Spinoza Arguments For Absolute Freedom

Spinoza’s idea of inalienable rights, argues that the purpose of the state is freedom. However, similar to Hobbes he falls into the trap that a right to act means nothing more than a capacity to do so. Spinoza is also contra-dictionary as he defends absolute freedom but puts forward exceptions. Both argue that the sovereign has a right to act as it wishes and to listen to subjects’ opinion is simply a case of self-interest as doing otherwise would result in resentment, thus natural right is determined not by reason but by desire and power as subjects are born ignorant. Spinoza argues that appetite draws people to different directions creating varieties, thus universal laws are required and subjects must transfer their power to society which
Furthermore, he seems to be arguing that too much freedom is too possible; “How much more then should free thought be granted, seeing that it is in itself a virtue and that it cannot be crushed”. Seeing injustice as irrelevant and that it is unnecessary to grant too much freedom, is in itself to put restrictions on liberty. Spinoza debates for absolute freedom, yet seems to ignore cases when this is not granted. Spinoza is planting a seed to foundations of more neoliberal ideas of freedom, as he is promoting individual freedom rather than more socialist and collective freedoms. He talks about the “happiness of living in a republic, where everyone is judgement is free..” using Holland and Amsterdam as example. He falls into a trap of positive liberty which resembles the “American dream” that equality is already accomplished rather something that needs to constantly be worked
If his framework is to be a guide, it raises important question about freedom of speech. Should speech be considered a thought or action? Hate speeches for example has destructive tendencies as it moves people to act. The radio program “libre des mille collines” in Rwanda for example resulted in immediate genocides and a civil war between Hutus and Tutsis due to racist propaganda. This was also seen in the Cronulla riots in Australia is another example of opinion turning into action. If again, Spinoza argues that a good citizen is critical but doesn’t put on political disorder, how then would anyone put a stop to the Rwanda and the Cronulla riot assuming that is the current political order? He framework, like hobbes assumes that the state it automatically “the good guy” which is problematic because are we then “bad citizens” for critizing for example cronula riots, patriarchy structures or even neoliberal ideologies? I would like to argue the