American Values Gone Wrong: Redefining Freedom
Posted in Sound Off Soapbox by R Lee Wrights on October 23rd, 2006 by Jason Junge, author of Why Freedom; the Meaning and Practice of Freedom
The irony of freedom is that though we all crave it, we all also fear it. We crave it because it is a crucial human tool of self-fulfillment; we fear it because of the work and responsibility it implies.
Of course, I’m talking about freedom in a practical sense. Freedom in a theoretical sense can mean anything; from the political definition, which is also the most widely used, defining freedom as the absence of obstacles, to the religious definition, which is the practice of a free will. In the political definition, we’re free as long as we’re unconstrained. It’s clean and simple: simply remove physical and legal barriers, and voila, you’re free. No messy morals to get in the way (probably why it’s entitled the “political” definition).
The problem with this is that in this sense wild animals and anarchists can be considered as most free. I don’t know about you, but it makes no sense to me to consider the raccoon in my back yard as more free than me, when the raccoon has no sense of choice and is completely prisoner to his every impulse. Likewise, it makes no sense to me to consider the people of the Dark Ages, living in anarchy, and as Hobbes put it “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” lives, as more free than us today. That’s because this common definition is plain wrong.
I propose once and for all we abolish the political definition of freedom from our vocabularies and adhere to a practical definition of freedom-the existential one. First let me define it, and then let me explain why it’s practical. To existentialists, freedom is the unconstrained ability to overcome obstacles, given first the existence of those obstacles. For example, a rock in my path is an obstacle. In the political sense, I’d be most free if someone or something else removed the obstacle from my path and I had a clear path (i.e., absence of obstacles). In the existentialist sense (or day I say, in the Libertarian sense?), I’m most free when I’m unconstrained to go over, around, or remove the rock myself, given first that there must be a rock in my way. Although the requirement of obstacles in a definition of freedom seems counterintuitive, it’s actually perfectly rational. I’ll explain with an example…
Peter and Paul live in parallel universes; these two universes are exactly alike except that in Peter’s universe everyone is allowed to vote regardless of anything (age, gender, etc.), while in Paul’s universe only men with high school diplomas are allowed to vote. In the political definition Peter has the freedom to vote, while in the existentialist definition this freedom does not exist (since there are no obstacles to voting). Regardless of whom Peter is, he would agree with the latter statement-the freedom to vote does not exist because it has no meaning. If Paul called Peter and told him, “You’re lucky to have the complete freedom to vote,” Peter would think Paul was crazy. To him “having the freedom to vote” makes about as much sense as “having the freedom to breathe” or “having the freedom to be human.” Without obstacles, voting becomes an intrinsic part of life like breathing and being human. Just as light is required to define darkness, obstacles are required to define freedom. In Paul’s world, to contrast, Paul is free to vote (all he has to do is take and pass the GED exam), while Paul’s wife is not (her obstacle to voting-gender qualification-is insurmountable).
So what’s so practical about this? First off it precludes the logical fallacies allowed in the political definition such as “free to be human” or “as free as a wild animal.” Second, it explains the moral responsibility implied by freedom. As I said earlier, we all fear freedom because of the work and responsibility that is implied. To be free in a practical sense means that (1) we have, and are fully aware, of multiple options, and (2) have the ability and motivation to pursue an option. If we only have, or are only aware, of one option, then we are not free (since there is no choice); or if we do not have the ability or motivation to make a choice, then again we are not free. Thus work (and our responsibility to ourselves to perform the work) is necessary first to learn of our options, and then to choose and fulfill that option, while responsibility is laid on our shoulders as we bear the full weight of the consequences of our decisions. Making a fully cognizant decision implies accountability for the results of that decision, in the practical sense. To loop back to the existentialist definition, having multiple options is implied by the existence of obstacles (otherwise there would only be one option– straight ahead), and having the ability and motivation to pursue an option implies the ability and motivation necessary to overcome the obstacles associated with that option (otherwise their would be no need for ability and motivation-again, just go straight ahead).
The consequences of using the existentialist definition in society are far reaching. First, it imputes knowledge is a critical component of freedom-to be free we must know (and thus learn of) our options, the possible consequences of choosing those options (since we now must bear full responsibility for those consequences), and we must know of all associated obstacles and how we can overcome them. Second, the existentialist definition also imputes personal responsibility is a critical component of freedom. Since we now make decisions with full awareness of their consequences, then blame or praise for those consequences must fall on us. In contrast, in the political sense, we expect an absence of obstacles and thus feel entitled to that absence, which means we expect others to remove them for us, which means we feel no sense of personal responsibility for our choices and decisions, no sense of work in fulfilling them.
Let me use a Libertarian issue as an example: the police force. Violence is clearly an obstacle to physical freedom. In the political sense, our recourse is to have the obstacle removed; thus the creation of a police state with broad powers and lots of jails, and no personal ownership of guns (because then we would have to get involved personally, which goes against the “absence of obstacles” dictum). In the existentialist sense, we have the personal responsibility to investigate all options and fulfill the best one; thus requiring having both (i.e., multiple) options– a minimal, “protective” (rather than “enforcing”) police force and personal ownership of guns (as a protective option). Actually the best scenario would be no violence-then we wouldn’t need physical freedom-we would all just “be.”
My conjecture is that we’ve run astray as a nation not because we’re stupid and indolent, but because we’re collectively using the wrong definition of freedom. It’s time we got to the root-cause and changed freedom paradigms– from a foundation based on entitlement and straight-and-narrow paths, to one requiring personal responsibility, knowledge, and option diversity. Our challenge is to teach and spread this new definition.
Originally published in Liberty For All December 20, 2002.
Jim Jones said,
October 24, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
The concept of freedom makes sense only when defined in terms of 2 or more interacting parties with regard to the 2 fundamental, mutually-exclusive modes of human interaction: voluntary association and coercion. Freedom is thus defined unambiguously as a state of voluntary association between 2 or more interacting parties. As long as the relationship remains voluntary with respect to both parties, it would be said that both parties are free. When the relationship between the two parties ceases to be voluntary — when one party resorts to coercion as their means to interact with the other — this is the precise moment when freedom is compromised.
Government is defined objectively and unambiguously as the organization holding the unique “right” to employ coercion as its means over a given territory. This is the only definition of government which applies to all governments past, present, and future: if it doesn’t involve coercion, then it doesn’t involve government. (The social contract theory, which claims that individuals “volunteer” to be subject to coercion, is a logical impossibiliy — you cannot volunteer to be subject to coercion, any more than you can force a person to volunteer. The two modes of human interaction, force and voluntary association, are opposite and mutually exclusive — that is what gives them meaning.)
So government represents coercion — the opposite of freedom. The more government, the less freedom, and vice versa. By the definitions of freedom and government, therefore, anarchy (defined simply as the abscence of this special “right” to employ coercion) is the essence of pure freedom. Whether you can imagine it or not, peaceful anarchy (although it has never existed on a large scale) represents freedom in its truest form.
I brought this up because you seem to imply that anarchy — which simply means the absence of a special “right” to employ coercion — somehow represents oppression instead of freedom. You cited the people of the dark ages as an example of this. However, I am quite sure that the people you refer to were, in fact, subject to groups posessing a special “right” to employ coercion — local warlords at the very least, protection rackets, professional criminal gangs and so forth. That, of course, rules out any chance of this community being referred to as “anarchy”, and therefore you were wrong to cite it as an example of anarchy.
billwald said,
November 2, 2006 @ 1:48 pm
Voting is only material if one’s vote can materially change the outcome. If we had a two party system then it might be more proper to say that individuals were free to attempt to determine party politics and the parties were free to attempt to determine national politics but it should be obvious that it doesn’t necessarially follow that the individual’s vote can change national politics.
I don’t think we have a 2 party system but one party under two names. Doesn’t matter which party wins because the flow of assets from the working class to Swiss banks has never been reversed.