Introduction
Freedom is not merely the "absence of obstacles," but above all the presence of good. Timothy Snyder, drawing on the thought of Leszek Kołakowski, argues that the modern state cannot simply be a "night watchman." For freedom to be real, it must become an intricate architecture of possibilities, bridging liberal, conservative, and socialist values. In an era of algorithms and disinformation, protecting our sovereignty requires moving beyond old patterns and building institutions that guarantee our right to truth and the integrity of our thought processes.
Kołakowski’s Triad and the Five Pillars of Freedom
The foundation of a stable state is Kołakowski’s Triad: liberal freedom, a conservative sense of duty, and social sensitivity. Their combination protects jurisprudence from ideological extremes. Snyder translates this thought into a program of five forms of positive freedom: sovereignty (individual agency), unpredictability (space for creative error), mobility (infrastructure of opportunity), factuality (access to truth), and solidarity (shared responsibility).
From this perspective, negative liberty (the absence of coercion) is insufficient. Without the real-world conditions of factuality or mobility, an individual's field of choice shrinks to the scraps left behind by corporations. Only positive freedom asks the question: what common good do we want to realize? The state must therefore actively design institutions so that these forces do not cancel each other out, but instead support the development of the citizen.
Habeas Mentem: Protecting the Mind in the Digital Age
In the age of algorithms, traditional protection of the body (habeas corpus) is no longer enough. Snyder proposes the introduction of habeas mentem—the right to the protection of cognitive integrity. Our "lived body" (Leib), the seat of our subjectivity, is currently being colonized by the dopamine-driven mechanisms of tech platforms. The state must protect citizens from manipulation, treating interference in thought processes as equivalent to physical violence.
This phenomenological distinction between Leib and Körper (the body-as-object) changes our perception of civil rights. Positive freedom becomes essential, for instance, in youth mental health protection. Providing psychological care in schools is not an ideology, but a "minimalism of freedom," enabling the formation of a sovereign individual capable of making conscious choices.
Factuality, Solidarity, and New Legal Frameworks
Freedom requires factuality, which means institutional support for truth (independent media, archives). The state can support the quality of public debate without resorting to censorship—for example, through grants for investigative journalism. At the same time, we need unpredictability tests for algorithms to ensure that network architecture does not stifle human creativity. Antitrust law must evolve, treating data monopolies as a threat to the pluralism of thought.
The concepts of Berlin (caution), Rawls (fairness), and Dworkin and Alexy (balancing values) complement Snyder’s vision. Fiscal solidarity, described as an alphabet of solidarity (A-care, B-security, C-curiosity), redefines taxes as a collective investment in the infrastructure of freedom. This is not the redistribution of envy, but the building of bridges that allow everyone to move forward.
Summary
The state cannot be neutral toward values, as every legal act is an axiological choice. Freedom is not a possession, but the constant work of institutions and citizens. It requires unpredictability in the spirit of Havel—the courage to "live in truth" and to take risks, without which democracy becomes an empty procedure. In a world dominated by algorithms, will we dare to build a state where freedom is the actual presence of good, rather than just a marketing slogan?
📄 Full analysis available in PDF