By Douglas Williams
Monday, September 05, 2016
The inescapable beauty of the drive through the Colorado
mountains last July Fourth weekend caused my mind to wander to the famed lyric,
“of purple mountains majesty,” and next, due to my roots in classic R&B,
Donny Hathaway’s legendary “Someday We’ll All be Free.”
Well, I am fortunate enough to have Hathaway on my iPhone
playlist and wisely let that ballad loose. It did what Hathaway perhaps
desired. It moved me, and made me examine my own and our country’s relationship
with freedom. In that examination it became abundantly clear that we have
misunderstood and belittled the true essence of freedom.
The concept of freedom is now erroneously championed as
“I can do whatever I want.” Freedom has been reduced to a completely
self-serving ideal that proclaims because I am free I am guaranteed to do and
have particular things in life. This concept and the actions and attitudes it
produces are key components in the “me and mine” attitude our nation is struggling
with. Many are even interpreting freedom to mean that no one should disagree
with or fight their views.
Freedom has to be bigger, deeper and more than this.
Freedom at its core is the ability to do what I ought, not simply what I want.
I will demonstrate with examples.
Am I Free to Do
What Is Right?
The father in North Korea should be able to tell his
children the truth about their leader. He could better his children by
explaining why persons who disagree with that leader are in work camps. He may
desire to do so, and he ought to, but the price of being taken from his family
means he is not free to do so.
Freedom is always exercised to benefit another. It’s not
as simple as thinking the father speaking truth in North Korea simply has to be
brave enough to face the punishment, and hopeful enough to believe he may spark
bravery in others. Actions or speeches that improve or bring attention to only
my desires at others’ expense are shortsighted and become efforts of
entitlement, not freedom.
Declaring that I lack freedom because someone will not
hire me due to my race is a misapplication of the term. A particular
opportunity may have been taken away by one person, but not my freedom to do
something that benefits others. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights ensure
my freedom, because they set me free to speak against that employer’s action
and hopefully plant seeds that stop the same action from happening to others. I
have freedom because I can do “what I ought” without trepidation.
First, We Have to
Agree on What’s Right
This catches those who claim there are no moral absolutes
in a quandary. To exercise freedom, which inherently includes having that
exercise protected, there must be some moral consensus on what is right, what
is worth fighting and sacrificing for. If there is no consensus, there is no
way to determine if I am fighting for freedoms or for anarchy and tyranny.
Despite arguments from the misinformed that many Founding Fathers were Deists
(who incidentally still believed in the Christian God, but made his active role
more debatable), it is clear that our Founding Father’s consensus was based on
Judeo-Christian tenets at the least and pure Christian teachings at most.
Even if we bring up examples in which they did not
practice those beliefs—slavery, extramarital affairs, etc.—that does not deny
what they wrote and affixed their signatures to. Therefore in this nation holds
to a definition of what we consider sacred truths and principles to be
protected. These are our reference for what one “ought to do.”
Another misunderstanding of freedom is evident when one’s
“freedoms” interferes with rights of another. Your freedoms end where mine
begin. Our government’s denial of this principle is a catalyst of many current
social, financial, and attitudinal problems. Everyone is free to pursue higher
education, for example; however, it is immoral for anyone to demand that I pay
for another’s pursuit. Whether the pursuit is beneficial or morally right is
subjective and irrelevant. Your desire for something cannot mandate my support
of it.
Just Because You
Can Doesn’t Mean You Should
Let’s get our hands a little dirtier and apply this to
deeper political issues, remembering the earlier principle that freedom allows
me “to do what I ought and not simply what I want.” Consider abortion. Abortion
is not a freedom. One may have a legal right to the procedure, but it only
benefits one person of the many involved (and that is questionable).
In it, one person’s act infringes upon at least one other
person’s right, that of the child to its life. It also abrogates the rights of
fathers, grandparents, and other family members to provide for and love their
child or grandchild. Abortion is a
choice to avoid the consequences of one’s previous choices, to the detriment of
another human life.
Accomplishing an act does not equal having the freedom to
do it. Surprisingly, a free action can subvert freedoms. For example, people
clearly have the freedom to speak publicly—let’s say against Donald Trump.
However, when the government supports or allows that speech to block others
from supporting him, that is subverting freedom. That act then infringes on
another’s freedom to exercise the same right. Conversely, if those at a Trump
rally decide no one can speak against him, they too are subverting freedom, not
protecting it.
Political correctness, judicial activism, attacks on
religion and exercise of the Second Amendment all fall in this category of
subverting freedoms. Each ultimately punishes citizens for exercising freedoms,
changing how those freedoms are practiced or unconstitutionally subverting
social consensus. It becomes onerous to practice these freedoms as intended,
and infringes on where another’s freedoms begin. One can practice these rights
or freedoms as one sees fit, but it is a misunderstanding of freedom to insist
all must practice the freedom as a small contingent deems correct.
Defining Where My
Rights End and Yours Begin
Freedom is a grand and broad idea. It requires accepting
others’ rights to express and practice differing ideals without forcing others
to comply. That is where personal and national independence are born. I am free
to choose from a plethora of opinions, practices, and actions without generated
consequences. A generated consequence means results produced independent of the
choice. If I smoke, I’m risking my health; the generated consequence would be
someone petitioning to remove my children from my home because smoking is
unhealthy.
We have misunderstood freedom. People are so sure they
are right that they limit the speech of those who criticize them or their
lifestyle. We have misunderstood freedom when we enact a law outside of the
legal process for doing so. We have misunderstood freedom when we say I lack
something and it must be because another has too much, so we must take from
them.
Freedom is designed for one consequence only: to promote
equal opportunity but never to ensure an equal outcome. We embrace freedom to
put all in the game, but effort and preparation determine if we score, not
manipulating the rules. Anything else for any reason is a misunderstanding of
freedom, and it is running rampant.
No comments:
Post a Comment