Freedom: Is It a Mere Slogan?

All of this stuff about Trump, symbolism, cops, monuments, rioting, and so on, has me thinking about freedom. What the hell is it anyway? In assessing freedom, I will address the nature of authority, the exaggerated scandals of monuments and Founding Father-shaming, and a host of other things (but, thankfully, I DO NOT discuss facemasks in this particular piece, other than to say right here that, in my view, it's more of a medical/scientific concern about limiting the spread of a potentially deadly virus).

Freedom: Is It a Mere Slogan?

It's easy to scoff at the word "freedom" nowadays because the word has been so corrupted and devalued by vacuous politicians, it almost seems to be undefined. However, let's just assume that freedom is a legitimate concept that society should sustain. That's not a very lofty assumption. Still, to sustain freedom, a society must define what freedom is.

Is it possible to believe in absolute freedom — meaning you can do anything you want, at all times, with no negative consequences? Sure, it's possible to support that idea, but it fails miserably in theory and practice. What if your freedom encroaches on the freedom of another? What then? So, if we attempt to sound wise and say, "There is only one fundamental thing in life and that is the extent of freedom," it still merits some caveats, almost instantly. In fact, I'll be bold and say this would be true for most, even without my writing these words.

The ruth is, in my experience, there is no 100% foolproof definition of freedom. While one might cite a few "must-reads" on the topic, I don't find there's some massive, all-wise, all-knowing tome containing the absolute best answers to life's definitions, let alone all of life's problems. In other words, this will probably always be an imperfect issue, is not largely insoluble. The best rule of thumb seems to be something like the so-called golden rule of treating others as you want to be treated.

As simplistic as that sounds, it strikes me as a decent idea. In fact, I'd even call it common sense.

The problem is, as they say, nothing's so uncommon as common sense. No matter how well we might generally behave, there will surely be times where we fall short. Of course, we also have to deal with issues like mental illness, broadly including depression and substance abuse, which can arguably fundamentally alter how we behave. We know we have different moods on different days, sometimes even corresponding with the weather. All of these factors, by themselves, can pose challenges to a solid definition of that golden rule, and render freedom into a more complex matter.

There are also problems contained within applying fairness itself, created by our imperfections. Human beings have an amazing ability to create double standards, to be hypocritical, to justify and rationalize their shortcomings (or, of course, the shortcomings of others). Due to these biases, it seems any conception of freedom is going to struggle in withstanding much scrutiny. At best, we can try to steer things right in a limited fashion. We can try to detect our stupid biases.

What Makes Authority Legitimate? (Hint: It's Not Fawning Over Flags, Founders & Monuments)

As much as I pride myself as having some anarchic leanings, I also try not to let them cloud my judgment, either. In short, I don't bother calling myself a "real anarchist," or anything like that. However, I do try to shape a standard by which I can deduce the legitimacy of a claim to authority. My standard example is the parent or guardian of a child. Most people will grant this authority some legitimacy, recognizing that a young child (especially a baby) isn't as mentally equipped to take care of itself.

However, do we tend to give parents unlimited authority over a child? Do we say they have the freedom to do whatever they want? It's safe to say that, in most cases, no, we do not. To me, a very similar logic ought to govern how we look at others who claim authority. For example, I don't want a dictator to say, "There is freedom for me, but not for the thee — the hapless herd, the mob, the crowd. " In fact, it is actually that same crowd that grants such iron-willed dictators their power. So, ironically, by condescending to their illegitimacy, such authority is all but admitting to his own buffoonish state.

In reality, this same "herd mentality" is precisely what we must avoid if we want a leader who will legitimately understand and serve our collective interests. The problem is, such authorities get stuck in their condescending mode. They end up depending on our stupid and servile nature, to the point where they actively encourage it in sheer anti-intellectualism.

The F'd Up Foundering Fathers

While I don't fawn over Americans Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson actually put it extremely well: "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."

Oddly enough, Thomas Jefferson himself proverbially stands at a crossroads of American culture. There are some who think we should essentially marvel at his monuments, almost our of worship, and who give any critics a severe tongue-lashing for denigrating his character. However, let's be clear on this point: Thomas Jefferson was a very flawed, even evil, person in some key ways —both for having slaves at all and for being a rapist of Sally Hemmings. This is not merely an "SJW woke talking point." It is simply a fact if we find slavery and rape to be reprehensible.

However, as awkward and awful as that is, Jefferson nevertheless did have some relatively good ideas about governance for the time. To me, the ultimate conclusion is that, honestly, it isn't an either/or equation. We can respect some aspects of historical figures while recognizing them for the terrible people they sometimes were. We can learn to avoid repeating what they've done.

It just so happens that, in my opinion, we should also avoid letting anyone systematically brutalize people. Looking yet again at slavery, that is a system which wouldn't have persisted as much, as often, had people applied the pesky golden rule while questioning the nature of authority as a whole. An intellectually engaged (that is, sufficiently educated) society wouldn't cower in horror as "leftists" denigrate these supposed leaders. Maybe they shouldn't be as quick to tear down statues and all that, but how much of our well-being truly hinges on monuments? If removing/toppling/defacing a few statues is enough to utterly cripple our understanding of ourselves, who are we?

I would say we've actually failed to understand ourselves if we truly weep so hard over fallen monuments, which are mere symbols. In other words, I assume we'd fail to live up to those standards set forth in Jefferson's own dictum about education. If we are guided purely by emotion and things like flags, statues, and other symbols should enthrall our minds and our collective judgment, we should educate ourselves, and each other, and come up with a saner set of priorities which don't involve groveling to mere objects. As Jefferson himself said: "Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day."

Individual Freedom: It's Sort of a Thing...I Guess

Individual freedom seems like a decent concept, right? If I could encapsulate this idea, I think it would read something like this: There is only one sort of freedom for each and every individual person, and it is that in which we live our lives. The problem is, yet again, there is a wide variety of contradictory freedoms, and it's not like the average human is truly like an individual island. We interact with people, have different life stages where our freedoms are perceived differently, interact with different segments of the population in unique ways, etc.

So, to say we have individual freedom is true, but only in a very limited sense. In fact, such a sentiment can easily end up looking like a lie. There are many, many ways, in which my freedom is restricted in everyday life, and I wouldn't even say all of these ways are particularly bad. "Individual freedom," therefore, ends up sounding like a lie, and perhaps even a vicious one, if I end up doing any stupid and horrible things in its name.

If I act terribly in the name of my own freedom (which certainly happens), then the best thing I could say is: The lie is there for all of us. Individual freedom is actually just an ideal to comfort ourselves, to a large degree, much live "public" and "private." If you really think fences and walls make you safe from prying eyes or possible attackers, then it's probably a comforting illusion. Privacy barely exists, except for if someone truly doesn't know a detail. It is conditional, and often the condition is very flimsy.

The only way you can truly be free and safe is if you completely wall yourself off from all threats and do everything you possibly can to be impervious to external threats. Well, good luck with that, because even that probably won't work! In all likelihood, there probably is no “light at the end of the tunnel.” Freedom is not some almighty panacea, and it's a very relative and vulnerable concept, capable of being twisted every which way — including in the direction of slavery and totalitarian bootlicking.

But Maybe I'm Wrong!

There's another way to look at this. Am I being too soft on society here? Isn't it what prevents me from having my inherent, individual freedom? In other words, the lie is not in individual freedom bu in society telling us that we are not free to be ourselves. As with certain points before, there appears to be some truth (and other value) to this.

However, just like so many other things, this is fraught with caveats and potential pitfalls. If we're not careful, this "individual freedom vs. society" thinking also ends up looking like a lie. For starters, freedom is not inherent, but relative and conditional.

To an extent, I think most people depend on society for the things they enjoy. In fact, most of us prefer life that way. If we didn't, we would all be hermits in the hills. So I've crafted a bit of a compromise: You have relative and conditional freedom to do as you see fit, until you don't. You might fight for a perceived freedom, and maybe it's a legitimate pursuit, but this alone does not suggest you condition was inherent. If it had been, would any person, or the universe itself, have challenged it?

Society can jeopardize certain freedoms, for sure, and it often does so through systems of abusive power. It can lie to you, saying that you cannot be yourself, even if you're a good person who generally follows the golden rule. When a system of authority abuses you, it overwhelmingly is also lying about what freedom is. When they tell you what you must think and express, it becomes a problem, and they are demanding you lie to yourself. That is a very powerful lie, because if you believe in that lie for very long, then you end up believing in it for life.

At the same time, if the authority is correct and you're wrong, it should primarily seek to incentivize your understanding of the truth, rather than emphasize punishment. That is what a good parent would do, and it actually lives up to those Jefferson quotes from earlier (who, again, we needn't worship or harangue to understand those particular written sentiments).

Systems of authority will often lie right to your face, repeatedly and unabashedly, and they'll often make you feel guilty for expressing actual facts. As the saying goes: “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”.

On that note, the real way to establish a "free land," and individual freedom, is to seek education. If we have intellectual freedom, we are not completely invulnerable to all possible forms of attack, but we do better understand ourselves. We will better understand how to improve ourselves and the world around us. If we continue down a path of perpetual intellectual childhood and anti-intellectualism, freedom will stand as nothing but self-parody. In other words, freedom will end up standing in the way of itself until it starts to stave and self-devour.