» posted on Sunday, August 2nd, 2009 at 9:26 pm by Andy D
Of Government and Men: The Nature of Freedom
Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom.
–John Adams
I would go one step further than the second President of the United States and say that all people should be educated on the principles of freedom. The Webster dictionary that sits on my desk has 13 definitions of “freedom”. The first three define freedom as (1) being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint, (2) exemption from external control, and (3) the power to determine action without restraint. I define freedom as the ability to live your life, and to determine your own life, free of the restraints of others.
In the United States, we have the greatest collection of freedoms found anywhere. Here we are allowed to worship, speak, and basically proceed with our life as we see fit. So long as you don’t harm others, you are free to decide what to make of your own life. We are blessed with many political and economic freedoms. Some nations have some freedom in politics or some freedom in economics, but I am not aware of any nation has the same degree of political and economic freedom as the United States.
Where do these freedoms come from? The Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” There are two very important points here, and they answer our question. Rights are given to us by our Creator, not by man, and not by government. Anything the government or a man can give you, he can also take away. However, there are certain rights that are unalienable. These rights cannot be denied to anyone, except by their own actions. Secondly, in order to have a government, individuals allow that government to restrain their rights to some degree. That authority is given to the government by the permission of those who decide to live under that government.
All rights have limits. You can’t run into a crowded theater and yell, “Fire!” without there actually being a fire. You can’t walk into your neighbor’s house and take whatever your neighbor has as your own. These limits exist because your rights and freedoms begin to infringe on the rights or freedoms of others. You also don’t have the freedom not to be offended. In today’s society, there are some who believe they should never be offended. That isn’t a right.
Nor do you have a right to equal results from your efforts. Equality, as Mark Levin defines it in Liberty and Tyranny, “…is the natural right of every individual to live freely under self-government, to acquire and retain the property he creates through his own labor, and to be treated impartially before a just law.” This does not guarantee equal results. Alexander Hamilton is quoted as saying that inequality will exist as long as liberty exists and that inequality will result from the very freedom we live in. You and your friend are both free to create your own businesses. However, both of you will not succeed or fail to the same degree. One of you will make more money. In America, you are your own limit. If you have a goal, so long as you are willing to work hard, you can reach it. If you’re not willing to work hard, someone willing to work harder than you will reach that goal. That is the nature of freedom in America.
One of the lessons of the Spider-Man comics is: With great power comes great responsibility. The freedoms we enjoy in our government are no exception. I think those who lived before us have many lessons to teach us. Ronald Reagan once said:
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
Freedom must be protected by soldiers, and it sometimes requires blood to pay for it. But it also requires an educated citizen voter. I don’t mean educated in the since of a high school or college degree. I do mean that you as a voter have a duty to understand your government, understand your freedoms and rights, and to understand who the people you are voting for (or against) are. This does require some work and effort on your part. But as President Regan pointed out, it is the requirement of a free people to protect that freedom.
Are there other limits or responsibilities you feel are important that I missed? Share them in the comments below. As I update this post in the future, I may include your comments. This is the first of a series on our government. The introduction is posted here, and the next chapter in the series will be available next Sunday.
filed under freedoms · Government | 9 comments
Gerrit said:
Aug 04, 11 at 5:30 amWhile I agree with some points and disagree with some others (we are in a very different side of the political spectrum) I just wonder what makes you think that nowhere else in the world people enjoy more freedom than in the US? The things you describe as your interpretation of freedom seem to be quite similar as the situation we have here in Europe. I think in that perspective, the EU is not that different from the US. As said I agree with your post partially and disagre partially, but the one phrase about the liberties in the States is a question mark to me. I think in the western world (which generally is interpretated as Europe, the US, Canada and Australia, sometimes Japan and Israel being included too) the interpretations of freedom in legal context show a lot of similarities.
Andy D said:
Aug 04, 11 at 8:03 amMany other western countries do approximate the freedoms in the United States. I think Canada serves as a great example of this. It’s often pointed to as another free nation the United States should try to emulate. However, Canada has very strict “hate speech” laws. In the United States I am free to say “Muslims are terrorists” in public. In Canada, I can be arrested, fined, and potentially imprisoned for making the same statement.
Gerrit said:
Aug 04, 11 at 4:28 pmBut is that a bad thing? (I guess here our different political backgrounds come into play
). I think it is perfectly justified that if I call Muslims terrorists, that I would be taken to court. In my native country racist comments are, if not censored, taken very seriously. The Hitler salute can lead to jail term. I do think this is justified. Freedom in my opinion ends where spreading hatred begins. If we want to live in harmony, in the multicultural societies we have today, we need some laws to prevent conflicts between different groups within that society. If I provocate people whose believes are contrary to mine, then I believe I should be sentenced indeed. There is a difference between disagreeing or even outing a dislike, or between provocating. I am all for freedom, the moment people prove they can handle that freedom. If I look at Europe and see how populist right-wing parties massively gain votes with a racist agenda, I am scared and at the same time feel lucky that we have laws preventing them to cross the lines. Freedom is a nice concept, but it works only if people can handle that freedom. Most of us can. For those who abuse the freedom, I think a court sentence is justified. Does that make society any less free?
Also, in the US certain states forbid atheists from taking a high role in the state parliament. The Boy Scouts of America still has a de facto policy of banning gay and atheist people. Being an atheist myself (one who respects every religion though — although that is irrelevant), I wonder: where would my freedom be if I were a US citizen wishing to join the scouts but having to lie about my religion in order to do so?
No country has absolute freedom. Luckily so, or else we’d be in an anarchy.
Andy D said:
Aug 06, 11 at 8:44 amYes, it is a bad thing. Freedom of speech means that you can say whatever you want provided it doesn’t physically jeopardize anyone. Standing on the street corner and saying Muslims are terrorists may really upset some people, it may annoy others, and it may drive some to come talk to you about your warped views, but it doesn’t physically hurt anyone. While I wouldn’t want to associate with someone who did that, I would want them to have the right to say that..
I think this also illustrates how the US is more free than other nations. Most Americans would argue that someone should be free to say what they want. However, most foreign nations believe its ok to place laws like Canada’s that regulate what we say.
Gerrit said:
Aug 06, 11 at 9:25 amI indeed support restrictions on freedom of speech. I don’t consider my country less free because of that, on the contrary I feel protected. In my native country there are laws against racist and xenophobic outings, against provocative speech, … I think this is good, because otherwise the door is open wide for abuse. Some political parties have used their freedom of speech for spreading the most disgusting lies about Muslims and immigrants, knowing some voters don’t think further and swallow their populist agenda as if it were dogmas. Luckily this party was taken to court after a while and was suspended (sadly enough they refounded under a new name but at least the message was given that certain things are not acceptable)
I don’t feel less free because of these restrictions. I think more censorship is justified. On the internet you can publish, hidden by a nickname, unfounded insults towards anyone you wish to attack. I heard of sites literally explaining how you can create a bomb. Some websites contain illegal pornographic content involving minors. Do we need to just turn a blind eye to that and let these folks hide behind “freedom of speech”? In my opinion, freedom is justified once people can handle it. Until then, the government has to regulate a bit in order to avoid mayhem and constant uproars. The overwhelming majority of people is not affected by the restrictions that exist on freedom of speech, only those with a mala fide agenda are. Hence I don’t feel less free because of these restrictions. I feel more protected.
Andy D said:
Aug 08, 11 at 4:44 amI indeed support restrictions on freedom of speech. I don’t consider my country less free because of that, on the contrary I feel protected.
You may not feel less free, but the truth is that you are. If the government restricts what you say (even for a reason you support) the government is reducing your freedom.
I think more censorship is justified. On the internet you can publish, hidden by a nickname, unfounded insults towards anyone you wish to attack.
I agree that this is a problem. However, I don’t think the solution is to pass another law making it illegal to say insulting things on the internet. I think the solution is to either ignore it, avoid sites that have posters that insult the readers, or run a site like I do and delete the insults.
As I mention in the original post, there are some things that should be illegal to say. I would argue that child porn and internet bomb instructions to represent an actual danger and should be illegal. However, if you aren’t physically putting anyone in danger, it should be legal. It may be unsavory, and it may be something we should condemn as a society, but it should be protected.
Gerrit said:
Aug 08, 11 at 7:27 amBut if you delete insulting comments, then aren’t you censoring? What is the difference with the state doing the censoring then?
I am unaware of the situation in the US, but here in Europe, multicultural societies are a very hot topic often leading to heated debates. Some populist politicians abuse their freedom of speech. To name only a few examples, one Dutch politician called Islam a backwards culture. In Belgium a party used banners and propaganda directly calling to close the borders and forbid further influx of immigrants. This sort of speech is dangerous because the persons causing the riots through provocation will hide behind their freedom of speech, but meanwhile they cause divide amongst people, make people upset or feel personally hurt, and cause tensions amongst people. I would rather have this type of outings forbidden, in order to make the multicultural society work and let those people talk who have good intentions.
Social network websites are another issue. There was a case that caused uproar because someone, under a fake identity, posted loveletters to a girl just to laugh at her. Then at one point the inexisting person announced he’d disappear for good and the girl, not realising what was going on, hung herself out of sadness. The person who created the fake ID could in theory hide because of freedom of speech, but he was clearly abusing this freedom in order to hurt somebody intentionally with lies.
Also, if you literally draw the line of what is legal to the point where speech is protected as long as there is no physical harm done, then one could literally say a specific person should be killed, and then claim he was not literally trying to kill him so he did nothing wrong. Calling for someone to be killed in my opinion is unacceptable, even if the person would not actually physically hurt anyone and not commit the crime. The fact he wishes someone dead alone is bad enough IMO to consider that hate speech.
Just a few examples of how freedom of speech can be abused severely by those with bad intentions. It would be utopic to have absolute freedom of speech without any riot, hatred or hurt being caused, but I fear some people are not able to cope with the liberties given.
Also, one more question: here in Europe, in several EU nations, homosexuals can marry. In the US, except for a few states, this is not the case. I understand religious believes disapprove this and that the church refuses to sanction these marriages, however in a secular country by law it should be possible for gay couples to have a non-religious/civil wedding.
If this marriage is not allowed, then aren’t you restricting the freedom of these people? Maybe in some aspects the USA is more free than Europe. But in some other aspects it doesn’t seem to be. Where is the freedom to choose to marry the person you love, regardless of gender?
(PS: not gay myself, but I do support the right to marry for homosexuals)
Also, as an atheist myself (but respecting all faiths and all believers), I know there are some states within the union that ban atheists from certain roles within state parliament. I would not be allowed to join the Boy Scouts.
So it does seem freedom, also in the US, comes with some restrictions?
I think in all honesty not a single nation on earth leaves its citizens totally unsurveilled. I don’t think it is a bad thing though. The moment there would be no more racial intolerance, crime and hatred, then people are ready to have full freedom without any helping hand from the State to regulate daily life. Unfortunately, as long as some people are abusing freedom, a certain refereeing role from the State is necessary IMO.
Andy D said:
Aug 09, 11 at 4:52 amYou cover a lot of points in your comment. I want to respond to a couple of particular points. If I skip a point you really want me to respond to, let me know.
Sure I am censoring comments on here. However, this is an act by a private individual acting on a private web-site that I own. The government isn’t involved in this at all. If you had a web site and restricted what people wrote on that website, I would support your right to do that. However, if the government stepped in and restricted what you wrote on that site, I would be outraged. You, as the owner, should be able to use your website as you see fit.
I also wouldn’t support someone saying in public that a particular person should be killed. I wouldn’t support it for the same reason that it shouldn’t be legal for someone to walk into a crowded theater and yell “Fire!” if there wasn’t an actual fire there. While yelling “Fire” doesn’t physically hurt someone, it will probably set off a chain event that will hurt someone. If someone is trying to convince people to kill a particular person, I suspect they would also run into trouble with the law, and should.
The last point I want to cover is gay marriage. You say,”I understand religious believes disapprove this and that the church refuses to sanction these marriages, however in a secular country by law it should be possible for gay couples to have a non-religious/civil wedding.”. Gay marriage being against the law does limit a certain amount of freedom in the same way that poligamy and beastiality, being illegal represents a restriction on freedom. However, it does not mean that a homosexual individual and a hetrosexual individual have different levels of freedom. Just as neither of these people are allowed to legally take multiple spouses, neither is allowed to marry someone of the same sex. They both are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Gerrit said:
Aug 09, 11 at 9:38 amFair enough, agree with the first two paragraphs.
However, I would say that allowing marriage for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals (who have nothing to gain by marrying a person they’re not attracted to as replacement for a same-sex partner they love) is limiting a certain freedom. Why would a homosexual person not have the freedom to marry the person he/she loves, while a heterosexual person has that freedom? I don’t think a comparison to beastiality is valid because an animal cannot agree with any sexual acts and thus any sexual act with an animal is in fact rape. Two consenting adults of the same gender who love each other and wish to marry is a very different case.
Again, I am not a homosexual myself but I do support equal rights for gays (I do belong to another minority sometimes discriminated against, as I am atheist, but it seems the discrimination against atheists is more in terms of people’s attitudes than in legal terms … or at least, that perception I have, as probably no law would restrict an atheist in engaging in activities that are not organised by a church)