the opinion that the restriction of freedom in the state can be easily calculated by the nature of the government of the country - prohibitive or liberal. In this case, prohibition is determined by the formula "everything is forbidden, except for what is directly permitted." Liberality, which should not be confused with liberalism, implies adherence to the formula "everything is allowed except for what is expressly prohibited."

In reality, the use of these formulas can lead to a dead end, since the very assessment of the correctness of the tendency in the development of the regime, based on such reasoning, is categorically incorrect. Truly reasonable political management invariably shows rigidity in those issues where absolutely everything should be prohibited except for the directly permitted. Consequently, freedom is not philistine liberalism, based on the principle of permissiveness. Freedom is the exact knowledge of a conscientious citizen and a member of society what can and cannot be done.