There is No Such Thing as Freedom

So where do I get off in the proclaimed ‘land of the free’, the land ‘conceived in liberty’ claiming that the foundation upon which this nation is founded does not exist? We love to talk about freedom and lay claim to being free. We do any number of things in the name of freedom. But, has anyone ever stopped to think about what freedom really is and what it isn’t, what it can or cannot do, what we can or cannot do, what freedom means and doesn’t mean, who has it and who doesn’t, how it is used or abused. Most Americans when asked about whether they are free get a puzzled look on their face and one would guess that they are wondering: ‘Why are you asking such a stupid question?’ ‘The answer is self-evident.’ ‘Freedom is part of the fabric of American life and the foundation of the American ‘dream’’. ‘Freedom is a God given right and is inherent in being a self-acting organism. It is a right stolen by many other political systems and guaranteed by the United States Constitution.’ We look at freedom as the ultimate good, the standard, an absolute. These are wonderful ideals, but in context what does freedom really mean? If it does exist why isn’t it what we think it is or wish it to be?

We are fond of thinking of freedom as the right to do whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” No holds barred, no restrictions, no limitations. We even think often that this means that we can choose our actions and the consequences independently.

Can I freely jump off of a building? May I choose not to hit the ground? Can I choose to play the piano fabulously? May I do it without practicing? Can I represent my country in the Olympics and win the decathlon gold medal? Can I do it from my couch while watching TV? Can I graduate summa cum laude from Harvard? Can I do it without learning to read or study? Am I free to act stupidly and be thought wise? May I yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater? May I freely enter a synagogue, mosque, cathedral or temple and scream out obscenities to Jehovah, Allah or Jesus? Can I loudly proclaim in my megaphone as you are going to your chosen place of worship that your God is wrong and that he hates you? What if you are Moslem or Jewish or Mormon or Catholic; can I do it then? Can I tell the president I want to kill him? May I even tell anyone I want to harm the president? Can I talk about bombs on airplanes? May I even fly on an airplane without being closely checked for bombs and weapons or anything remotely like a weapon? Can I drive a truck full of explosives into a federal building? What if I don’t agree with some of the policies or actions of the government? What if they won’t listen to me? Can I then kill hundreds who work for that government, or are doing business in that government building or are children in the daycare in that building (who don’t even as yet know what a government is)? Can I drive on the left hand side of the road? Can I drive without wearing a seatbelt? Can I fly an airplane into a building and kill thousands because I think the government should change its politics and the people their religion? Can I bully and belittle the students in my high school? Can I kill those in my high school who bully and belittle me? Can I say whatever I want on a crowded subway? Including racial slurs? Can I exploit the workers in my employ? Can I harass them? Sexually? Can I convert to whatever religion I want? Can I kill those who won’t convert? Can I own a firearm? Can I take it wherever I want? Can I use it however, whenever, wherever I want? Can I be killed by terrorists or criminals using guns? May I kill terrorists or criminals using guns? May I smoke in a designated ‘non-smoking’ area? Can I write my own newspaper? Can I say anything I want in that paper? Can I assemble with all my friends and freely participate in activities that I believe in? What if some of those activities may not be considered politically correct? What if some of my beliefs may not be considered to be politically correct? Can I burn crosses into lawns? May I kill someone I hate? May I kill someone I don’t like? May I kill someone who is inconvenient to me? What if they haven’t been born yet? Can I hate someone who is different than I am? What if they are doing things that I think are morally wrong? Can I tie them to a fence post and beat them to death? What if they want to teach my children that they are right? Is it all right for people to drive drunk? Is it okay to be a drug salesperson? Is it okay to be a drug dealer? Is it okay to sell tobacco and alcohol? Does the age of the customers matter? Can I discipline my children if they disobey? Can I use whatever means I feel best at the moment? Is there a difference between may and can? Should there be?

Notice I am not answering any of these questions. I don’t intend to. I pose them only to demonstrate that freedom is not the simplistic concept we imagine. We Americans love and cherish freedom; all people love freedom. We think we know what it means. We are wrong.

Let us think about freedom more deeply and try to understand what it really means. I don’t pretend to have the answers to the questions I have posed or the unnumbered questions that could be posed. I don’t imagine that I know even a small fraction of the questions to be posed. I want to ask you some questions and pose some plausible answers. I want you to think about what freedom means to you. I want you to think about what freedom requires of you. I hope it will help us all to have more freedom. I think freedom is one of the ultimate gifts given to us as human beings. We have an obligation that goes with that gift. Mistreating, abusing or ignoring it, disrespecting or taking this gift for granted will diminish or destroy it. I hope you have noticed that even in this context I have used some un-free words in talking about freedom. Is it not contradictory to suggest that freedom ‘requires’ something or that there is an ‘obligation’ involved? Can I suggest that it is a ‘gift’ and that I can’t just treat it how I want? Isn’t this like a child’s Christmas gift that he can break if he wants? But then what of the gift if it is broken? We have all heard the ultimate conundrum: ‘Freedom isn’t free’. What was the price of freedom? What is the price of freedom? Is it worth the cost of securing and defending it? Can we enhance and increase it? How do we maximize the enjoyment of freedom for all?

If freedom doesn’t exist why is it even worth talking about?

“Freedom means everything for without freedom everything means nothing.”

Please join me in examining the territory.

Please note that much of the content of this book is presented in the form of questions. I could give you answers but they would be my opinions. Instead I give you questions for which I hope you will think, really think about your own answers.

1.  What Freedom Is

            “Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery.  Forbid it Almighty God.  I know not what course others may take but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.”  Freedom is the ultimate good at the ultimate cost.  Is anything more valuable than Freedom?  Clearly all people wouldn’t answer that question in the same way.  Or at least they wouldn’t act in the same way if faced with those choices in real life.  In Patrick Henry’s day they didn’t all feel the same way about it.  Clearly some would prefer to preserve life rather than defend freedom.  Some also would prefer peace or so it would seem.   Some in the day of that famous speech clearly preferred loyalty or duty or ‘Mother England’ or their current position in the administration to freedom.  And where do we put those people who use their freedom to protest, especially wars that are being prosecuted to provide freedom to others? They are doing something that would not be allowed in the other countries to protest the government’s attempts to bring those freedoms to the people in those other countries.  That strikes me as somehow, somewhat hypocritical.  So we can have those freedoms: insist on them but don’t want others to have them?  What’s with that?  What is it that they value more than freedom?  Life?  Peace?  Being right?  Or do they really love freedom so much that they are willing to be hypocrites for the opportunity to exercise it?  Or is someone else’s freedom of no consequence compared to their life and their peace since they already have freedom?  How does freedom relate to the sovereignty of other people, peoples and nations?  What about love?  Many give up all manner of freedom in the name of love.  But they do it freely.  Would they feel the same way if you forced it on them?  Sometimes freedom used is freedom lost.

The Declaration of Independence declares as God given rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.   Those are not just redundant synonyms that all mean the same thing.  There are territories in those three areas that do not overlap.  In the Pledge of Allegiance we declare America a nation ‘with Liberty and Justice for all’.  There are circumstances and conditions where liberty and justice are mutually exclusive.   Justice sometimes demands the forfeiture of freedom. 

The American Dream is a popular concept.  What does it mean?  Isn’t it most often all about money, prosperity, power, consumption and preeminence?  Very few realize their monetary American Dream without exploiting or taking advantage of someone else.  Doesn’t that reduce or ruin their American Dream?  Few would claim to have the American Dream at all.  Certainly none would claim the American Dream was theirs because they were being exploited or taken advantage of.  If the American Dream is about owning a home are the homeless then not Americans and/or not entitled to the Dream?  These ideas and concept will be discussed in the chapters that follow.

What does freedom mean to people?  How do we resolve the apparently contradictory nature of the mentioned items?  How do we deal with and categorize the mutually exclusive freedoms?  Why can’t you have your cake and eat it too?  Can we avoid the cause and effect of the exercise of freedom?  

There is no absolute inviolable kernel that is freedom.  If there were such a definition it would be so circumscribed as to be meaningless or so nebulous as to be incomprehensible.  Rather than looking at freedom as one overarching concept encompassing all things perhaps it is best to describe freedom in terms of types of freedom or kinds of freedom.  What kinds of freedom are there?  We all have some liberty – but what kind is it and what form does it take?

Sovereign is defined as being independent or above all others.  So who gets sovereignty?  Who deserves it?  Who gave Lincoln the right to start the civil war?  Why didn’t Hitler have the right to rule the world?  Why can Bush invade Iraq?  Why can Bush invade Kuwait?  Should Chechnya be independent?  Whose right is it to determine who will rule them or how?  If I live in a repressive totalitarian regime do I have the freedom to overthrow that regime?  If a bully beats me up and then somebody else beats up the bully do I resent the person who rescued me because he somehow took away my freedom to decide my own fate?  Is bullying a bully still bullying?  Where is the freedom in that?  Why do so many countries hate America?  Is the sovereignty a matter of individual rights, group rights or national rights?  Does the geography matter?  What about all the ethnic groups fighting for freedom and determination?  The Kurds, the Palestinians, the Tamils, the Basques, the Northern Irish Catholics, what rights to they have of self-determination. 

 Definition of Freedom?

            Since freedom is so difficult to pin down how do we agree on a definition that will be of some use?  Consider the following definitions and explanations.

Webster isn’t very helpful with the definition as it uses the word in its own definition.  The definition is lengthy and covers a number of situations.  This would be appropriate and not surprising.  The most useful part of the definition for our purposes is: “a being able to act, move, use, etc. without hindrance or restraint.”  The dictionary also lists as synonyms: liberty, “often interchangeable with freedom, strictly connotes past or potential restriction, repression, etc.” i.e. implies things that have not always been present and have the potential to be taken away.  And, license, “implies freedom that consists in violating the usual rules, laws or practices, either by consent or as an abuse of liberty” i.e. implies that license is not a universally applicable concept for why would there be exceptions if it is a freedom all have and why is it considered an abuse of liberty? 

John Stuart Mill wrote a very influential essay On Liberty.  In it he states: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.  His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”

The religious leader Joseph Smith had some progressive political views.  “No government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.”

He also stated in a religious context:  “No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood.”  This could easily be extended to include every other form of coercion or control.The best definition I can give which still requires this book to explain it is: Freedom is the power to order one’s life according to the dictates of conscience, the desires for happiness and the necessities of living.   

What Freedoms Are There? 

            Is it freedom to do what?  Is it freedom from what?  Is it freedom for what?  Is it the freedom to be?

 Intrinsic freedoms. 

Some freedoms are internal to all people.  Those freedoms cannot be usurped, circumscribed or limited in any way.    These intrinsic freedoms cannot be taken away.  They can’t be given away.  We can allow others to influence us with respect to them but these freedoms are always, ultimately within our sphere of control.  Among our intrinsic freedoms are:

·        Freedom of Thought.   We can always think what we want to think and think about what we want to think about.  This may require some effort to control but still no one can use force to control this for us.  An interesting story in this regard is told about Leo Tolstoy who started a club with his brother.  In order to join the club you had to sit in a corner for one hour and not think about a white bear.  It might be difficult to qualify to be in Tolstoy’s club but not impossible.  Some people throughout history have done some remarkable things with their freedom of thought.  Look at what Einstein did.  Some of his discoveries were not physically demonstrated until decades later.  Virtually everything he did was all a product of his mind.

·        Freedom of Belief.  We can always believe what we want to believe.  This freedom is available without limit to anyone and everyone.   We can believe what others tell us.  We can choose whom to believe.  We can believe anything we want without regard to whether it is true or not.  We can believe the earth is flat or the moon is made of green cheese or that pigs can fly.   Others may try to teach, influence or coerce us to believe something but we still choose what we will believe. 

·        Freedom of Feeling and Emotion.   We choose how we will feel about everything.  We may claim that we are sad because sad things happen to us or angry because others made us angry.  We fall in love.  We are ‘scared to death…’ We sometimes want to think that our emotions and feelings are natural and are dictated by circumstances and events but that is not true.  We ultimately choose them all.  If we don’t choose how do we fall in and out of love so quickly?  If we don’t choose how is it that the same circumstances and situations elicit such different responses from different people?  If we don’t choose how is it that some in the lap of luxury are unhappy and others in the direst of circumstances are happy?  Some choose to control their emotions and some choose not to.  But all of us ultimately choose all of it.  We do that with the force and freedom of will.

·        Freedom of Conscience.   We use the previously mentioned freedoms to decide what is right and wrong.  Again we may be taught and influenced but no one can force this decision upon us.  We choose.   

There are powerful forces of nature and nurture that exert tremendous influence on these intrinsic freedoms, their exercise and perception.   Everyone else has a vested interest in what we think, believe and feel.  Everyone has their system and method for determining these things and thinks, feels, believes that we should do the same.  But despite the pressures no one can take these freedoms from us.  The better we understand this the less likely we are to try to steal other’s freedom and the more likely we are to be able to safeguard our own.

 Extrinsic freedoms.  Most freedoms are dependent in some way on outside circumstances, conditions and influences.  They are at least to some extent or in some way not totally within the realm of our control.  We should not use this as an excuse.  We have much more control over most things than we know or use.  But we do need to understand that there are limitations.  Extrinsic freedoms are pretty much all of one kind: 

·        Freedom of Action.  We can do what we want to do.  But the sphere within which this works may be limited.   There are consequences to actions and the consequences impact the freedom of action.  They provide a feedback mechanism. 

o       Positive feedback loops characterize some freedoms.  They are increased as they are exercised.  Learning in all its forms is an example.  The more I practice playing the piano the more freedom I have in my piano playing.  The better we understand something and the more proficient we become at performing it the more freedom we have within the context of that activity.

o       Negative feedback loops describe other freedoms.  If I exercise the freedom to cut off my fingers I eventually run out of fingers or the ability to cut them off.  But this freedom eliminates itself.   If I steal and am caught I may be imprisoned which makes it much more difficult for me to continue to steal.  I can probably hit that big kid at school who is bullying me but I may only be able to do it once.   I can eat and drink whatever I want but if I drink or eat poisons or drugs I may lose some or all of that ability. 

o       Timed loops are a function of time.  Some freedoms we increase by not exercising them or by delaying the exercise of them.   I can buy whatever I want with my money but when the money is spent I may no longer have the freedom to buy.  If I delay the purchases I maintain that freedom.  If in fact I continue to make money this freedom is increased.  The added money gives me more freedom to buy more and bigger things.  Some time freedoms work in reverse.  We lose freedom as a function of time.  Some freedoms may be unlimited freedoms of limited duration or they may be limited freedoms of unlimited duration. 

o       Some freedoms wax or wane with our abilities that can be enhanced or diminished.   These things may be determined by my education, physical condition, aging, natural cycles, etc. 

·        Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  Governments operate in the realm of the freedom of action.  They proscribe or prescribe what actions are allowed, limited, forbidden or required.  The founding fathers of the United States staked out these three areas as particularly noteworthy.  These were areas that were not particularly noted as freedoms in the governments of the day.  They were not considered rights in the country under whose jurisdiction they were at the time.  Those in charge controlled those things.  This was the primary antecedent of revolution.  The founders served notice that the new nation not only would not circumscribe these freedoms but would not allow others to control them either.  You could not be deprived of life and property without due process of law and you could do pretty much whatever you wanted within the limits of the law.  But, the law wouldn’t limit activities unless the public good was at risk.  As we will see this is much more complicated than that simplistic notion would admit. 

·        Freedom of Expression.  While this is part of the freedom of action it is in many ways a special subset.  It is at the heart of the Bill of Rights and what we particularly expect our government to protect.   In fact these rights are so closely protected that they are often allowed to infringe on other rights in egregious ways.  The freedom is critical.  For a free and open society it is not just a freedom but also an obligation.  Without the free and open exchange of ideas there is no vitality.  The society that does not safeguard and promote this freedom becomes stagnant and repressive.  Freedom of expression is the best guarantor of freedom of action. 

For an in depth discussion of the nature and importance of the freedom of expression refer to the John Stuart Mill essay ‘On Liberty’, section 2.   

 Where does freedom come from?

            At this point it would be helpful to discuss the origins of freedom.  What freedoms are natural?  What freedoms are given to us and by whom or by what means? 

·        Natural freedoms.  The natural world imposes no restrictions on freedom except those that are the result of natural laws and consequences.  There are physical laws like gravity, chemical laws like osmosis, laws of nature like weather, season and climate, laws imposed by geography, planetary motion, laws of probability and any number of other things.  They are all egalitarian in nature and uniform in application.  There is no liberty or license with natural laws.  There are only certain consequences.   Strictly natural law is also ruled by the survival of the fittest.  You get what you have the strength and guile to take.  You survive and thrive on the basis of adherence to natural law.  You have the freedom to adhere to natural law or not.  But you do not have the freedom to escape the consequences. 

·        Inherent, God given rights.  We are endowed by whatever means with reasoning powers and social abilities that rise far above the other animals.  This gives us freedoms that are awesome to contemplate.  There is also no record of any kind in which God has taken any agency of any sort from mankind.  He may be issuing laws that He expects us to obey and often compelling rewards and punishments associated with those laws.  But, there is no compulsion, dominion or even influence exercised.   The religious discussion is the subject of chapter 11.  But who can’t argue that man is equipped with abilities that set him apart from the other animals?

·        Society/Government given rights.   Humankind discovered that there were advantages to forming into groups and acting cooperatively.  The primary reason was for protection but other synergies developed around economics, learning and nurturing.  There were divisions of labor that made work more efficient.  Groups were often advantageous for hunting, gathering and building.  As man organized into societies it became necessary to adopt rules for governing those societies.  The fittest taking what they wanted was generally not in the best interests of the society.   Still the strongest most often made the rules and forced adherence.   As societies grew larger and more complex the leader had a more difficult time asserting leadership.  Some of the emphasis shifted from being stronger to being smarter.  Inequities in society caused the members to question those inequities and to sue for rules to address them.  The Magna Carta forced on King John in 1215 challenged the hereditary, divine and ultimate right of kings to control everything in the lives of their subjects.  Though there is some debate about the things that were written it is generally recognized that the charter showed the viability of opposition to excessive use of power by the monarchy.  With the discovery and colonization of the new world the inequities were magnified and the concept of the ‘consent of the governed’ took hold.   Now the people expected more from government.  They expected not just protection in the exercise of their rights but a granting of a whole new set of rights and freedoms.   Government “of the people, by the people and for the people”(Abraham Lincoln) became the standard of freedom for the world.  Governments can in fact grant freedom and administer freedoms.  

What freedoms exist or can exist? 

            With the advent of government the prospect of freedoms being enhanced was created.  What are those freedoms?  Franklin D. Roosevelt in a speech to congress, Jan 6, 1941 listed four freedoms as the rights of all people: Freedom of speech and expression.  Freedom of worship.  Freedom from want.  Freedom from fear.

The Bill of rights deals with the first of these items.  The amendments guarantee many specific freedoms but in general terms.  In the application it has been shown and adjudicated in court that there are limitations to these freedoms.

• Amendment I prohibits the government from establishing a state religion and guarantees freedom of religion.  (Not quite the prohibition of all things religious that the atheists espouse.)  The problematic aspect of this prohibition is that virtually everyone in the era in which it was written professed a belief in God.  The intent was that no religion would be favored to the disadvantage of another.  With the relatively modern advent of atheism there is again contested ground.  The atheists push their rights to a nation without religion.  It is worth noting that atheism in fact is a belief system in itself and atheists are trying to use this amendment to establish their belief system as the state religion.  We all want to protect ourselves from exposure to what we consider to be bad influences.  An atheist considers any religious person a bad influence and vice versa.  How is your right not to have a prayer greater than my right to have one?  Is the right to the absence of something greater than the right to the presence of something?  That seems to be the case many are trying to make with respect to religion.  Another way of stating the freedom of this amendment may be: “We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members as citizens, denied.” (Joseph Smith)
• Amendment I also guarantees freedom of speech.  When can I speak and where? What can I say?  Does this give me the right to barge into a synagogue and shout obscenities at the rabbi?  Does it give me the right to stand outside the synagogue and shout obscenities about the rabbi?  Does it give me the right to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater?  Do the pornographers have a right to assault me with it at every turn?  Somehow this has developed in the opposite direction as religion.  The right to the presence of something is greater than the right to the absence of something.  That seems to be the case many are trying to make with respect to the freedom of speech.
• Amendment I also guarantees freedom of the press.  It establishes that the press shall be independent of government interference in the reporting of news and the expression of opinions.  Often the press is creating or trying to influence public opinion and that has been judged to be in the protected realm.  The press also has been guilty of sedition, untruth, libel, one-sided arguments and coverage.  They have not always been protected in those rights, or wrongs. 
• Amendment I also guarantees freedom of assembly.  I can choose whom I wish to gather with and mostly where and when.  The courts are less clear on whom I am allowed to include and exclude?  Do I have the right of association?  Can I choose in my private organization to include or exclude whomever I wish?  What is a private organization?  What if those people don’t want to be excluded?  What if they feel it is their right to freedom and happiness that they must be included?  They feel entitled to oppose the principles of an organization because they disagree with the rules of membership and yet they want the benefits of membership.
• Busy Amendment I also guarantees the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.  It just doesn’t guarantee that they will listen or offer redress. 
• Amendment II preserves the right to keep and bear arms.  While conditions have changed substantially since the amendment was enacted this right remains.  The problematic aspects, which attempts have been made to address are: protection of police, child deaths from unsecured firearms, criminals having guns, cop killer bullets, assault rifles, personal thermonuclear devices, accidents and stupidity.
• Amendments III, IV and V guarantee certain rights with regard to private property.  Private property rights cannot be infringed without consent and/or compensation.   Is the seizure of property used in the commission of a crime constitutional?  How far can the concept of eminent domain be taken? 
• Amendments IV through VIII guarantee certain rights in court including rights against double jeopardy, excessive fines, cruel and unusual punishment and self-incrimination as well as the rights to jury trials and bail.  Are the huge punitive damage awards excessive fines and therefore unconstitutional?   What is cruel and unusual?  Removing the feeding tube of Teri Schiavo was deemed humane and proper.  If you suggest executing the worst mass murderer in the same way what a cry you would raise from the very people insisting that you remove the tube.  Are these right relative?  Where are the lines drawn?  Where should they be drawn?  
• Amendment IX is of special interest on the subject of freedom.  It declares that the enumeration of rights in the constitution does not imply that the people do not retain all other rights.
• What about freedom from want?  How can President Roosevelt offer this as a right that ought to be guaranteed?  I want lots of things I know I will never have.  He of course was speaking in depression era terms of the basic necessities of life like food, shelter and clothing.  How about education?  What are the limits of this?  What should be guaranteed and how do you go about doing it?  In other parts of the world millions die of starvation, exposure and disease.  It is not unheard of in the U.S. but it is much less prevalent.  It is a worthy goal of government to rid society of these things.  But at what cost?
• What about freedom from fear?  I know people who are afraid of snakes.  Does that mean the government is obliged to rid the world of snakes?  That would increase the rodent population.  Then how would we make the world safe for those who are afraid of mice?   Again this freedom would have to be considered at its elemental state.  Can the government protect us from the general dangers of the world?  How should it go about doing that?  We have the armed forces as well as police and firefighters, judges and teachers to help mitigate the dangers in the world.  Some see dangers that others do not.  Are they really there?  Are they really dangers?  What about the dangers no one sees?  What are the costs?  Freedom from fear has more than just monetary costs.  What are the costs in terms of freedom of fighting the ‘war on terror’?
• The freedom of equality.  This is the freedom to be treated justly and equitably.  Even before the statement of freedom the Declaration of Independence states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”   Whether you can actually have general freedom without equality will be discussed later.  Here for this topic we would say no but that it doesn’t matter.  Equality is not guaranteed in the natural world but in a civilized society it must be.  If everyone treated each other with respect and dignity there would be no need for laws to address these issues.  But because we abuse these freedoms we have to be legislated to ensure the lack of discrimination.  Civil rights laws evolved out of this need.  Now hate crimes laws are poised to follow.  Discrimination laws are particularly problematic because of history.  Without the laws there was inequality and that inequality has had lasting effects.   We can’t just say okay I won’t discriminate anymore.  We have to do something to correct the disadvantages incurred by previous discrimination.  How do we do that without creating current discrimination that will carry over to the next generation?  This is very problematic.  No current law really digs at the roots of the real problem.  The root of discrimination is that of differentiation.  We choose between things.  Until that choosing can be blind to differences that don’t matter in the selection process then we will have continuing issues and problems.  What difference does the color of a person’s skin make as to whether they will be honest and hardworking?  What difference does gender matter in the running of a business?   Until we can select based on the individual, the individual’s talents skills and abilities and not on the characteristics of the group to which they belong we will have to continue to wrestle with these issues.  An interesting anecdote is told about how research had shown that certain physical characteristics generally favored black athletes in many areas.  This was used to explain, or explain away, the great feats that Jesse Owens performed on the track and at the 1936 Olympics.  Then on further investigation they discovered that Owens didn’t have any of those racial characteristics.  He had excelled without them.  Why would we even consider prejudging?  Why can’t we gather the information and then judge based on the facts?  There are two definitions of discrimination: the first is the act of distinguishing differences; the second is the showing of partiality.  Let’s use the first and distinguish differences that matter.

 Intersecting Circles.

            In the ideal free world, which I doubt could exist, all freedoms would be independent and exclusive to each individual.  But that is not this world.  We are all interconnected.  There is no neat and tidy dividing line between where your freedoms end and where mine begin.  “The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty.” (Abraham Lincoln)  How we negotiate and navigate that common set is a measure of our civility.  The tolerance and understanding that we evidence is crucial to success.

Part of understanding the intersecting circles is to understand the relationships of our freedoms to each other.  There is no problem of course if we agree.  But when we disagree how do we deal with the conflict?  

 Freedom Of, Freedom To & Freedom From.

            It may be useful to define terms and determine a uniform usage for better understanding.  You don’t have to agree with these definitions.  I explain them mostly so you will know how I am using them. 

When we talk about the freedom of, we are most often speaking in general terms.  The freedom to, grants license to perform certain acts.  The freedom from, is the ability to avoid something whether it be acts or conditions. 

            For example, the freedom of religion means that we can believe whatever we wish to believe according to the dictates of our own consciences.   This fits into the intrinsic freedoms category.  The freedom of belief could not be circumscribed in any way no matter how much we might want to.

The freedom to with respect to religion is the actual ability to practice those specific acts that make up our religious preferences.   These are the activities we specifically are referring to when we talk about the freedom to exercise our religion.  These are the things that we appeal to the Constitution to protect.  But all such acts cannot be allowed.  We don’t allow the sacrificing of virgins to idols.  If there were no limitations anyone could rationalize any behavior by saying it was a matter of religious belief and it would have to be allowed.  Clearly that would not work.  So while we cannot circumscribe the freedom of religion we must limit the freedom to perform some acts in the name of religion.  In order to be sensitive to this area we must allow and protect all religious observances unless they violate the premise of John Stuart Mill in causing harm to others.  It is hard to draw a hard line in the sand on these things.  Can you allow Native Americans to use peyote?  Can you allow anyone else to claim Native American beliefs in order to use peyote?  How do we determine if a person is fervent and sincere in their beliefs and actions or is merely seeking license to do something he just wants to do but would otherwise not be allowed?  How can we allow the Catholics, Moslems and Jews to practice their religions and not the Satanists, Cannibals, Communists and Polygamists?  Prudence is required.  The line drawn has to be the one that is best for all the interests of society.

Freedom from often clashes with freedom to.  One group wants to proselytize me.  They know that if I will just listen to their message I will see the truth and be converted.  I just want to be left alone.  I want my Ten Commandments monument in the park.  You want your Seven Aphorisms or you don’t want anything because you don’t believe in anything.  Where does my right to speak about religion get trumped by your right not to listen?  In matters of religion freedom from is preeminent.  The atheists have forced on society the notion that their freedom of religion is freedom from religion.  So how is it that in matters of free speech, freedom of speech is the master of freedom from speech?  The advertisers, pornographers and bigots all wave the banner of free speech as they assault me with all manner of garbage.  And how is it that the ACLU, the self proclaimed champions of liberty are firmly entrenched on opposite sides of these two issues, litigating voraciously for freedom from religion and freedom of speech?  If your real goal is to support those who agree with you politically and silence those who don’t can you really claim to be a champion of liberty?  I don’t think so.

Rights and Freedoms

            Another useful definition to make is to compare and contrast freedom and rights.  The terms are not totally interchangeable.  Some things may be both freedoms and rights, like the freedom of speech and the right to speak.  We call the Bill of Rights a list of basic freedoms.  But we also claim as rights any number of things that we would not classify as freedoms, like equality and justice.  They may contribute to freedom but are not freedoms in and of themselves.  Many things are freedoms that are not rights.  We are free to do a great many things that are not right and are therefore not rights.  We may even be legally free to do things that we have no right doing. 

Having Rights and Being Right.

That little s makes such a big difference to the meaning.  Do we want to have rights or do we want to be right?

Presume that you are a nudist.  You are a devout nudist.  You are a nudist, religiously, socially, scientifically and morally.  You are convinced that nudism is the true way.   To you the only thing that makes sense is nudism.  It doesn’t matter that many others consider nudity offensive or immoral.  To you anyone who isn’t a nudist is immoral and offends you as well as being stupid, misinformed, crazy, evil or some combination of these things.  So you push legislation promoting nudity.  You conduct nude protests.  You persecute, pressure and threaten anyone who opposes you.  You are not happy until you can be naked all the time.  You are not happy until all people are naked all the time.  You are not happy until all forms of clothing are banned and burned.  (You’ll need a good fire to keep you warm.)   You don’t just want the right to be a nudist.  You want nudism to be right.  You don’t just want the freedom to be a nudist.  You want freedom from everything else.   You want everyone else to agree with you.  You want any other way to be illegal because nudism is right and you are right.  You want to be able to enjoy nudism to the fullest.

What’s with this?  What’s wrong with it?  Yet how is this different than many of the movements out there today: white supremacists, gay rights, pro-life, pro-choice, atheists, gun owners, radical Islam, ad infinitum?   The causes I believe in are somehow different, better, more right and more of a right than the ones you believe in.  That is because I am right so you are wrong.  You must change and conform because I won’t tolerate it any other way.  I insist that you suffer the consequences.

We don’t just want to have rights we want to BE right.  Even if we are right that doesn’t give us the right to require others to comply with our expectations.  Doesn’t anyone have the right to be wrong?  Does anyone have the right (by virtue of what) to decide what is right and what is wrong?  Without the right to be wrong no one has the right to be right.  No one has the right to be right if it means circumscribing my freedom to be wrong. 

Let’s look at the utility or value of being right and wrong.  If I am right what value does that bring to society?  It provides the proper knowledge and usage and the rewards of following correct ideas.  If I am right then can I use it as a right and be justified in stifling dissent and censuring other points of view?  This is wrong for at least five really important reasons.  First: few opinions are one hundred percent right or wrong.  If I am mostly right and you are mostly wrong am I wrong about anything you are right about?  Quite possibly, yes.  So if I crush dissent then I have lost whatever you had that was right.  Second: conditions change, I can be right about something today and tomorrow it may be wrong because the conditions have changed.  You must wear sunscreen today because you will be sunburned if you don’t.  So, all people must always wear sunscreen.  Tomorrow it may rain all day.  Also a new solution may become available for an old problem.  Third:  Without the alternate, contrasting point of view how do I know how, why and when I am right?  Opposition is necessary to know the good and true from the bad and false.  It is necessary to constantly examine my point of view in light of opposing opinions to be sure it is right.  Fourth: It stifles thought and inquiry.  A new solution to the old problem will not become available if no one is thinking about it.  And, they are not going to think about it if they are not allowed because someone else is already right about everything.  Fifth: Freedom of thought and belief and speech are worth having for their own sake.  So if being right is used improperly then it is wrong and loses much or all of its utility.  It in reality becomes counter productive.  So being right is all right if we keep in mind the problems inherent in being right.  The opposite argument could be made with respect to being wrong.  If we are wrong in the right way, with an open, inquiring mind, willing to change then we are right.  Thinking we are right and enforcing it is the worst possible scenario if it turns out that we were wrong about being right.  History is littered with stories of horror on this theme. 

So why can’t the Republicans and Democrats get along?  Why can’t they be open-minded and learn from each other and help each other to improve the country instead of just claiming they are all right and the others are all wrong.  (We’ll have this discussion in the chapter on politics.)  Isn’t this also where Communism went wrong?  They may have had a great idea socially but they eliminated dissent and destroyed freedom.  So, they were wrong.  What has ‘political correctness’ wrought?  It is a desirable thing to treat all with respect and without regard to origins and preferences.  But, when did political correctness get twisted by political expediency and become the hammer used to stifle dissent?  Is it politically correct to discriminate against and persecute those who wish to question the correctness of political correctness?  Partisanship is an especially virulent form of right being wrong.  To build a political coalition it is necessary to make compromises about what is right without regard to what is ultimately right.  Then we stick together in that coalition plunging blindly ahead, punishing opponents just because they are opponents.  They might actually agree with us more than some in our coalition but they are inherently evil because they are not a member of our party.  Of course we can’t cooperate with them they are the enemy.  We are right so they are wrong.  So we lose the value of a system of debate and open collaboration.  We have no way of making minor corrections because it is all or nothing.  It is all one party or the other.

 The Freedom of Responsibility

There is a conundrum for you.  If we were free why would we ever take on any responsibility?  Doesn’t freedom imply a lack of responsibility?  No.  Without the freedom to take on responsibility freedom itself evaporates.  What we call civilization is the proper balance of freedom and responsibility.  This is so important that it will be discussed several more times in the course of this work.  

We derive a lot of benefit from family and society.  We are fed, clothed, educated and provided with many joys, pleasures and opportunities by virtue of being members of society and our families.  We owe a duty to repay by passing on those values; that is part of our responsibility.  We have a duty to ourselves to live and provide for ourselves the proper life.  This is one of the primary costs of freedom.  We can assert freedom as some sort of right that falls to us for being alive.  But that assertion is empty without the labor and effort required to obtain, maintain and retain real freedom.  There is no ‘get out of jail free’ card for the game of life. 

 There is No Such Thing as Freedom 

1.             What Freedom Is    (What Freedoms Are There)

 2.             What Freedom Isn’t 

3.             The Social Context of Freedom 

4.             What Freedom Requires

 5.             The Politics of Freedom  

6.              Case in Point             

7.           Freedom and Law

 8.          The Economics of Freedom 

9.              Personal Freedoms 

10.         Deserving Freedom  (reserving and nurturing the climate of freedom)

 11.         Prognosis and Prescription 

12.         Freedom and Religion 

13.                     Summary and Conclusions 

14.                     Acknowledgement of Debts and Failings 

15.                     Origins