Freedom

Freedom is a deceptively simple concept.

 

In English, freedom is a confusing concept because it is poorly defined. Freedom and its synonym liberty are described as “the quality or state of being free,” while free is “not costing or charging anything.”

 

In Spanish, freedom or libertad avoids this confusion. Libertad is the “natural human ability to act or not to act, in one way or the other, and to be responsible for one’s actions.” Libertad is “a right of superior value in democratic systems that ensures the self-determination of individuals.” Freedom and self-determination are dependent upon choice and only exist when people can take responsibility for the outcome of their decisions.

 

Freedom entails the absence of pressures that eliminate the ability to choose and take responsibility.  Obvious limitations on choice and self-determination limit and help to define freedom as “the state of one who is not enslaved,” “imprisoned,” or under “physical restraint.” Free people are “not obstructed, restricted, or impeded” and “not confined to a particular position or place.”

 

While freedom is an inherently contradictory concept, the freedom of movement provides an excellent case study for understanding liberty. The freedom of movement represents personal freedom as well as a "social, political, or economic" right, among others. 

 

Fundamental freedom

 

The liberty to move is personal when each individual decides where to locate themselves. The freedom to move within a community enables individuals to choose their social relationships and associations, forming the foundation of the political freedoms of speech, assembly, and petition. Indeed, freedom refers to “a political right,” and liberals value freedom of movement as a political freedom.

 

The freedom of movement also forms the foundation of economic freedom. To freely choose where to conduct economic activity, like working or shopping, an individual mustn’t be “confined to a particular position or place.” If an individual is confined to a particular job or store, for instance, then this individual has no choices and, therefore, limited economic freedom. 

 

The freedom of movement includes the freedom to migrate. The ability to leave one’s state enables individuals to enjoy political independence, as free individuals can choose a new government to live under. Indeed, the world’s most iconic Statue of Liberty exists to welcome immigrants to the United States.

 

At the same time, it’s not unreasonable to place tolerable restrictions upon the freedom of movement. Speed limits, for example, ensure safety while traveling. Similarly, laws regulating migration and immigration help hold society together by ensuring that immigrants do not pose a threat to society. Laws requiring immigrants to obtain a medical screening for communicable disease or a criminal background check, for example, ensure safety in immigration just like a speed limit ensures safety on the highway. 

 

Conflicting freedoms

 

Freedom is almost always in tension with itself, so limiting freedom is almost always necessary, as with speed limits. Indeed, the freedom to move effectively requires rules, whether on the road or in immigration. Without red lights and stop signs, deadly accidents happen often, and the freedom to travel is limited. 

 

Still, a more explicit example of two freedoms in tension is the freedom to murder. The ability to murder is a freedom, as individuals can choose to murder or not to murder. Moreover, murder limits the freedom of the victim, who is unable to make any choices after being murdered. One man’s freedom to murder is therefore entirely incompatible with his victim’s freedom to live.

 

While murder is freedom, murder meets another definition of freedom as “the unbridled violation of law and good custom.” Beyond violating the customs of kindness and respect, among others, murder eliminates the self-determination and freedom of another human. When faced with situations where two freedoms collide, like murder, liberals prioritize self-determination over the rampant violation of good customs.

 

At the same time, freedom often yields ugly results. Liberty can refer to “a breach of etiquette or propriety” and “licentiousness,” while “debauchery” can also be a synonym for freedom. While liberalism prioritizes self-determination over vile violations of good customs, liberals are unwilling to curtail licentiousness or debauchery when self-determination is not threatened.

 

Sexual freedom provides a clear example. Some sexual freedoms, like the freedom to rape, shatter another human’s self-determination, and therefore, liberalism vehemently opposes the freedom to rape. Other sexual freedoms, like producing or accessing pornography, rely upon consumers and producers to freely choose to engage with pornography. Pornographic freedom, while licentious, represents the fundamental right to self-determination and does not limit anyone’s self-determination when consensual, so liberalism prescribes robust pornographic freedom.

 

The Tolerance Test

 

The liberal tenet of tolerance also provides guardrails against unbridled freedoms that limit the self-determination of others. Generally, if freedom can be tolerated, then liberalism supports that freedom. Murder, rape, and segregation, beyond representing naked intolerance, are not easily tolerated as they destroy self-determination.

 

Other freedoms, like the freedom to use marijuana, are more easily tolerated than not. The failed attempt to prohibit marijuana has resulted in the deaths of countless law enforcement officers, straining the backbone of the rule of law and burdening the entire Earth with cartel violence. Allowing private, responsible marijuana use, on the other hand, requires nothing of non-marijuana users but respect for the self-determination and bodily autonomy of cannabis users.

 

Taken a step further, the freedom to use drugs, like marijuana, while operating a motor vehicle is not easily tolerated. Drunk and intoxicated driving threatens the safety of other drivers and has proved deadly and intolerable. Smoking cigarettes while driving, on the other hand, prevents nicotine addicts from becoming agitated behind the wheel. Prohibiting drunk driving and enabling driving while smoking cigarettes, therefore, helps every driver and pedestrian to remain free or “unburdened or exempt from harm or danger.”

 

Freedom and Peace

 

Freedom entails “the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint,” and thus freedom is incompatible with violent coercion. Peace and freedom are alike in that both require security or “freedom from danger.” Indeed, threats of violence preclude the possibility of peace and liberty alike, as threats intend to coerce a specific outcome, eliminate choice, and thereby destroy freedom.

 

Peace and freedom reinforce one another, but tales of wars to defend freedom riddle the history books. From the American Revolutionary War to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, freedom is almost always the given justification for war.

 

At the same time, war has proven to limit freedom. During World War II, for example, the United States welcomed totalitarian policies like forcing Japanese-Americans into concentration camps. Contemporary Ukraine, meanwhile, has curtailed the freedoms of speech and the press as part of its war effort.

 

To support peace, freedom must be clearly defined as a multi-faceted concept that extends to personal, cultural, social, economic, political, and many other realms. When individuals and governments justify war and violence by citing freedom, freedom is almost always narrowly redefined to refer solely to the absence of outside domination, detached from any other sense of the word.

 

Such outlooks on liberty, however, do little to further mutual understanding, peace, or freedom. To protect freedom, liberals must refocus the conversation about freedom onto the dictionary definition, prioritizing choice, responsibility, and self-determination. It’s past time that the childish, disingenuous “freedom fighters'' reckon with the core meaning of freedom and set aside their circular dependence upon freedom as something “not costing or charging anything.”