Freedom has been a clarion cry in Jamaica for centuries, until today when the focus centres more on the mental kind. People want to be free to invest their money where they want to, to smoke what they want to, and have sex with whom they want to, and to have as many children as they wish. And there are some who wish to kill any unwanted children in their wombs, if they prove inconvenient.

And then there are those who want to regulate investment clubs, and make ganja smoking illegal, and criminalise homosexuality, and control the number of children people have, and ban abortion. And so one side calls for morality, and the other side calls for freedom.

Is freedom a right?

This, of course, is a deep philosophical question. Should human beings be free to do what they wish, no matter what the consequences? Is 'freedom' an absolute right?

This calls into question the whole basis of justice and law itself. Laws are enacted to constrain people's freedom to do what they want. When is this justified and when is it not? Is it ever justified to constrain the freedom of others, and if so, under what circumstances?

Should, for example, there be a speed limit on the roads, or should each driver be free to drive at whatever speed he or she wishes?

The argument is that there must be a maximum speed limit because some speeds are unsafe for the driver and for the others who drive on the same roads; and that roads are constructed with some maximum speed in mind, and so not to have a speed limit would create undue risk.

And, so, laws are necessary to protect us from one another, and our behaviour must be constrained to protect us from damaging others. Maybe, the assumption is that we are so selfish that if there were no law, we would grab all we can, and it would be the survival of the strongest and most powerful. Law is necessary to protect the weak from the excesses of the strong.

Now take smoking. There is no doubt that inhaling smoke into our lungs affects our health. Should we not be free to damage our health if we so choose? Maybe so! But, I wonder whether people who begin to smoke for the first time are aware of the consequences of their choice?

Those in whose interest it is for more people to smoke cannot be expected to advertise the negatives. They will project how sexy it is, and macho, etc. And so this introduces a new element into the discussion.

Ignorance is a real constraint to a free decision, and without relatively complete information, people will make bad decisions which might hurt them.

Good education system

And so a good education system is essential for a really free society, one in which people can choose what is best for them. One way to ensure a society remains in mental slavery is to operate a poor education system.

Now, even with good information, someone may still choose to smoke, and that would be his/her right. But, then when they get sick, who should pay for their medical care? Should the taxes of people who take the good decision not to smoke because it is bad for their health, pay for the medical care of those who choose to smok they know better?

This is where we get to the really important fact, that seemingly private decisions have very public consequences.

Decisions to drive fast or to smoke or to have sexual intercourse have implications for the public purse. In our system, the Government is expected to provide health care for smokers, and to build schools to accommodate the children born to irresponsible parents. To what extent should we be saying to people that you can smoke if you choose, but don't come to us if you get sick?

Or is the principle that no matter what you do, no matter how irresponsible you are with your health, taxpayers money will be used to provide all the medical help you need?

These are important questions which affect public policy right now! Does freedom to choose mean that we, as citizens, have to face the consequences of our free choices ourselves, or will the public purse bail us out every time? More next week, God willing.