[[File:Four-Freedoms-OWI-composite-poster-1943.jpg|thumb|right|Four Freedoms, a series of 1943 paintings by Norman Rockwell honoring Franklin D. Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, meant to describe the freedoms for which allied nations fought in World War II.]] Freedom is the power or right to speak, act, and change as one wants without hindrance or restraint. Freedom is often associated with liberty and autonomy in the sense of "giving oneself one's own laws".[1]
In one definition, something is "free" if it can change and is not constrained in its present state. Physicists and chemists use the word in this sense.[2] In its origin, the English word "freedom" relates etymologically to the word "friend". Philosophy and religion sometimes associate it with free will, as an alternative to determinism or predestination.[3]
In modern liberal nations, freedom is considered a right, especially freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press.
In political discourse, political freedom is often associated with liberty and autonomy, and a distinction is made between countries that are free of dictatorships. Regarding the digital era, the free-software-movement is often associated with freedom or avoiding vendor lock-in. In the area of civil rights, a strong distinction is made between freedom and slavery and there is conflict between people who think all races, religions, genders, and social classes should be equally free and people who think freedom is the exclusive right of certain groups. Frequently discussed are freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of choice, and freedom of speech.
Sometimes the terms denoting to "freedom" and "liberty" are used interchangeably.[4][5] Sometimes subtle distinctions are made between "freedom" and "liberty"[6] John Stuart Mill, for example, differentiated liberty from freedom in that freedom is primarily, if not exclusively, the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do, whereas liberty concerns the absence of arbitrary restraints and takes into account the rights of all involved. As such, the exercise of liberty is subject to capability and limited by the rights of others.[7]
Isaiah Berlin made a distinction between "positive" freedom and "negative" freedom in his seminal 1958 lecture "Two concepts of liberty". Charles Taylor elaborates that negative liberty means an ability to do what one wants, without external obstacles and positive liberty is the ability to fulfill one's purposes.[8][9] Another way to describe negative liberty is freedom from limiting forces (such as freedom from fear, freedom from want, and freedom from discrimination), but descriptions of freedom and liberty generally do not invoke having liberty from anything.
Wendy Hui Kyong Chun (A South Korean born researcher, and do note South Korea is a country known for restricting freedom and civil liberties in the 20th century) explains these differences in terms of their relation to institutions:
Freedom will is the idea that entities can willingly choose an arbitrary option when presented, often in the context of human behaviour. Many religions assume the existence of free will, including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Judaism. Determinism is the idea that every event has a cause and must have happened due to that cause. This leads to the conclusion that existence, reality, universe, god or infinity must play out in a determined manner. Some propose the idea that emergence can cause free will.[10] The concept of free will is a long debated topic in philosophy and supporting scientific arguments exist for both worldviews.
Freedom from domination was considered by Phillip Pettit, Quentin Skinner and John P. McCormick as a defining aspect of freedom.[11][12] While operative control is the ability to direct ones actions on a day-to-day basis, that freedom can depend on the whim of another, also known as reserve control. Phillip Petit and Jamie Susskind argue that both operative and reserve control are needed for democracy and freedom.[13][14]