Our country was founded on the concept of liberty and this
concept continues to be at the center of all the political and social turmoil
that we are now experiencing. Liberty is
defined by Webster’s as follows:
the quality or state
of being free:
a : the power to
do as one pleases
b : freedom from
physical restraint
c : freedom from
arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive
enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of
choice
By the time of the writing of our Declaration of
Independence and subsequently, our Constitution, the concept of liberty had
been intensely debated and explored by a veritable who’s who of philosophers,
including Plato, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke,
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Adam Smith.
Later, John Stuart Mill, in his treatise ‘Liberty’, captured many of our
founders’ aims.
In a natural and ideal sense, liberty can mean the total
freedom of an individual to do whatever one pleases. But in human society liberty is defined with
some restrictions in terms of a social contract. One person’s liberty cannot impinge upon
another’s for example.
Many of the first immigrants to American were seeking the
liberty to practice their religious faith without persecution. Others were attracted to the so-called New
World for economic opportunity, and they sought liberty in terms of their
freedom to seek their fortune with fewer taxes and bureaucratic obstacles. They also chafed at the old European class
systems that limited their opportunity for self-fulfillment.
Desperation and economic disaster were the catalysts for
other immigrants. The lofty ideals of
liberty were not of immediate concern to these ‘tired, poor, huddled
masses’. The ‘yearning to breathe free’
reflected a much more basic need to be freed from slavery, serfdom, poverty and
the poorhouse.
But the new land also attracted many discontents and
borderline sociopaths and misanthropes – the whole anti-social spectrum of
people who are not comfortable in close societal cooperation. When one considers how radical an act it is
to leave one’s family and friends for a foreign land with a high probability
that one will never see them again, it is no wonder that America bred a
uniquely contrarian and independent populace.
The War of Independence focused attention on the liberty of
a people to form its own government and laws.
The tyranny of a remote government making decisions and establishing
taxes without representation from those who were most affected was anathema to
the colonists.
This concept of liberty from political tyranny was then augmented
in our constitution with other basic rights such as freedom of speech, freedom
of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, a universal right to
vote (ignoring women and non-whites, which seriously diminishes the eternal universality
of this document) and of course the endlessly confusing and controversial
freedom to bear arms (a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security
of a free state).
No one likes to be told what they can or cannot do. Thus, liberty has universal appeal. All forms of government, including the judiciary,
police and military, infringe to some extent on basic liberties. One can argue that a goal of civilization
should be to have the minimum amount of government necessary to create a
peaceful and harmonious society. But the
devil is in the details.
The fact is that our society has become more complex and
more interwoven. We have evolved from a
nation of independent citizen-farmers to an urbanized nation with a complex web
of industry and a fully integrated workforce.
The rugged individualism and political idealism of the 18th
century can no longer be held up as the model for concepts of government and
liberty today.
By the mid-nineteenth century the industrial revolution
rendered older models of society obsolete.
Feudal systems that at least gave some stability to the masses had been
obliterated and grim urban nightmares replaced them with even harsher and more
dangerous working environments. Concepts
of social justice and government activism on behalf of the poor or
disenfranchised developed slowly and arrived just in time in barely adequate
form to avoid worldwide revolution in the early twentieth century. But the tension between liberty and social
justice has persisted and will never be entirely resolved.
In Europe there is a recognition that society is stronger
when individuals trade some elements of personal liberty in exchange for social
justice. The population density and
history of Europe prepared its citizens to make this compromise. In America,
the vast open spaces and frontier mentality of its citizens have created more
obstacles for this type of reconciliation.
Liberty is most highly prized by those who have the luxury
of a stable, well-paying job that provides for basic needs and a bit more. Social justice – the creation of conditions
that allow those on the lower end of the scale to prosper – is just as
important as liberty for the smooth and harmonious functioning of a complex
society. Liberty cannot guarantee social
justice, just as the free market cannot guarantee economic growth and
stability. Social justice and economic
stability must be shepherded by government and social planners. This is the simple truth.
Liberty demands that the means of creating social justice
and economic stability be established with a minimum of bureaucracy and
curtailment of individual freedom. But
in a society where individuals have complex and unpredictable relationships
with one another, liberty cannot be deified and must be balanced with rules and
regulations in a social contract that ensures social justice and a shared ‘good
life’.
