Two Worlds

Imagine two worlds, and tell me which one you would choose to live in. The first world is ruled by various kings, who answer to various gods. The majority of people have no choice except to do what their parents did for a living; if their father was a cobbler they will be a cobbler, if their mother was a maid they will be a maid, if their grandfather was a cook they will be a cook. Individual expression is not encouraged, and therefore music and art have changed little over centuries. The news, literature, and systems of communication are all controlled by the government, which publishes what it wants to publish but would never allow criticism of its totalitarian regime. Though there is perhaps a small comfort in not having to choose a profession, it often comes at the cost of expression, experimentation, and joy.

The second world is a little more complicated. It is ruled (for the most part) by elected officials who try to do what people want them to do, but are often corrupted by money or power or fame. It is a world where (slightly frighteningly) people could, in theory, mold themselves into whatever they want to be. Not everyone starts out with the same opportunities, but many are encouraged to find out what makes them happy, and to express their opinions and ideas even if they are at odds with the government or their superiors at work. This means that sometimes there are problems; freedom from outside control means that people propose crazy ideas, like day spas for dogs or pizza with the cheese inside the crust or giant walls between countries that serve no purpose. Not having a supreme emperor also means that entire countries can decide to split off from the rest of the world because they are frustrated with their own political system, and there is no outside leader to tell them that true independence means being comfortable enough to welcome people of different beliefs and backgrounds into your world instead of shutting them out.

Independence is often confused or overused by politicians to be synonymous with freedom and liberty, when in fact it simply means the ability to act free from outside authority. This is a slightly abstract concept, because in reality none of us ever act free from society. But it does mean that a society that values independence will value freedom of expression, freedom of political thought, and freedom of choice. Though the first world proposed offers some sense of security, there is little individual expression and no trust in the people who live there. The second world might seem scarier because it relies on people working together, and because when everyone’s opinion matters there are no easy answers to difficult questions. Is our earthly system perfect?  No; however, even with the problems that exist in our world, I would never trade it for the former one because without the privilege of independence, we would not have the beautiful cacophony of ideas that makes up our world. We would not have literature that pushes us to the edge of our comfort zone and forces us to empathize with people completely different from ourselves. We would not have music that changes our understanding of what music is supposed to be, and has the power to make us laugh or cry uncontrollably. We would not have politicians trying to rework our political system so that it can benefit and include more people. We would not have the ability to look at our lives and decide to follow a path we believe in. We would not believe in our ability to change the world and make it better, and we would not have the privilege of following joy and helping others to do so. And without these independent freedoms, I’m not sure if the world is worth saving, but with them, it would certainly be devastating if it were lost.