It's difficult to pin down the idea behind this draft. Outlining would certainly have helped. But I think it can best be summarized as "[F]reedom should not be understood as choice, action, or opportunity without restrictions. It should be thought of [instead] as the ability to make the choices most in line with our goals and desires." The premise is a straw man. No one was actively arguing in law school that "freedom" means "action without restrictions." John Stuart Mill's On Liberty is the usual reflexive counter-reference. The conclusion that follows from victory over the imaginary opponent is that "freedom" (it would be more in line with our tradition to say "liberty") is "the ability to make the choices most in line with our goals and desires." Thomas Jefferson referred to this as "the pursuit of happiness." (You might find interesting and useful Garry Wills' Inventing America, a peerless explication of the Declaration.) I'm not aware of anyone who disagrees with this capsule definition. So we seem to have vanquished a straw man in pursuit of a truism.

The clue to another underlying theme here is that:

If being a cog in the big law machine is your dream, freedom should be the power to make this decision, regardless of the consequences of restrictions it imposes. An attorney in this position should be considered no less free than the one who runs their own practice if that is what they desire.

This too is mostly beyond dispute. It isn't clear why "being considered free" is important, who does the considering, with what real consequences of the determination, etc. But we all agree that the point of law school is to educate people to make freely in your sense the life choices involved in entering the profession.

The actual disagreement, if there is one, is over the value rather than the existence of a particular professional freedom: the freedom to choose one's clients and causes, rather having them dictated by a private or public employer. The existence of the ability to choose what to work on and with whom isn't in doubt and can't be defined away. Partnerships are institutions built around the concept of economic alliance for the preservation of individual professional autonomy, after all. Do we as individuals value—to what extent, and in what tensions with other values—our ability to choose whether to work on matters we care about, or in which we believe ourselves at the very least not to be doing harm? I'm sure that varies infinitely. The next draft might be much improved, I think, by being your direct, personal, current answer.

Freedom: Reality or Illusion?

-- By CameronOliver - 16 Feb 2023

Freedom is a concept that permeates all aspects of our lives. Whether it be on a day-to-day basis and the decisions that come with it such as what to eat for dinner or the more long-term and consequential decisions such as what to do with our careers and lives, we associate these ideas with the freedom to choose. Beyond our freedom as individuals, freedom is a part of the fabric of our culture. The United States was founded on revolution. The Revolutionary War was America’s revolt against the English crown and an attempt to gain the freedom to self-govern. Our Constitution enumerates various principles like freedom of speech, religion, and press. We rail against Communism in favor a free market. We even call our president the “leader of the free world.” It is evident that as a people we love freedom and revere it as one of our highest values. With the significance of freedom in our lives, is it possible we are getting it wrong? Is our conception of freedom wrong? Is true freedom even possible? That is, is the freedom we subscribe to and fight so hard to defend a reality or an illusion? I argue that while our understanding and desire for freedom is misguided, true freedom is something that is attainable and something worth striving for. To do so, I will first examine our conceptions of freedom. Next, I will explore what makes these ideas misguided. Finally, I will look at how we should view freedom moving forward.

We have spoken a lot in class about the concept of freedom, especially with regards to our time at Columbia Law School and our careers after graduation. Whether the conversation was about not blindly following the curriculum and taking control of our education or thinking twice about being nameless cogs in the big law machine and instead leading our own practice, the message has consistently been about emphasizing the value of determining our path forward and the inherent freedom that comes with it. This sentiment aligns with the common perceptions of freedom. We have this idea that freedom means the lack of restrictions on our decisions and our lives. We believe that it entails doing what we want, when we want, why we want, how we want, and where we want. This idea of freedom can be on any level as well. It can be something as small as the freedom to wear whatever clothes I want to school or as significant as the freedom from tyranny or surveillance. We look at people such as CEOs and celebrities as free in the sense that they don’t have to answer to people for the most part and live without the barriers placed by people above them in a hierarchy. While these are the views most commonly held about freedom, they are misguided notions.

Under this perceived idea of freedom, no one is free. Not the CEO of the richest company, not the managing partner who runs their own law practice, not the celebrity who exists outside of corporate structures and often wields extraordinary amounts of social power. Even in the presence of choice there are restrictions. We willingly submit to laws that govern our behavior. CEOs must answer to stockholders and their board. Attorneys must abide by a professional code of ethics and the will of their clients. Celebrities must act in a way that maintains their public image. Looking at this culturally, the same rules apply. In the same country that emphasizes freedom from tyranny and enumerates individual freedoms such as speech, religion, and press, none of these freedoms are absolute. As a country, we have meddled in other nations’ affairs an imposed our own tyranny. There are legislative and judicial limits to speech, religion, and press. Even our daily lives and choices are guided by restrictions. What I have for lunch is constrained by what I can afford to buy or by various dietary restrictions. Although there is no enforced dress code, what I wear to an interview or a job is limited to what accords with professional standards. It is evident that even those with the most freedom or with the most ability to choose are not truly free in the context of the meaning we have given freedom. Despite this being the case, it does not preclude true freedom from being a reality or something worth chasing.

I argue that true freedom should not be understood as choice, action, or opportunity without restrictions. Rules and constraints are the nature of life. They bring order where there would otherwise be chaos. As a result, our perceptions of freedom should be formulated with this assumption in mind. It should be thought of as the ability to make the choices most in line with our goals and desires. Freedom should be understood as the ability do what makes us happy and improves our existence. If being a cog in the big law machine is your dream, freedom should be the power to make this decision, regardless of the consequences of restrictions it imposes. An attorney in this position should be considered no less free than the one who runs their own practice if that is what they desire. As long as our conception of freedom equates to pursuing our chosen path, it is true freedom in my eyes. This is an idea of true freedom worth chasing.

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, CameronOliver
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.