Ginger HawthorneI have a rather controversial point of view about a topic that almost everyone seems to think we agree on, even though we usually don’t: freedom. I’d guess that nearly everyone in America agrees that freedom is a good thing, and shouldn’t be trampled on, yet we consistently have disagreements that supposedly hinge on freedom.
Recently, there’s been a lot of talk about freedom of speech, and whether certain groups have the right to restrict the freedom of others to speak and assemble. But it’s actually a lot more complicated than that might sound on the surface. It’s convenient (on both sides) to make it sound easy, but it’s really not.
We live in what we call a “free society”, so I’ll start by examining what that means in isolation. In a truly free society, everyone would be free to do anything, to anyone, at any time, for any reason, with no repercussions. That’s ultimate freedom, in a nutshell. It may also sound an awful lot like anarchy, and that’s because it is, but that’s not inherently bad.
Anarchy is lawlessness, but not in the we typically define that word. We often use the word “lawless” to describe people acting in violation of the law, it’s no different from any other “-less” word. Speechless, careless, formless, childless. Lawlessness is not the violation of law, it’s the complete and total absence of law. That’s the default state of human society, before a government or any other authoritative body intervenes. So for the sake of this discussion, I’m going to use “lawless society” to refer to the base, original state of any free society, including ours.
Anarchy promises absolute freedom, because it imposes no oversight whatsoever. But it also leaves us to question the very notion of freedom. One of my favorite quotes on this is actually pretty muddy in its format and attribution, but I like to quote it like this:
“My right to throw a fist ends when it reaches another man’s nose.” (source)
It’s often used as either a sort of moral imperative about protecting the safety of others, or an illustration of how to prevent government overreach, but I use it here simply as a clear example of a simple fact: some freedoms interfere with others. In this case, one freedom is the right to throw my fists around however i’d like. The other is your right not to be punched in the face. In a lawless society, both are equally valid, but they can’t rationally coexist. So the question then becomes how to resolve this conflict, and I’m willing to argue that this question is the basis for any authoritative body, and all of politics on every side.
In a lawless society, the resolution is never defined. Every individual is free to do anything, and therefore each individual is free to resolve the conflict in whatever way they deem appropriate. The man throwing a fist may decide to avoid other people’s noses; the other man may decide to avoid the swinging fist; if he gets punched anyway, he may decide to throw one of his own right back; perhaps the first man intentionally punches so hard that the other man is physically unable to retaliate. The conflict and its resolution are left entirely to the individuals involved.
At some point, someone steps in and makes what we would generally agree is the rational resolution hinted at in the quote above: not getting punched is more important than throwing a punch. This case is pretty straightforward, but as conflicts of freedom get more complicated and more consequential, the discussion around them gets more nuanced. The punching example gets particularly interesting in our current climate, because of all this talk about “punching nazis”. There are plenty of people right now who would reinterpret the punch illustration in the specific context of the recipient’s political views and offer an exemption.
And that ultimately shows the problem with these conflicts. Resolving them requires a judgment call. Which one is worth protecting, and which one should be restricted? Is it absolute? Are there exceptions? Who even decides? These questions form the foundation of any governing body, because ultimately their job is simple.
The primary responsibility of any governing body is to restrict freedom. That’s right, I said it. Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or Socialist, they all function essentially the same way. They restrict some freedoms in order to protect others. Where they differ is in how they choose which freedoms to protect, which freedoms they restrict in order to protect them, and how they determine who makes the decisions.
That’s why I get upset during election years when people talk about freedom as if it’s something only one side can offer. Everybody offers freedom, they just differ in which freedoms they’re talking about, and particularly who enjoys those freedoms. I couldn’t have summed it up any better than a popular slogan among Republicans during the Obama campaign and administration:
“I’ll keep my freedom, my guns and my money. You can keep the change.” (examples)
The single most important word there is “my”. People who tout this slogan are, consciously or not, acknowledging that freedom is relative, and that the only type of freedom they care about is what they themselves enjoy. The same goes for money and guns, of course, but we’ll get to those another day.
We vote for people who we hope will resolve conflicts of freedom in the same way we ourselves would. For some, that means protecting the things they hold dear. For others, that means looking out for underprivileged groups. Still others might look at society as a whole and hope to find something that helps everyone.
I’d prefer resolutions that try to maximize gain across the board, while minimizing loss across the board. Take health care, for example. If we can provide care for everyone, across the board, at the expense of a healthy minority who pay in without cashing out, I’d consider that a net win. Especially when you consider that the healthy people paying in still have access to care if and when they need it. They lose some financial freedom in order to secure freedom from illness and injury for the greater whole. I’d consider that an appropriate exchange.
In the case of recent demonstrations, I’d prefer the freedom of non-white groups to live without fear of genocide over the freedom of white supremacists to terrorize their communities. I’d choose the freedom of black Southerners to walk past a courthouse with a clear mind and a joyful heart over the freedom of their white neighbors who want to honor men who fought to have those people enslaved, tortured and killed.
I’d prefer financial freedom offered to everyone via a living wage over the freedom of a select few with the necessary business acumen to completely control the distribution of wealth. I’d prefer the freedom of a gay couple to have a legal marriage over the freedom of a straight couple to … actually, I still haven’t figured what freedoms a straight couple would lose in that scenario. The freedom to not look at a married gay couple maybe? I dunno, it’s a stretch.
The point is, freedom isn’t binary. There’s nothing universal about it. We interpret it different ways, and people benefit and suffer because of those differences. The question becomes, which freedoms are you fighting for? For whom? And what freedoms have to be sacrificed in order to protect what you hold dear? Are you willing to give up any of the freedoms you enjoy in order to secure some other freedom for someone else? Or will you only ever take freedom from others in order to help yourself?
The balance of freedom in this country has been very lopsided for a very long time.