What Is Freedom?

In defining Freedom, people often use the word “free” (such as, “Freedom is being free from…” or “Freedom means I am free to…”, etc.)—a terrible misnomer in my opinion (never use a word to define the same word).

In doing a quick Google-search on the question, “What is freedom”, I found people see Freedom as a thing, to be gained or lost—like a job. Many of the results defined freedom as a grant-of-license (to do something). Several Google-entries perpetuated freedom may sometimes be a bad thing—a country that is totally free, for example, is free (licensed) to steal, rape, and plunder at will. This means unbridled freedom is no different from Anarchy.

Freedom, in any form, is NOT Anarchy. Freedom does not lead, de facto, to chaos. Rather, the absence of Freedom creates Anarchy, Chaos, Entropy, and the like. This may seem like a paradox. If freedom does not mean I can do whatever I want whenever I want, then, what is Freedom?

My thought is that Freedom is a context. By context, I mean Freedom is the framework, the box within which the implications of being free live. Many people seem to believe Freedom means “lack of boundaries”. I do not agree. Having no boundaries is the opposite of Freedom. Again, this may seem counter-intuitive but consider that Freedom defines the boundaries; it creates the framework (the context) within which ownership and control of one’s life resides.

In other words, Freedom is not what a convict attains when he reaches the other side of the prison fence. Freedom is the fence, setting the context for what is on either side.

Without a context for the things under my control—without definitive boundaries—by default, I have no control. Without clear boundaries for what I own (and do not own), it is the same. By default, I could own nothing. As example, I can not control or own the universe because it is limitless, it is timeless and boundless. I can control something that has obvious boundaries, however, such as a car. The car is specific and measurable—it always exists a particular way in Time, Space, and Reality. If the car was without boundaries,
if its body stretched to infinity, I could not control it or own it. Nor could I drive it.

If there is no context, no framework, no boundaries—if everyone is free to do anything, any time to anyone, then nobody is free to do anything, any time to anyone. The world, in such a scenario, would be paralyzed by fear. Everybody in every situation would have to assume everyone could (and likely would) do everything to everyone every time anything happened.

With no boundary against murder, for example, every time I bumped into somebody, I would expect there to be a great likelihood the person would try to kill me. The context of a world without boundaries would not be Freedom. The context we would live within would be one of Fear.

To escape a world of Fear, it is essential to define words like Liberty and Freedom. It is essential to build support for any movement that rests on these powerful (but poorly understood) principles.

All Libertarians believe they stand for Freedom, but they are not all standing for the same Freedom.

Freedom always will have individual meaning to individual people, but creating a context that everyone understands, and can aspire to, provides a message for would-be supporters to rally around. In addition to setting proper boundaries, creating a specific context for Freedom inside the Libertarian movement can offer a narrative story that other Americans can relate to and stand behind.

Ownership and Control over one’s life is the Libertarian context of Freedom.

Ownership and control over my own destiny—that is the valuable boundary that has been stolen from Americans. That is the hole cut in the fence of our liberty by the government we entrusted to keep the criminals on the other side.

That is the message Libertarians promote, but do not articulate well. That is the narrative the rest of the public should hear. When asked, “Why is it important to support Libertarians?”, every Libertarian should say, “Because YOU have a right to ownership and control over your life. Here are the many ways the current system has robbed you of those things. Number one…” Etc.

The beauty of actual freedom, as a good friend of mine described it, is that it removes artificial restrictions on my ability to achieve what I have unfettered access to be enlightened to desire.

That is to say, other than the natural unbreakable laws of reality (the context of what is fundamentally real), there are no synthetically designed limitations against achieving what I can imagine desiring.

I should note the words in my friend’s definition were carefully chosen to protect against the future. “…Removes artificial restriction on my ability” was chosen instead of “removes man-made restriction”, for example, because a day may come when computers or something other than Man is empowered to set the boundaries of Freedom. My friend did not choose “enlightened to desire”, but rather “unfettered access to be…enlightened to desire”. For someone to desire, he must be able to imagine what he desires; he must have access to his mind. It is easy to see a dystopian future when the ability to desire something may be modified through eugenics, genetics, or George Orwell’s infamous “Thought Police”.

I am very fond of my friend’s definition—it is the best I have heard. However, without full explanation, it is a lot to remember, let alone for most people to understand.

I have left a trail to my own definition throughout this writing. To me, the definition of Freedom must be straightforward enough for most people to grab its feeling upon first hearing it. It must also allow deeper consideration to engage the interest, curiosity, and conversation of those who care. It must be personal (because individual freedom will always be defined by the individual) yet it must provide a context everyone gets.

The definition of Freedom as I see it, then, is this:

Freedom is one’s context for ownership and control over one’s life.

That, to me, is something worth fighting for.

—Michael James Salamey

Tags:

This entry was posted by Michael Salamey on Sunday, February 15th, 2009 at 2:13 am and is filed under Articles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.