Posted on 05/02/2005 12:49:36 PM PDT by NCSteve
RALEIGH – How dare he exercise his freedom of choice? He’s denying me my freedom to choose!
Judging by a range of controversies in North Carolina right now, plenty of people exhibit just this sort of confusion about the political definition of freedom. That’s the first problem, by the way: when I say the political definition of freedom, I mean to distinguish it from other, everyday uses of the term. But the distinction is often lost.
The government does not forbid my son Alex from eating his dessert before his vegetables. Thus, as a political matter, he enjoys an expansive freedom to dine. But, of course, my son is certainly not free to do so. Furthermore, government regulations inhibit but do not eradicate my freedom to find employment and thus to earn the money necessary to feed Alex his vegetables. But that doesn’t mean I am free to work wherever I wish – my prospective employer has something to say about that.
When discussing public policy, freedom must have a precise meaning. Since government is coercive by definition – it takes rather than bargains, and commands rather than requests – freedom in this context represents a shield against coercion. It protects my right to decide what I shall attempt, and with whom. It does not give me any power to ensure that my attempt succeeds, or to compel others to assist or agree with me.
Basically, a free society protects its citizens’ right to choose. They may choose to do the right thing, as you or I see it, or they may choose to do the wrong thing. And if the society is truly free, its citizens will reap the rewards or bear the consequences of their choices, which will serve as an effective means for many, at least over time, to learn how self-destructive bad decisions can be and how to make good ones.
Consider these recent examples of how twisted the political rhetoric about freedom has become:
From these and other examples, it becomes obvious that many political actors do not really think “freedom” is a neutral term. They extol freedom when it is likely to be used by their fellow citizens in ways that they approve of, or at least find thrillingly provocative. But they refuse to recognize that freedom extends to the private actions of individuals, such as pro-lifers or conservatives, with whom they disagree.
Although there can be difficult cases (which usually involve public property, a good reason to minimize it), the principle of freedom isn’t really all that hard to define and enforce. You have the right to think, say, do, or not do anything you like without being forcibly restrained or punished. I do, too – and my freedom extends to judging you according to what you say or do, and deciding whether I want to have anything to do with you as a result.
If we followed this freedom principle, most of us would still sometimes be frustrated, dismayed, or enraged by the actions of others. But the level of public discord would still subside, allowing political leaders to focus on the (few) tasks we truly need them to perform on our behalf.
-30-
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation, publisher of Carolina Journal.com, and host of the statewide program “Carolina Journal Radio.”
NC Ping-a-ling?
This is true. However, the NC pharmacists need to understand the company has the same freedom to let them go for not fulfilling their job requirements. Not that I agree with the activists though.
"However, the NC pharmacists need to understand the company has the same freedom to let them go for not fulfilling their job requirements."
NC is a right to work state.
I realize that. Just stating the freedom that all sides want goes both ways.
As I'd always heard, "MY freedom extends to MY fingertips - beyond that, I infringe upon that of OTHERS."
It is, and it is.
: ^ )
"I realize that. Just stating the freedom that all sides want goes both ways."
Hiring and firing at will, to me, sort of indicates that a pharmacy employing a pharmacist with strong antiabortion beliefs might not be altogether inclined to firing that pharmacist... there possibly could be some level of agreement on the subject. Which is as it should be. Those who disagree are free to shop elsewhere.
That was my bad. The URL has it right. The older I get, the worse my typing skills (or lack thereof).
Did Toby Esterhazy get you that information?
Nice to have my screen name recognized.
It's easy to make typos. I know from experience. It confused me at first, though (was it Locke? or wasn't it?).
So let's see... I don't want to be indirectly associated with the proceeds of a practice I don't agree with, because I don't want to have to pay for educating my children (that I freely chose to bring into this world) in a private school. Therefore, I would rather take the freedom to buy a lottery ticket away from someone else so I don't benefit from gambling which is what my religious beliefs tell me is immoral.
You tell me which part of this equation more accurately defines what freedom is.
From these and other examples, it becomes obvious that many political actors do not really think “freedom” is a neutral term.
Why ought one believe that freedom is a neutral term? In what sense is it neutral? I interpret such "neutrality" to mean that Freedom in itself is empty of content, being neither good nor bad. In such a case, nobody should care about freedom as such, since it isn't a good in-itself, but simply an instrumental good. This seems to undermine the author's attempt to say that everybody deserves freedom.
...the principle of freedom isn’t really all that hard to define and enforce. You have the right to think, say, do, or not do anything you like without being forcibly restrained or punished. I do, too – and my freedom extends to judging you according to what you say or do, and deciding whether I want to have anything to do with you as a result.
J.S. Mill takes this idea to an even further extreme, claiming that social pressure itself is coercive and should to be eliminated as one responds to other coercive measures--that is, with coercion in kind.
And I would say that the article's idea of freedom is rather foreign to American politics. Both Abraham Lincoln and Orestes Brownson declared in the 1800s that "you cannot have a right to do a wrong." And in Christian theology the first freedom is the freedom to become a child of God by becoming free from the slavery to sin. Surely not a neutral idea, there.
This article only strenghtens my conviction that contemporary relativism finds its seeds in Lockean political theory.
Error has no rights.
Under natural law a pharmacist that sells abortion pills conspires in a murder and criminal sanction applies to him. Gambling would be a strictly private affair between consenting adults. A teacher would collect his fee from the students that appreciate his thoughts, and censure would apply to heretical or seditious teachings.
The post-enlightenment political systems take a few features that exist under natural law and elevate them at the expense of the entire body of the natural law. For example, a right to hold a free debate between willing debaters in an academic setting becomes freedom of scandalizing the public. Worse, it grants the democratic political process a fake right to trump the natural law, such as in legitimizing abortion, then forcing the pharmacists to violate their conscience.
We are now at a stage where a rational discourse is impossible. Feeble-minded pleadings for a political compromise on some mythuical "neutral terms", such as this article, passes for deep thought.
Sadly, the exact reverse is often practiced. Truth all too often has no rights, which is especially startling when one reflects that Truth is a person.
The post-enlightenment political systems take a few features that exist under natural law and elevate them at the expense of the entire body of the natural law.
Just the other day I was wondering about modern invocations of the Golden Rule. Like everything else it is as malleable as a wax nose when taken out of context.
A libertarian type might say "how would you like it if Muhammed imposed his values on you?" while a more traditionally-minded Christian who favors morals legislation might say "how would you like it if you were left completely unchecked and unreprimanded in a state of sin?" The latter, at least, has the benefit of a formation in a community that keeps the memory of the context in which the Golden Rule was uttered, but it seems their argument, limited to one principle, is bound to be unresolvable.
Granted, the Golden Rule shows up in many cultures, which is an indication it flows out of a sort of universal intuition or recognition of justice, but it is terribly odd when people cite the Rule's formulation in the Gospels or the Analects of Confucius, while often completely ignorant of the rest of the material.
After I realized that the Golden Rule, thus applied, leads to
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.