Americans are a freedom-loving people.  But we do not often think about what this means.  Freedom means different things to different people.  At this extraordinary moment in our nation’s history, it might be wise to consider what we understand it to mean.

Two distinct views of freedom have emerged during the past two centuries. 

One is simply the idea that we should be free to do or to be what we are able to do or to be without human interference.  The second is the idea of having full control over our own initiative and purpose as self-directed individuals.

These two concepts seem quite similar at first glance, but they differ substantially in their implications.

The first involves the absence of coercion—the wish simply to be left alone.  It asks that we be assured of a minimum area of personal freedom in such manner that our humanity is not denied or degraded.

Recognizing the potential for personal freedom to impact negatively on the freedom of others, this view seeks freedom for the many.  It asks only that we be guaranteed a reasonable measure of completely free space around ourselves.

Perhaps we would also agree that, at the very least, the liberty of religion, opinion, expression, and property need to be protected from arbitrary interference.

The second concept is quite different.  This view insists on unrestricted self-assertion and absolute control of one’s own life regardless of the consequences this imposes on others.

Deriving from the will to control one’s own life and destiny, the second concept has significant consequences for society.

Clearly those seeking such liberty perceive themselves as responsible persons possessed of good judgment and perhaps exceptional wisdom, who are able to make choices based solely on their own ideas and purposes.

However, given the natural human resistance to rational and moral limits, this attitude can easily disrupt the equilibrium in communities, or in society as a whole.

These two concepts of freedom have come into serious conflict with one another over the course of the last two centuries.

An insistence that we should be free to do as we wish cannot be exercised in isolation. It readily evolves into a belief that we may have the right to influence or control the lives of other people.

It is convenient to assume that we know best, and some people think they know the true interests of other people better than those people do themselves.

This view gained traction during the 19th century, hitching a ride with the powerful Enlightenment belief that all of reality must ultimately be harmonious, and that science and reason would give humankind knowledge of a single unified truth.

It followed, therefore, that fully rational thinkers would never disagree and that conflicting values or truths were ultimately impossible.

Consequently, a number of well-known thinkers became convinced that if reason and rationality demand that our values must coincide in a free and “just” society, they must be made to coincide by any means necessary.

The historian of ideas, Isaiah Berlin has written about this concern in his famous essay, “Two Concepts of Liberty.”  He reports that Enlightenment philosophers became convinced that the better educated members of society had a right and responsibility to create and maintain a “free” society.

They believed we should do for citizens what they would do for themselves if they possessed the rationality and competence to understand their own best interest.

Thus, political philosophy rationalized the idea that it can be valid to restrain people in their own interest.

In this extraordinary view, writes Isaiah Berlin, “freedom is not freedom to do what is irrational, or stupid, or wrong.  To force empirical selves into the right pattern is no tyranny, but liberation.”

“Liberty,” he continues, “so far from being incompatible with authority, becomes virtually identical with it.”

Needless to say, this problem raises substantial concerns about our understanding of justice, morality, and governance.

Can it ever be justified or appropriate to place pressure on citizens for being, in our view, “irrational?” 

It was not long before this idealistic absurdity led to the nightmares of totalitarian despotism and total war in the 20^th century. 

Tom

Regular readers can look for the next post on or about October 1. My forthcoming book is “Liberty and the American Idea,” subtitled “Rebuilding the Foundations.”  It is now in the hands of my publisher and will be available at Amazon and other booksellers very soon.  Sample chapters can be found at the top of the homepage.