This past week or so, law blogger Eugene Volokh wrote two
pieces about the word freedom, and
how we use that word, and its synonyms, differently: Freedom and Hypocrisy, on
December 28, and “We All Declare for Liberty.”
The point of Volokh’s first piece is that calling each other
hypocrites when we are really just using different definitions is polarizing rather than helpful. And that is worth considering. He followed up with a reminder of a similar discussion by Lincoln in 1864:
Volokh shared this image in his piece, from the Library of Congress |
The world has never had a good definition of liberty, and the
American people, just now, are much in need of one. We all declare for liberty;
but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing.
With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he
pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same
word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product
of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible
things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things
is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names—liberty
and tyranny.
The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for
which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces
him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a
black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of
the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today among us
human creatures, even in the North, and all professing to love liberty. Hence
we behold the processes by which thousands are daily passing from under the
yoke of bondage, hailed by some as the advance of liberty, and bewailed by others
as the destruction of all liberty.— Abraham Lincoln, in his Address at a
Sanitary Fair, Baltimore, Apr. 18, 1864
One thing about truth is that it is timeless. Lincoln’s
words could have just been spoken.
Volokh’s pieces got me thinking, because I use freedom (and liberty, as a synonym) as one of the three main things we’re trying
to restore and retain in the Spherical Model—freedom, prosperity, and
civilization. So I thought it
might be worth defining the way I use the term, plus maybe some related terms.
I’m combining my favorite 30-year-old Webster’s dictionary with my own words.
Freedom: absence
of hindrance, restraint, confinement, repression. In the political sense, it is
ownership of one’s own life and the production of wealth and property that
results from one’s use of life and effort. A government should protect the
freedoms of life, liberty, and property; it does not grant these things, but protects
them from infringement. A government that takes life, liberty, or property
unjustly—when the person has not unlawfully infringed on those rights of
another person—that is a tyrannical government, which is the opposite of
freedom.
Political freedom means living in a society in which our
God-given rights are protected rather than infringed. These would include
freedoms of belief and expression, such as freedom of religion and freedom of
the press, as well as freedoms of property and security, such as freedom from
illegal searches and seizures and the right to bear arms.
Liberty: synonym
of freedom. It is ownership of one’s own life, to pursue as one chooses, and to
enjoy the fruits of one’s efforts. No person or government or other entity owns
a person or controls how the person pursues happiness.
Libertine:
originally from Roman society, a libertine meant a freed slave, but in our day
it is a person who leads an unrestrained, sexually immoral life.
License: implies
violating the usual rules, laws, or practices—taking some privilege not
generally allowed because of its possible harm to other individuals or the
entire society. Some licenses are legal—such as a driver’s license. A person
becomes free to drive with the license, or permission, after proving ability or
qualification.
Licentious:
disregarding accepted rules and standards, morally unrestrained, lascivious.
I don’t use freedom
to refer to doing whatever one wants without suffering the consequences; that
is licentiousness. That is what a libertine does, rather than a lover of
liberty.
When I use freedom,
it is in relation to the God-given rights—those things we are born with,
granted by God, not by some government or other entity. I do not include things
that are nice to have, but not naturally given, such as freedom from want, or entitlement
to have food, clothing, shelter, education, and other things that must be
provided to a child by someone else, preferably parents, until the child
becomes capable of self-providing those things.
If someone is entitled to those things, then someone else is
required—enslaved—to provide them. If the parents provide these things, that is
part of the agreement taken on when the couple choose to conceive a child to
bring into the world; they choose to provide, so they are not enslaved. But the
neighbor down the street didn’t bring that child into the world and isn’t
required to use up his life in providing that child’s comfort.
What happens when parents cannot, or do not, provide?
Shouldn’t the larger society step in and provide those things? In a civilized
society, yes, people voluntarily provide for the needy, when they can. That is
charity, or philanthropy. When government forces the confiscation and
redistribution, even to those needy that we would sympathetically choose to
help, that government is not being charitable, but tyrannical.
The Political Sphere |
When government uses force to “do good” that is not
government’s limited role of protecting life, liberty, and property, there will
be unintended consequences, usually exactly the opposite of the stated “good.”
In the summary to the political sphere section of the
Spherical Model, “The Political World Is Round,” I ask several questions to determine
whether a considered policy will lead toward freedom or toward tyranny. One of
these is to make use of the Bill of Rights:
Does the policy infringe in any way on the rights enumerated
in the Bill of Rights? Does the policy infringe on the free exercise of
religion or try to establish a particular sect as a state religion? Is
political speech hindered? Does the policy infringe on the right of citizens to
bear arms? Does the policy constitute an illegal search or seizure? Does the
policy deprive a person of life, liberty, or property when the person has not
committed a crime for which that deprivation is the just sentence? Does the
policy try to claim for government a power that was not specifically granted in
the Constitution? etc. If the policy infringes on the God-given rights, then
government cannot take that power without usurping power from the people.
We get the most freedom, prosperity, and civilization when
we live the principles in all three spheres simultaneously. We limit government
to protecting our God-given rights of life, liberty, and property. We exchange
the results of our labor freely, within a free market economy that includes
voluntary charity. We grow civilization when a critical mass of us worship God,
who gave us our rights, and we value family, life, property, and truth—values you
might recognize from the Ten Commandments.
No comments:
Post a Comment