Freedom: Where has it gone, did we ever have it, and do we really want it?

[plurality]

Main Entry: free•dom
Pronunciation: 'frE-d&m
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : INDEPENDENCE c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care> d : EASE, FACILITY <spoke the language with freedom> e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom> f : improper familiarity g : boldness of conception or execution h : unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>
2 a : a political right b : FRANCHISE, PRIVILEGE
synonyms FREEDOM, LIBERTY, LICENSE mean the power or condition of acting without compulsion. FREEDOM has a broad range of application from total absence of restraint to merely a sense of not being unduly hampered or frustrated <freedom of the press>. LIBERTY suggests release from former restraint or compulsion <the released prisoner had difficulty adjusting to his new liberty>. LICENSE implies freedom specially granted or conceded and may connote an abuse of freedom <freedom without responsibility may degenerate into license>.

http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=freedom

What is freedom; it doesn't seem like a difficult concept to grasp. According to the Merriam Webster's dictionary, it can be defined as "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action". Here in the United States of America we pride ourselves on being "free". In fact, Americans generally define themselves as the "freest nation on Earth", but is the really the case? Do we live in a nation where "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice" is the guiding principle of life and society? Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and their aftermath, many Americans have begun questioning this underlying assumption and feel their freedom slipping from their grasp. However, was true freedom ever a guiding principle in this nation, and more importantly, do Americans even know what freedom is? Was freedom ever more than slogan used to infect an inherently un-free populace with an abstract sense of nationalism?

Many will look at the response to the September 11 attacks and say that the current climate is in response to the fear of those attacks and that after the threat from terrorism subsides we can return to the way it was in the "good old days" when we were free to live our lives "absent of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action." You may ask, "Why do you keep repeating that phrase? Aren't there other ways of saying freedom? It's important to use synonyms in academic essays you know." Well it's also important to avoid the use of the first or second person as well, but you see I'm exercising my freedom to write my missive how I see fit, and I feel it's important to continue using that phrase because I don't believe that most Americans have any idea of what freedom really is.

I say this because I am constantly bombarded with evidence of this. Americans demonstrate a level of cognitive dissonance on this subject that is unbelievable. It is not out of the ordinary for instance to hear someone speak of how this is a great nation because it is free and then state that another should not be allowed to say otherwise. In other words, this person speaks of freedom in the same breath as advocating oppression. While many here may think this is an out of place occurrence, it is certainly not. Many other Americans also advocate forced conscription, forced medical procedures, even forced beliefs. This is also not a phenomenon limited to the post-9/11 environ.

This nation was founded on the suppression of freedom (slavery for those with short memories) at the same time it claimed to be the beacon of liberty shining upon the world. Two hundred and twenty-eight years have not changed that fact. The dawn of the 19th Century saw the first of many abuses heaped upon "free" Americans with the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1796. While their unpopularity eventually led to the dissolution of the Federalists who enacted them, they set a precedent that would lead the way for suppression of speech during the Civil War, World War I, World War II, and the various "Red Scares" of the 20th Century. This nation was also built upon the back of forced conscription of men into its armed services from colonial times until 1975, with the option of its return at the government's discretion.

While these and other limitations of freedom in America do have their reasons, some quite persuasive, don't we owe it to ourselves and the rest of the world to be honest about our principles. Throughout our history Americans have been faced with several choices, freedom or economic prosperity; and freedom or safety, and in two hundred and twenty-eight years freedom has been cast aside in every instance.

So here is my question to you, is there truly a love for freedom, real freedom mind you, that exists in the United States, has this love of freedom waned recently or is it at the level it's usually been at, and is there a way to create or salvage the love of true freedom in the United States?

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. 1800 and the McCarthy Periods were not unlike today

1800 is called by historicans the Second American Revolution and the fear currently in the country is actually going down.


thansk to the Internet mind you.

I think you (and the Republicans) are in for a shock in November, for you a pleasant one, for them a very unpleasant one.

[plurality]

2. How big of a shock?

While Bush and his crew are quite abhorant, will Kerry really represent the fundamental shift that the Revolution of 1800 did?

I've heard Kerry often say the problem with the PATRIOT Act isn't the Act, it's John Ashcroft. Now that's scary. You know why? Because this is a nation of laws not men, and the basis of whether a law is good or not shouldn't be whether a good official wouldn't abuse it and a bad one would, it's supposed to be that the laws can't be abused. The PATRIOT Act is inimical to freedom regardless of who is the AG or in the Justice Department, and if John Kerry doesn't see that, I doubt he'll be able to bring about the paradigm shift I'm looking for, but I'm willing to be surprised.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrWeird]

5. LOL

Why do you hate america?

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. Good point about the cognitive dissonance

It's interesting to make a list of the things you are free to do in the US if you don't have any money :)

[plurality]

7. It actually is true freedom in a sense

To be homeless, I don't know how many people really want that kind of freedom, but you are generally free of all the constraints of normal society.

And to some degree most people's lack of freedom is made through choice, it may be an unconcious choice, or one that they feel isn't really a choice (such as to get a job, and not call their boss a fascist asshole), but in all truth, most people are given a choice between freedom and slavery and they actually choose slavery. It's comfortable. Everyone wants to know that they'll have food when they want/need it, everyone wants to know that a roof will be there to shelter them from the elements, who cares if I have to give up some control over my life for those things right?

So is there any way to have those things without losing freedom? I'm looking for it, I think many others are as well, what will bring it to pass?

[IrateCitizen]

8. "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose...." (nt)

[tjwash]

13. Homelessness is freedom unless you get arrested for vagrancy...

...which technically is having less than five dollars cash on your person, and you are no longer free but an inmate.

[plurality]

14. that's true

I didn't take that into account, and as I said below, one is not even free to live in the wilderness if one chooses. So would freedom then in actuality be a myth, something we created to comfort ourselves into thinking we have control over our lives?

[sangh0]

19. The "Freedom Myth" is just that. A myth

This country isn't based on freedom. It's based on democracy.

Two different things. LIke the D's and the R's, there *IS* a difference.

[plurality]

20. it's not even based on democracy

In fact when this country was created democracy is exactly what they were trying to prevent! And it's still not a democracy, remember that whole 2000 election thing? Even if you don't think it was a stolen election, the fact that the man with the most votes isn't president shows that this isn't a democracy, republic, maybe, but democracy no.

So are there any adjectives we associate with this country that are true?

[IrateCitizen]

6. You answered your own question right here:

Throughout our history Americans have been faced with several choices, freedom or economic prosperity; and freedom or safety, and in two hundred and twenty-eight years freedom has been cast aside in every instance.

The word "freedom" is tossed around quite a bit without any realization of what it really means. One person's "freedom" might very well be another's oppression -- for example, business "freedom" for an industrialist would also be the oppression of a worker who is struggling to get by on substandard wages over long hours in an insecure marketplace. "Freedom" for that industrialist to pollute would transfer into the lack of "freedom" of surrounding communities to breathe clean air or drink clean water.

The goal of government often goes with balancing "freedom" against the greater needs of society. In the United States, that "greater need of society" has unfailingly been equated with the right of economic profit. In fact, in many ways, that "right" has been promoted at extreme expense to freedom, to the point that freedom has largely become little more than a commodity. If you have sufficient capital, you can purchase increasing degrees of freedom. If you are left without that capital, you're shit out of luck.

Centralized power is another opponent of true freedom -- a fact not at all lost on the likes of Jefferson and Franklin. Without an adequate diffusion of power throughout society, it can become too easy to manipulate the machinations of power toward the ends of tyranny. Such is the slippery slope we find ourselves on in this country today, as the government increasingly projects its presence into more and more areas of our lives -- tracking our purchases, our movements, our daily activities.

Another area I'd focus on is the simple act of voting. Unlike other industrialized nations (where a driver's license or standard ID is sufficient for voting), we make people go through a separate (and in some cases excessively complex) process to vote. Then, we have voting on a regular weekday, rather than on a weekend or declaring a national holiday for voting day. It's not like voting itself is a revolutionary act capable of inducing great and lasting change -- but the entire process is so marginalized in the US to the point of absurdity.

IMHO, the vast majority of people have no idea what "freedom" really is. They think it's the "freedom" to own whatever SUV you want and keep all your money and so on -- but this is once again just an instance of freedom being for sale to the highest bidder. Worse yet, when push comes to shove, most people would rather live in tyranny with the hopes of holding on to their existence-defining possessions than to actively resist in the name of freedom.

[plurality]

9. so what will get Americans to demand real freedom?

Or will they ever? Is the only way true human freedom can occur be that society falls apart and people survive or starve based on their, for the first time, free choices? Or is there some other way?

[IrateCitizen]

10. Only extreme tyranny will get them to "demand" it...

As it stands right now, the vast majority of Americans live under an illusion of freedom, thus making any capacity for actually demanding freedom rather insignificant.

Of course, I'm a believer that Americans (with the rest of the industrialized world) will seriously have to re-evaluate the way in which they do things if/when there is a serious energy crisis that leads to a virtual collapse of the economy as we know it. Of course, the camps at that time will be pretty much limited to communalism and authoritarian tribalism -- neither of which will be "free" either.

In short, society is NEVER about total "freedom". It is about, instead, balancing the freedom of the individual with the well-being of society. Americans have just embraced one interpretation of this -- one which, IMHO, really doesn't support the overall well-being of the society as a whole while encouraging the more destructive capacities of human self-interest in the name of "freedom".

[plurality]

11. but total freedom can exist

Because even in the scenario you give of choosing between communalism or authoritarian tribalism, there is also a third way, your own. Under these circumstances one could freely choose to live in a communal society or leave if they didn't like it, and one could live in an authoritarian society or leave if they didn't like it. Granted the wisdom of such a choice is up to debate, but there is a choice, and so you can say that one in such a world is truly free as any freedom given up is freely given.

Such is not the case in any current society. The moment I was born my range of life decisions was limited by being born within the territorial confines of the United States of America, and the case would be no different anywhere on Earth. Even if I became completely disenchanted and wanted to live out in the woods away from everything I'd still be open to attack by the government as there is no land that I could live off of without being forced off for trespassing or evicted from for failure to pay taxes if it was indeed my property to begin with.

So is freedom really even possible? To me it would seem like it's impossible, as long as there are governments.

[IrateCitizen]

12. Freedom is wholly an individual state

Governments are not the impediment toward total freedom -- societies are. You simply cannot have full individual freedom in concert with societal norms and laws. It is always a balancing act.

[plurality]

15. yes, but absent government one is free to leave society if one chooses

However, with government that is not the case. All are still forced to pay taxes for property, regardless of whether they earn an income. And as pointed out above, it's not even legal for you to be homeless.

Granted all people will have to give up some freedoms to live in society, but as long as people are freely choosing to live in that society, they are still "totally free" since they are choosing to give up those freedoms and choosing to live in that society, and are free to choose to leave if they don't like it. Now however that's impossible.

[IrateCitizen]

16. That is true, in theory

For instance, if you consider indigenous tribes that are still in existence in the Amazon Basin, they have what could properly be described as societies without governments. However, "government" was a construct that evolved out of necessity when humans began to settle agrarian communities. With industrialization, the idea of "government" came to exercise more and more control over our lives.

A retreat from industrialization and return to agrarian life would make your proposal a possibility. Total retreat into a hunter-gatherer lifestyle would make it even more possible. But I wouldn't expect either of them to happen anytime soon, nor would it be entirely desirable for them to do so.

[plurality]

17. yet it's possible to live in an industrial society absent government

At least absent government in the sense we've come to know of it. A good example would be Catalonia in the early part of the Spanish Civil War. All entreched authority was removed by the people in that brief moment of time, yet society didn't fall apart. Factories operated without managers, citizens policed themsleves, and took the initiative to provide for their mutual defense. It wasn't until the Communists and Republicans decided that the Anarchists were more dangerous than the fascists that that ended.

[plurality]

18. kick for the after work crowd