Digest 16
Freedom and LIberty
Freedom: “The state of being free or at liberty…the power to determine action without restraint.”
Liberty: “Freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, etc.”
Source: excerpts from Random House Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary.
Notice the circular reasoning here: freedom is liberty; liberty is freedom. Of course we all know what liberty is because we have a common statement: “He took liberties with her and she called the cops.”
But seriously, folks, these are important words, and the more important a word is the more likely that everyone will have his or her personal definition. A not so common statement: “It takes one to know one is the basis of all communication.” Lacking common definitions for these important words, there is effectively no communication, just folks talking past each other.
Having established that real communication about such important words is unlikely, your correspondent will still make an attempt. Wish me luck, folks, because such a conversation is fraught with pitfalls.
Predictably, there are many common sayings about these issues. We might start with “freedom is not free” (much like the “free” market that was the subject of the last issue of this digest, where nothing can be free). Webster may claim that freedom is “without restraint” but in the real world there are always restraints. Before going any further, we should be able to agree that individual freedom and collective freedom are very different animals.
In Diet For A Small Planet (1971) Frances Moore Lappe introduced me to the idea that freedom is based on security, by which she meant that insecurity limits freedom. Her primary concern was food security, naturaly, because as long as anyone is hungry, no one is really “free.” Eventually, there are not enough walls and police to protect those who have more than they need while others starve. Morality and gated communities notwithstanding.
I have heard that when asked why he spent so much time and personal resources on behalf of the needy when he could have been enjoying a comfortable retirement and the fruits of his remarkable career, Hank Aaron simply stated: “As long as anyone is down in that pit, no one is free.”
For years, I have chosen to point out that security is not possible without structure, an idea particularly offensive to those with libertarian views. Right now, the need for structure in the form of rules about masks and social distancing to protect us all from the ravages of this pandemic, are drawing howls of outrage from those who believe their freedom transcends the freedom of the rest of us to be protected from this virus—just one example among many highlighted during this crisis.
Another is the conflict between safety and the need to work, in order to have enough to eat and pay for shelter, a conflict that can only be resolved by an equally contentious issue: a guaranteed minimal income, sufficient to meet those basic needs when work is not possible or available.
The mayor of Stockton, California has a page in the 2021 preview magazine published by The Economist extolling his city’s $500 a month guaranteed income for all citizens of that city. Andrew Yang ran a campaign for the Presidential nomination by endorsing a $1000 guaranteed income for all Americans, so maybe this is an idea whose time is about to come. We shall see.
On the other hand, it’s amazing how quickly we are warned that money without work will destroy the motivation of the recipients, even though there are already millions (usually called “rentiers”) who do very well collecting their income from property, absentee businesses, or even money itself (see Henry Miller’s quote about money which I featured in issue #15 of this digest.) Are they a “different kind of folks” like those who are up in that coach Bellamy described in Looking Backward (see issue #2)?
John Stuart Mill is considered the father of the Libertarian movement because of his seminal essay, “On Liberty.” As with most philosophical treatises, this one contains several thousand words, when a ccuple of hundred would have sufficed. I will attempt here to summarize the assertion I consider relevant to this issue, but interested readers can find the complete text (as I did) on-line, albeit with some difficulty:
“The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle…that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
Again, the original essay is long and complex. It would be nice to believe that all who claim to be “Libertarians” have actually read that essay, but it’s not likely. Many prefer to believe that liberty is the right to do whatever one wishes regardless of the consequences.