 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"A man was either free or not free....Freedom was indivisible....To talk of 'several freedoms' is to use the language of Europe, not of America; it is an abandonment of the basic principle on which the United States was founded."
-- Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine.
Every semester, I have my communication students define three abstract concepts: love, justice, and freedom. Inevitably, it is the discussion of "freedom" that generates the greatest amount of controversy and disagreement.
Many of the definitions the students offer contain some suggestion that "freedom" means acting without limits. For some people, one can be free only if one is able to do whatever one wants or desires. Even if "whatever" includes doing violence to other individuals, even killing them? Yes, they say.
These same students then contend that society could not and cannot survive without people having limits imposed upon them in the form of laws, rules, and regulations. Since this is the case, they conclude that we cannot truly be free. The whole notion is a pleasant fiction but wholly impractical.
Another sizable group of students believes that people can only be free when they are free "from" something: hunger, fear, disease, want, or worry. As do many of our politicians, this segment of my classes suggests that since these are undesirable states, society should do everything it can to eliminate such unpleasant factors from the lives of citizens. Only when all negative conditions are purged from our culture will people finally be "free."
This approach is, of course, an example of what is called "positive freedom." This type of "freedom" requires that individuals be provided the means to achieve whatever goals and values they choose to seek. Those who champion this idea usually interpret the "to promote the general welfare" clause in the Constitution as justifying the redistribution of wealth from one segment of society to other, less fortunate groups. Here, "need" -- however defined -- creates a claim on the property of others. One obvious problem with this program is deciding who will define the degree of "need" dire enough to warrant the seizing of one person's property in order to give it to another. Ultimately, this translates into the strongest and most ruthless coalitions -- the winners -- imposing their will upon the losers. As history readily reveals, essential welfare "needs" -- such as health care, food, or shelter -- may begin at the subsistence level but gradually rise until nearly ever aspect of life becomes a "need" that must be satisfied -- not through the agency of one's own effort and earned property -- but through the effort and wealth of "someone else."
If someone objects that this notion of freedom infringes on the desires of one class of people -- the "haves" -- to keep and use their property and instead favors the wishes and desires of the "have nots," a supporter of this view may reply that the right of one person to be "free" (in terms of being entitled to his "well being") is more important than the "freedom" of certain others (in terms of doing what they choose). One may, indeed, violate the second type of freedom, may impose obligations...but only "so far," that is, as long as the "giver's" well-being is not, in turn, reduced below a certain level. Using force to make people act in preferred ways is permissible in the name of "freedom" as long as that vague and fluid line of "need" is not crossed.
Other students attempt to avoid this problem by talking about different types of freedom: economic freedom, political freedom, or moral freedom. These "freedoms" are hierarchical in nature, they say: moral freedom trumps political freedom, and political freedom then takes precedence over economic freedom. Thus, moral issues -- such as declaring oneself a "conscientious objector" during a war -- are most important and deserving of respect. Political freedoms -- such as freedom of speech and religion -- are broad freedoms which must be protected as much as possible. Economic freedom, however, is viewed as less worthy of recognition, as when a distinction is made between personal or political speech and "economic" speech which can be subject to extensive regulation for "the good [well-being] of others."
Freedom, however, is not a smorgasbord from which one picks and chooses. Freedom is not whatever society agrees that it is. And most particularly, freedom is not some idealistic illusion, unobtainable and irrelevant to one's daily life.
Freedom is of one piece. It is contextually absolute. For those who raise such specious examples as traffic lights "limiting" freedom, it is not the concept of freedom that is lacking but the critic's understanding of when and where such an idea is, in fact, relevant.
In a social and political context, freedom "has only one meaning: the absence of physical coercion." (Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Emphasis in original.) Often labeled "negative freedom, " this concerns not the "ability to do" something but rather the situation in which one's actions are not interfered with by the initiation of force on the part of other people and, especially, the government. As long as that condition is met, one is free.
In the case of traffic lights, the above definition of freedom explains why such signals and the police power behind them do not imply a limiting of one's freedom. If a driver believed "freedom" meant the right to pass through any intersection whenever he desired, he would pose an immediate physical danger to other, unsuspecting drivers using those same roadways...and without the latter's consent. But no one has the right -- the freedom -- to expose other individuals to the risk of physical harm without their permission. Such an action would constitute an "initiation of force" and thus be inconsistent and incompatible with freedom.
To state this from another perspective, a driver has the freedom -- the right -- to travel the highways without interference from someone deliberately engaging in behavior that poses a real physical threat. The same reasoning also demonstrates why no one has the freedom to "drink and drive." This behavior creates an objective danger and is outside the boundary -- the relevant social context -- defined by the concept of "freedom." Such "anti-freedom" actions are -- and correctly should be -- prohibited by the government, just it prohibits more obvious examples of coercion such as murder, assault, and rape.
One does not "trade" one freedom for another. My freedom does not "conflict" with yours. Freedom is not "nice in theory but impossible in practice." It forms the essence of proper social relationships, the foundation of a benevolent society, the only way to establish the foundations of morality. Voluntary action leads to personal confidence, individual well-being, and tolerance of differences. Forced action leads to personal doubt, individual degradation, and exacerbation of resentment, envy, and hatred.
One cannot be "partially free." Freedom in a social context is all or nothing. One is either free or one is not. What is possible to discuss in terms of degree is slavery. The chains around our necks may be invisible, they may vary in length, they may be light or heavy, but once a chain is slipped around your throat, freedom vanishes. Wherever a chain exists, a master exists who can yank it and bring us to heel whenever we displease him.
In a very real sense, calling ours a "mixed economy," that is, an economy of freedom and controls, is a misnomer. Once coercion enters the picture, principles vanish. Our "freedom" today is ours by permission only, to be revoked whenever one group or another grows strong enough to impose its will on the rest. A "mixed economy" promotes the mirage of an orderly and lawful society but ultimately leads to chaos and conflict. As Ayn Rand noted, "There can be no compromise between freedom and government controls; to accept 'just a few controls' is to surrender the principle of inalienable individual rights and to substitute for it the principle of the government's unlimited, arbitrary power, thus delivering oneself into gradual enslavement." ("Doesn't Life Require Compromise? in The Virtue of Selfishness.)
One can describe "political," "economic," and "moral" freedoms just as one can describe a person's head or arms or legs. But attempting to separate one segment from another, to pretend one aspect can exist unharmed and in isolation from another, is to do violence to the very concept in question. Politicians may encourage the fiction that they can regulate economic freedom while leaving political freedom intact, but both logic and history prove them wrong.
Freedom is a necessary condition for those who would live a truly human existence, and property rights are how we implement that freedom. One can no more detach the two and still say freedom exists than one could detach a head from its body and say the person still lives.
Americans need to remember that each and every one of us has a right to be free. There is and can never be a right to enslave...not even a little bit. That "basic principle on which the United States was founded" must be resurrected if we are ever to cure the ills that afflict our lives and our country.
