LIBERTY vs. FREEDOM
They’re the same thing . . . right?
My unabridged says that freedom is the state of being at liberty, and that liberty is freedom from arbitrary government control. If I’ve got it right then, liberty encompasses the specific political freedom to make your own decisions, and freedom is a more generic form of not being restrained in any one of a variety of ways.
For example, “Give me freedom or give me death” doesn’t sound right, though it might if you were in jail. Equally, you can have “freedom of choice” and a captive can be “given his or her freedom”.
The U.S. Constitution, from which our Liberty springs, requires balancing individual human rights against the right amount of social or economic order that needs to be in place to maintain it for all. Order requires regulation, and the issues quickly become . . . more or less . . . and who decides?
It seems safe to say that up to now the United States of America has done as well or better than most societies in managing order (i.e., regulation) to assure a good measure individual Liberty. There are certainly cases where we’ve over-regulated and acted arbitrarily to deprive individuals and classes of individuals of Liberty, but compared to other forms of what we’ll call orderliness, none have done better to date than the USA. Most would say that individual Liberty has been good for all of us.
Communism, which is usually touted as true equality for all individuals, has only existed under extreme authoritarian rule where was zero Liberty. Socialism, in a democracy at least, is nothing more than the recognition of the balance being struck at more regulation (not arbitrary by definition) and less (but some) individual Liberty. Don’t be misled, however, by “democracy” and “freedom” being used interchangeably, but that misconception is for another day.
If we all agree that Liberty is worth preserving in the USA, the question becomes how much regulation is permitted under our Constitution. The Constitution divides authority somewhat equally among three parts of our government, and each is sworn to maintain our Liberty. The extent to which any of us should be allowed as individuals to make mistakes that adversely affect others has occupied all three branches of our government for as long as we’ve been a republic. The risk has always been that the persons we’ve elected to do this job will go too far or will run off the track, but two things come into play at this point. Under our Constitution these persons can be replaced, and the third branch of government can come along later upon individual complaint and throw out what the other two did.
All of this begs the question of who-in-the-world actually knows what is the right balance between my rights as an individual and the nation’s need to prevent some of us from hurting others. My own bias is . . . that when in doubt . . . all three branches of our government should err on the side of the individual rather than society as a whole, because there are too many officials and self-proclaimed protectors out there, elected and appointed, who lust for, and can be counted on to abuse, the power to control.
It was interesting to see Eliot Spitzer indict himself on television the other day by proclaiming to the world that he would have stopped the credit melt down (presumably if he hadn’t been caught breaking the very laws he helped prosecute other individuals under), because he was not a libertarian like Alan Greenspan. There’s nothing in the Constitution giving persons like Eliot Spitzer or Alan Greenspan the right to set these balances – but if required to make a choice between the two, I’ll take libertarian over the control freak every time.
Another reason for erring on the side of individual Liberty when reaching a balance with regulation is that our Courts are not empowered to nip legislative errors in the bud. Congress tends to leave us with unintended consequences. What happens in Washington stays with us forever. When was the last time you saw Congress repeal one of the laws they passed? Want to do something? There’s probably a law lying around on the books somewhere, intended for some long forgotten purpose, that if enforced will stop you from doing it.
We are free to cast our vote for leaders who understand their Constitutional duty as our representatives. If we elect honest, intelligent, men and women who are predisposed to put nation first and themselves last, and hold them accountable for their actions, a good balance between individual Liberty and the need for regulation will be maintained most of the time. When in doubt, less is always better than too much.
