Liberty and Social Justice

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 18^th 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’.