Tell Me About Freedom

In the 1964 Presidential election the Republican nominee's most crystallizing campaign quote was "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no Vice". He lost by the biggest landslide in modern Presidential election history. That was then. I think if Barry Goldwater were alive today that slogan would be tattooed on many a shoulder. But, not even Goldwater could have foreseen how much "extremism" would be exhibited to uphold a vague, overused, overhyped, and highly ambiguous word: A word like Liberty....or Freedom.

Freedom: It’s always been a word that had a positive connotation--on every front. I mean, who can say they don't like Freedom? The opposite of freedom is enslavement, right? But, what does this word even mean? It doesn’t really have any practical application unless you are referring to freedom for enslaved people or freedom from incarceration. Does freedom mean you are not imprisoned, or, as it seems to mean to some today…freedom to not do anything the government asks of you, like paying taxes or wearing a mask?

It’s a pretty easy word to like (at first glance). We’ve been conditioned to sanctify it. What problem can’t be solved with more freedom? To make any situation better just add freedom, right? Not so fast. Unlike the word “democracy, freedom is a very nuanced word that is often exploited. It needs to be dissected more often than put on a bumper sticker. It has a very sharp tail that can strike unannounced. It’s a word that is now commonly weaponized.

I actually think freedom is not a word that describes the ideals of America. Again, it is a word that requires a lot of explanation. Independence and democracy were the most sacred ideals of the American revolution. Those words are very descriptive and non vague. We wanted to be independent of Great Britain and we didn't want a monarchy or dictatorship. We wanted a government of laws, not men, and we wanted to empower people to select their representatives. We abhorred a government of the minority or of the privileged imposing itself on the majority. We we would fight authoritarianism till the death. That's what we fought against in the Revolutionary War. It wasn’t for the right to an unrestrained citizenry.

The word Freedom sounds good on that bumper sticker but just imagine a country where there is no effort to put any restriction on a person’s “freedoms”. Imagine if we were so obsessed in a society with everyone's freedoms that it was the most important and powerful value in our society. It is quite inevitable that unbridled freedom is terminally toxic to our survival as a country. Unbridled "Freedom" is going to be much more favorable to certain groups over others. It’s a form of chaos....like having no speed limits and no stops signs or no lanes on the freeway. You are limiting my “freedoms” when you tell me I can’t drive at any speed of my choosing. In business all corporations love total freedom. They don't like to be regulated (at all). They like to be able to form a monopoly, skirt anti-Trust laws, pollute the environment (if it is profitable), risk endangering their employees, risk endangering the consumer. Look at labor conditions before labor laws were passed in the first part of the 20th century. "Foxes guarding the hen house" is the history of companies allowed to regulate themselves. We had highly unsafe work conditions with slave wages and 16 hour work days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... There was unbridled freedom for employers, none for the workers. A very small amount of research on the tobacco, coffee (Starbucks), garment, software, or oil industry will bear out this proposition quickly. Remember when you could smoke in enclosed public places, and even in airplanes? We were indulging the “freedom” of one group and denying the “freedom” (to breathe smoke free air) of another.
Before laws, and before ethics were constructed or construed, “freedom” might mean that if you were stronger or more powerful than another person or group then you could confiscate, if you dared to try, what they previously considered to be theirs; certainly we did this with Native Americans. “Might made right”. The Dutch, the Spanish, the British, the French, and others notoriously invaded (or overwhelmed) foreign countries, colonized and subjugated them: India, South Africa, Vietnam, most of South America, the Australian continent, Canada, and much more. The United States became the United States because the Dutch landed on this continent and took over the land in current day New York city that had been inhabited for millennia by Native Americans. Fifty or so years later the British decided they wanted it so they invaded on a greedy whim and overpowered the Dutch. Why?, Because they could. They had bigger canons. About a hundred years after that we staged a revolution (for what some have called “freedom”) against the British and we defeated them...and the United States was formed. Yes, we wanted "freedom" from British rule but that word said very little. We actually wanted representation. The colonies had no voting power. We had no say in governmental affairs and yet we were being taxed. We felt that taxing us without giving us representation was offensive and a clear abuse of power. Well, we got what we wanted but we soon forgot what that vague word "freedom" meant and we exterminated the Native population (and we conquered the Spanish/Mexicans and the rest of it was ours). We had no concern for the “freedoms” of those in our path.

Our insatiable quest for “freedom” doesn’t end there. The United States has invaded countless sovereign countries and interfered with their civil affairs and ended their freedoms and destroyed their populations without the slightest provocation: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and dozens of other countries. Our leaders tell our soldiers that they are fighting for our “freedoms” while we are simultaneously eliminating the freedoms and sovereignty of the countries we are invading. It works every time--just get out the flag and say you are fighting for freedom and celebrate the “rockets red glare and the bombs bursting in air”. None of those countries ever posed even a slight threat to our country. It’s a very interesting game of semantics which presumes that the only “freedoms” that matter are our own. It’s the ultimate “might makes right” proposition. Our country wasn't concerned with freedom when we imprisoned and enslaved Africans to come to America and leave their families and homeland. Our country was founded on the notion that if my hammer is bigger than your hammer then you will likely be following my rules. It is a notion that has no ethical or moral or legal basis. It is, however, one of America's most indigenous charters. We came to this continent only a few hundred years ago and we took whatever we could based on might, gun powder, and the full force of the United States military when necessary. We pillaged and we plundered. We felt “free” to take what we thought was the entitlement of the civilized Anglo class.

Now, when I hear people holding up signs in the street that say “Freedom” it can be unsettling, and quite threatening. It seems to foreshadow a confrontation. There were a lot of “freedom” signs among those who were trying to overthrow our government and an election during the January 6 Insurrection. It now seems like a comment on our current government and a pushing back on anything that puts the slightest infringement on our personal “freedoms”, even democracy. It’s a rebuke to any effort to create an equitable society where people are interdependent on one another for survival…and happiness. Having a society is very different from living on a deserted island by yourself. It requires sacrifice and compromise.

Here is a very small example of what a country with total freedoms might look like:

-Kill anyone you think might be threatening you or getting in the way of your “freedoms”.

-No income taxes (the government can’t take any of your money)

-No forced adherence to accommodate people with disabilities…you don’t need any wheelchair access nor are you forced to accommodate to anyone's disabilities. People who are handicapped get to park in regular parking spaces and just deal with the inconvenience.

-Freedom to pollute, drive cars that have no emission standards, etc..

-You can refuse service to anyone based on their race, religion, etc. Basically, you are “free” to have forced segregation.

-You can allow people (or Corporations) with wealth to pay judges, politicians, and anyone else unlimited funds to get them to do your private bidding.

-There are no labor laws, no restrictions on how much you can require someone to work or safety conditions in the workplace.

As an employer you can fire anyone who lives a lifestyle you don’t like or who follows a belief system you don’t agree with or who is from a racial background you don’t like.

-No statute preventing sex with a minor (if both child and adult consent). Let each individual have the freedom to decide what is appropriate and what defines a consenting individual.

Quite unfortunately, freedom usually means that some people will get unlimited freedom at the expense of others getting very little; far too many will be left holding the sand. And, just like everything else in America it will certainly favor the powerful and the wealthy over the powerless and the poor. If I want the "freedom" to create a nation based on Christianity than I am going to have to limit (or make difficult) the freedoms of those who don’t consider themselves to be Christian. The same goes for Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc.. It's binary.

Freedom, the word, is a dog whistle, in my opinion. It is a worthless (even dangerous) word when taken out of a specific context. It’s disturbing that a country bedrocked on institutional slavery and racism can have the (oppressors) obsessed with the word “freedom”. The South fought a Civil War on the basis of wanting “freedom” to own and enslave other human beings. That level of hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Should you have the freedom to exclude, discriminate against, or punish people who don’t agree with you? Should you leave everything up to “survival of the fittest”.
If a word can be co-opted by both the oppressors and the oppressed then the word has no value. We should stop treating the word "freedom" like it is quintessentially American. It is not dissimilar to the symbolic meaning of the American flag. What does the flag even represent anymore? Democracy?, equality? Or hyper white nationalism? Why is it that seeing excessive use of oversized American flags gives me a sense of foreboding.

I don’t think many people enjoy being told what to do. I am definitely no different in that respect. I push back on most any effort by an institution or a code, or government, etc., that asks or requires me to do something (or prevents me from doing something). I typically abhor the status quo. However, let’s look at a society that has no restrictions on freedoms.

We know how difficult it has been to require the wearing of masks and to require vaccinations during the current Covid epidemic. A full 43% of Americans remain un-vaccinated. It has been incredibly polarizing and mostly along partisan lines. The people who claim to love freedom above all else will most often be the ones pushing back on vaccines and mask requirements. This may not have been the case years ago but in the last few years we definitely have seen much greater resistance to vaccines. It's totally unprecedented. It almost presumes a government conspiracy that lacks a whisp of substantiation as of yet. We used to have 99.7% compliance for vaccination for measles, polio, mumps, etc.. It has worked incredibly well to control some very deadly, crippling diseases. Has it come at no price? I'm sure it has come at some price but the price has been infinitesimally small relative to the alternative.

I think in order to live in a civilized society—a civilization, we need to be willing to see things in context; we need to be able to see things collectively. We need to be able to see the forest (the society) and not just a tree (the individual). Our government has a responsibility to look out for the health of the forest, and perhaps especially to the survival of the smallest and feeblest of trees.

In the name of freedom should I be able to make a nuclear weapon if I know how to do it? Should I be able to own a tank and park it in my driveway and drive it down the street when I want to go to the deli, grocery store, or whatever? If I want to walk into a McDonald’s with an AK47 and point it at anyone I choose (as long as I don't fire it) is that my freedom? And, if you are saying that this is objectionable, as I am, and that we should have laws to curtail them then you are conceding that my freedom to carry out these behaviors (though they may not physically harm anyone else) should be limited or compromised. In my opinion, of all the decisions that an individual should have the freedom to make unbridled and unobstructed by government it would be the freedom to take any substance, pharmaceutical, or drug of his or her choice. The idea that Americans have been prohibited from taking cannabis (or any drug or elixir of their choice) for decades is, to me, a far more overreaching and totalitarian type of restriction on freedom than most restrictions that I can fathom. This should be highly offensive to those who insist on “Freedom” above everything....for some reason it isn't.

Dictionary:

Freedom:

the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

(The power to "act as one wants without hindrance or restraint"? This is what was happening during Jim Crow in the South pre- 1964. You could burn a cross on your front lawn to intimidate blacks and Jews. You could tell blacks they weren't welcome at your restaurant or in your hotel, or your bus. You could force them to drink from separate drinking fountains. It was “freedom”. You could lynch them with impugnity.

I can't tell you what the absolute objective of a government should be. I can only suggest that if a government exists to uphold absolute freedom for all of it's citizens it will be a very short lived government; it will end up being a totalitarian government where the rights of a very select group (or one individual) will matter at the expense and compromise of the rights of all others.

In the end, whose freedoms are we talking about? It's always a zero sum game.