What does Freedom Really Mean?

“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.

George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena*. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.

The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?

A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.

Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.

Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.

The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive-- and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.

The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state-- but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity.

Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.

Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.

I absolutely agree, but the opposite is also true. The ability to lose and not gnash teeth and blindly hate.

A good sportsman is also judged by his reaction to adversity, to the bad call, his ability to remain calm, dignified, and take the hit.

I assure you if your contested elections of Bush first term had happened elsewhere there would have been blood on the streets. At the cost of being banned, I say honor to the beaten foe, after the recount struggle that the USA moved on and accepted even with gritted teeth the call of your Supreme Court. That is the precious rule of law (which Americans know is never perfect, but nonetheless precious).

I say dishonor, deepening dishonor to those democrats that until just a few weeks ago were contesting the second and obviously clear cut Bush win. Whereas in the first there was something to argue about, in this second there was only a wanton display of bad faith and a mongering of mistrust, aimed at discrediting the whole American system.

Freedom requires fair play, rule of law. It is very dangerous to lose all bi-partisanship, to burn all bridges.

Freedom for me, very definitely means a proper balance of ideals and down to earth practicality. It means a tacit agreement that the ends must never justify the means (the true face of oppression). Freedom requires at least a minimum shared love of country, otherwise like in my far less perfect democracy, for some, worse is better and for far too many even much much worse is far far better.

You Americans are blessed with something nobody else in the world has. It is what you called "horse sense" coupled with ingenuity. You have many other unique blessings, for example a basic trust and goodness. Do you think shareware (try for free and if you like, kindly send the cash) could've started in very clever and crafty China or clever and crafty Italy? No, we're too smart for that, too clever, crafty and mistrustful. Those silly, stupid, gullible Americans! But now look who's laughing! Who created a knowledge base, who spread tha base to the rest of the clever and crafty world!

Freedom is better with one simple constant, like Judeo-Christian ethics. In the long view, this call of conscience will guide a country in the general proper direction. You might even without looking too hard see the hand of God.

If one looks at the madness of Islamic relativism, based not on love or wisdom, but on the hollow, meaningless, tautological shell of "God is Great" and on a collection of verses, some good, some bad, and plenty horrendous, written in a vague language and in jumbled order, with no recognized leadership and self-appointed Imams empowered with the right to emit murderous Fatwas, (almost sounds like the Loony left, doesn't it?) then it is easy to understand why a country that was modernizing, like Iran, suddenly reverts to the Middle Ages. The same goes for Turkey.

Our ethos might allow for more production one year and more distribution in another, but never such roller coaster Luna Park inversions.

And that is because we do not bow down to a short list of limited options, but are guided in our general Ethos by the Old and New Testaments, tempered as permitted by good faith, by enlightenment and science.

By broadly accepting the "oppression" of this one simple ethos (ten commandments, love thy neighbor, forgiveness) we have the broad guidance we need with the incredibly rich complexity we desire.

As long as we adhere to that simplicity, we are luckier even in our mistakes. But once we turn away from the basic and simple "golden rule plus 1" and become fascinated with alien concepts such as race or class or unlimited freedom, then we have the devil to pay.

It is not a fortuitous coincidence that almost all the countries of Judeo-Christian tradition are now peaceful democracies where ancient enmities have become meaningless.

It is not a fortuitous coincidence that Yemen instead has 1400 clans living in fortified cities, where everyone greets each other with "Peace!" We don't need to because for us peace is a foregone conclusion... and that too is an important, fundamental component of liberty.

The clans of Finland were once far more nasty and violent than those of old Saudi Arabia and Yemen where Islam got started. Today those Finnish clans, far from the source of religion, dance the tango (the most popular dance there) and they produce Nokia phones, equal in financial output to all of Arabia minus the oil!

Conscience is our motor for accruing truths. For example we had to learn that the black man was human. For us in the beginning he was not and that is why the white man felt free to enslave him. Only western civilization put an end to the practice and it was first set in motion by religious men in UK. In America, slavery was also a religious issue, some for and some against. With conscience as the guide (as opposed to sterile perfect Word of God mentality of the Koran which has entire surahs regulating even the fine points of slavery), time was on the side of the black man, because his humanity would obviously become more and more manifest. This is what I mean when I say we are guided even in our mistakes.

So the ultimate, the most important component of Freedom is conscience. Believe it or not religious conscience.

Some people when angry, look at their book and throw rocks as instructed. Others look at their books and read: "he who is without sin, cast the first stone!" - which is another way of saying, wait you idiot! Don't do what feels right, struggle, think ahead, think! THINK!

Some people throw rocks, others were taught to do things the hard, unnatural way... today those second people take those rocks and slice them very thin to store and move memory.

Perhaps, next winter holiday, (sic) instead of just saying "Merry Christmas"... we can say "Happy Birthday Jesus, outlaw baby born in a cave... thank you!" You are even in the very jazzy satellite guidance of my Chevrolet!

So Freedom is also this most beautiful of fairytales, all the more beautiful because it is true, palpable, good and faithful to man.

No bullshit.

Ciao invisible hand,

No, I was speaking in metaphors. The concept was that yes, freedom is something to fight for, but also requires the good sense of knowing how to lose elections, how to make loyal opposition.

The thrust of my post was proving the importance of our Judeo-Christian ethos.

But your critcism made me think some more, because it is very correct. Politics are like sports inasmuch as one may speak of an arena of conflicting ideas and values. But whereas it is almost impossible to think of situations in soccer or baseball that have not been covered by rules... the arena of human interplay is constantly called to redefine fundamental issues and move on.

States rights?
Slavery?
Woman's right to vote?
Alcohol?
Gun ownership?
The rights of the unborn?
Etc,

This is where having a good ethos is so important. And the good ethos tells us when and how to fight, when and how to surrender, when and how to struggle.

The danger is thinking ONLY in terms of freedom. Then everything is radicalized and on every issue, people reach for their guns.

America and the Anglo-Saxon tradition, more than others, have taught the world how it is possible to govern the ship through very stormy seas and dangerous shoals.

Kind regards
H

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.