Defining Freedom: Reader Comments


Figure 1.--

Freedom, like most political concepts, defies easy definition. Notions of freedom evolve, and at any time they reflect the values and status of the individual. In political discussions one or another preposition seems invariably to follow the word freedom. Most likely, people of speak of freedom to or freedom from. Freedom to come and go as we please; freedom to speak our thoughts, or freedom to practice or not to practice religious beliefs are common examples of freedom to do whatever we will to do. This definition implies absence of restraint on our actions and/or choices. Freedom from suggests security: freedom from hunger or fear, for examples.

How much freedom qualifies us to be free? We are free to believe as we wish, but acting on those beliefs may be punishable by law. Americans enjoy considerable freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment's wording, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..." Since 1925 this has applied to state governments, as well. But not all speech enjoys First Amendment protection. Libel and slander; obscenity and pornography; and "fighting words" furnish examples. Political pundits and comedians, however, regularly and freely skewer politicians, celebrities, or televangelists without legal sanctions.

Freedom to act has not only legal but moral restraints, as well. I am free to use profanity, but I refrain from using coarse or vulgar language when speaking to others who may be hurt by such words. Others, however, may feel no such constraints; their upbringings or their values differ from mine. They exercise their freedom fully while I prefer to act ... judiciously.

Freedom from some negative condition, such as hunger or fear, reflects both objective and subjective aspects. So long as I have access to food and the means to purchase it, I can remain free from hunger. On the other hand insecurity, a fear of something, is more difficult to ameliorate for many people.

Our conceptualization of freedom continues to evolve. Circumstances and customs govern our definitions of freedom. Consider the prosaic example of the castaways of "Gilligan's Island". The seven ill-fated passengers and crew were confined to a remote, off-the-map island, unable to return to their "normal" lives. They were liberated, however, from various mundane social conventions, like holding down a job and paying bills.

Technology, globalization, inequality - some of the banes of Twenty-First Century life to many. What if for only a day we might live in a world free of modern ills. You have heard, no doubt, to be careful what you wish for? In a state without government and laws one lives without restraints on his/her behavior. There are no laws, so nothing can be illegal. All is not well in the state of nature, however, because at any time one is vulnerable to another person or persons superior in strength or weaponry and deficient in conscience. John Locke, the 18th century political philosopher, theorized that this is why people form societies and institutions of government: to secure the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Individuals surrender a bit of their freedom to enjoy the protections afforded by government.

Ironically, freedom requires a sacrifice of some individual liberties to maximize freedom for the many. How large a sacrifice? Political theorists may answer that one's freedom ends just before one's fist meets another's nose. That certainly seems agreeable, but of course that is a bit simplistic. Governments have tolerated, even legitimated, loss of natural rights even as they proclaim and endorse freedom for all. Thomas Jefferson declared the "self-evident" truth that "all men are created equal" while holding slaves. The human faith in constitutions and laws as guarantors and protectors of freedom boggles the mind. Totalitarian regimes such as Hitler's Germany and the Soviet Union, interpreted their constitutions and laws cynically to imprison and murder millions.

So, what recourse or remedy would John Locke prescribe for the citizens of such dystopian states? Locke (and Rousseau) theorized a social contract between citizens and government. If a government is too weak or too strong to guarantee citizens' freedoms, then it has broken the social contract. The citizens have the right to rebel. But governments tend to resist the logic of such complaints with the overwhelming force they monopolize. "That government is best, which governs least," appeals seductively to those government has harmed and to those who fear government's potential to do harm. We often hear in contemporary political rhetoric support for "unfettered capitalism" and a starvation diet for the beast of government. As governments may do so much harm, best that government be limited.

I am mindful of the quote, "Power abhors a vacuum." Someone, something, some entity will exercise power to enrich itself at the expense of all others. James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10 of the "mischief of factions," the bête noir of all political systems. A faction is any group that acts selfishly and is destructive of the commonweal. Factions may be religious, ethnic, or commercial, but governments must control the mischief of factions or succumb to their power.

Roughly half a century ago, John Kenneth Galbraith theorize that the superpowers, the USA and the USSR, would one day would be similar in political, economic, and social systems. The once irreconcilable titans would meet somewhere in the politico-economic middle. The demise of the USSR and the evident triumph of capitalism, however, dispelled Galbraith's theory. The burial, however, may have been premature. China, Russia, and other nations have wedded political authoritarianism to capitalist economics, offering a template for wannabes. Arguably, this politico-economic megaforce - a blend of the public and private sectors - should concern us for the threat it poses to individual freedom









CIH





Navigate the Children in History Website:
[Return to the Main freedom definition page]
[Return to the Main freedom page]
[Return to the Main topics page]
[Introduction] [Biographies] [Chronology] [Climatology] [Clothing] [Disease and Health] [Economics] [Geography] [History] [Human Nature] [Law]
[Nationalism] [Presidents] [Religion] [Royalty] [Science] [Social Class]
[Bibliographies] [Contributions] [FAQs] [Glossaries] [Images] [Links] [Registration] [Tools]
[Children in History Home]






Created: 2:08 AM 5/30/2015
Last updated: 2:08 AM 5/30/2015