Understanding freedom

By Sean Turner

"Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right." —Gandhi

Freedom... It seems like such a simple concept grasp — yet, through my experiences and interactions with others, it becomes apparent that for far too many, the concept is ever elusive. It is a state of being in which the ability exists to act as one chooses without subjection to undue restraints. It cannot be augmented or attenuated, given or taken, quantified or rationed. Metaphorically speaking, it is much like a fish to a river — one cannot give the fish the river, but one can give the river the fish.

For generations, many have and continue to describe the United States as "the land of the free." In comparison to other "nations," this may seem appropriate to some. However, one need not go far to discover that what each U.S. resident experiences, bears no resemblance to freedom. On the contrary, it is more like a collection of abilities, opportunities, or perhaps "liberties" — subject to numerous restraints and criteria, and dictated by the capriciousness of elected and appointed "officials" seeking to champion the next cause célèbre.

Freedom — being a limitless and unquantifiable experience — connotes responsibility. It is this responsibility that causes the meek to cower in fear, and the aggressive to arrogantly declare oneself as the progenitor of freedom. Those in fear willingly abdicate the responsibility of determining one's own fate, while the aggressive capitalize and rush in feigned benevolence to play the role of mankind's self-anointed "savior." This is evidenced by the pervasive willingness to support progressive income taxation, paternalistic government controls such as social security and welfare, protectionist trade policies, smoking bans, "diversity" initiatives, and a host of other unjustifiable government supported mechanisms.

The other apparent dilemma the some encounter with freedom is that its nature is indiscriminate — making no careful distinctions or choices, and applying no set of standard morals. In fact, it is its own morality — and in so being, it must apply to each and every individual, and not to any collective. It is above all man's preferences, prejudices, and customs — and should serve as a gauge by which all actions are measured. This is the salient point that is missing in many debates involving "hot-button" social and economic issues which come into conflict with prevailing social norms. So many, in their effort to propagate a particular belief, custom, religion, or economic outcome, deny the very freedom they themselves seek to experience.

Freedom is not experienced at the expense of another — and it is not determined by a majority in agreement. As eloquently put by John Stuart Mill, "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." In short, numerical superiority does not determine freedom.

If one is not allowed to seek one's own ends that allow all others to do the same — then one is not free. If I am not able to associate with whomever I please, hire whomever I choose, do business with whomever I choose, and make use of all the fruits of my labor, then I am not free. If I am forced to conform to a set of standards, and limit or avoid actions that affect no one else — then I do not experience freedom. Indeed, those who live in the United States have the benefit of perhaps the greatest number of "liberties" or opportunities. However, until one can experience real freedom, the phrase "the land of the free" maintains its hollowness.

© Sean Turner