Posted by
Virginia Daddy on Friday, July 24, 2009 11:58:14 AM
Whenever I think of freedom, I can't help but think of Mel Gibson in Braveheart. His rousing monologue ending with him screaming the word is a moving scene, no doubt. But I still wonder what freedom is and how it is applied. We all use the word to describe the ability to do what we want. And given a pure definition, that would make sense. We are only free when we can do what want without interference from someone else. If we have interference, though, we are not free.
So, what does that mean in a political sense, since everyone uses the term freely? I will start by saying pure freedom in a political world is impossible, except for absolute monarchs, tyrants, and oligarchs who can set the rules and enforce them at will. However, the freedom they would enjoy is not spread to everyone else, because they are subject to the wills of the tyrant.
If the above is the case, why does everyone use the term as much as they do? I think the answer lies behind the intent of the Founding Fathers, which was not to guarantee absolute freedom but to maximize the people's freedom so they can enjoy "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The Founders recognized the need to have a structured society, which would mean they would have to limit some freedoms while they maximized what was possible.
They intended to create a society with as minimal influence from above as possible. Despite this broad goal, implementing it was a source of conflict. The question was not generally how much interference (one could probably argue this was in question) but from where the interference should come from. The options were a strong national government made up of the individual, or the directly from the states themselves. Either way, they all agreed on a couple of things: to maximize our freedoms and that we ourselves should play a big role in doing so.
So, what does it mean for us to play a big role in ensuring our own freedom? There are really two components to that. First, many Founders expected the populace to be active in civil affairs themselves by voicing their opinion on important local matters. Second, they all emphasized the need to have a virtuous populace and elected leaders to constantly and consistently protect our freedoms. By staying involved, the people were able to stay intimately involved in public affairs and to keep the leaders accountable. By staying morally vituous, they would be free from many temptations that power can bring. This virtue was key, because a virtuous society would always seek to work together with other groups to maximize everyone's freedoms without trampling one in favor of another. This meant acting responsibly and respectfully to others.
What does this mean in defining freedom today? If absolute freedom is impossible, and it takes involvement and virtue to maximize the freedoms we have, then people demanding rights at the expense of others is an abuse of freedom. I believe part of virtue is respecting others rights to believe and do as they do. In fact, this is tolerance. So, tolerance is a part of freedom. Far too many are intolerant today, and I don't think the problem is isolated to one group. Why is that? Before addressing that answer, let me state that a lack of tolerance is a problem because the intolerant demand others leave, change their behavior, or be subject to much derision. If the people subjected to intolerance must live in this world, they are not free.
Now, the reason why intolerance is a problem that spreads beyond just one group (most often conservatives are accused of it, but this is seriously in question) is because freedom has been a word that has lost its traditional meaning in American history, and by that, I mean the intentions of Founders have been lost. Freedom has come to be understood as only possible if it is pure. The result is that too many think they should be able to do whatever they want at the expense of someone else. Responsibility plays no role in defining freedom to far too many people today. Respecting others has equally been erased from the day to day lives of far too many, with their personal freedoms as the prime reason for society to exist (in other words, society should conform to their views).
What has resulted is a battle for the chance to act as tyrants and tell people what they should do. Social conservatives on the one hand telling liberals they shouldn't do certain things, and liberals are saying that conservatives shouldn't be able to do certain things. Liberals are winning the verbal war by setting the tone of the debate, and by appealing the non-virtuous and selfish nature we all hold. Absent from this view is responsibility. But conservatives have responded by digging their heals and have not responded in the most effective fashion. (I do think conservatives have a better view, but they fail to communicate effectively because they too forget much of what freedom must entail.) The ultimate result of this battle is not freedom, but rather puts us on a road toward some form of tyranny. And that result is unacceptable.
Do I expect a change? Unfortunately, I do not, though I hold hope that people will recognize that freedom in this country must be limited by ourselves. Our self limiting of freedom must include the responsibility to accept that others may not view the world the same as we do, and this includes the views of liberals and conservatives (my views on this are that liberals are every bit as intolerant as conservatives, if not more so).
And for those who really feel compelled to live in a given way, this is a large country, and responsibility would suggest taking advantage of the vast array of geography, politics, and lifestyles that are given in this country. This is true because the responsible thing to do is to accept a given community's commitment to a political or moral direction and find a place that is accepting to yours. Do not force the community to change, because you are limiting their freedom by acting as a tyrant. You are a tyrant because you force another to accept something they are not willing to accept while you get what you want. You enforce your will at your will and at the expense of others' wills.
So, then, what is freedom? Freedom is knowing that you can't have everything, while doing what is responsible to maximize your liberty and the liberties of others. If one of these aspects is missing, it is not freedom, but tyranny.