Myths about Freedom

From elsewhere. I didn't write this, I only asked one of my friends to forward it to me when they read bits of it. Just felt like sharing it, as I found it interesting.

The John Maxwell Co.

FULL FLEDGED FREEDOM

On the Fourth of July Americans light up the sky with fireworks to celebrate their freedom. Yet, as the United States commemorates its 235th birthday, two-thirds of the country believes America is heading in the wrong direction. What accounts for the widespread pessimism in “The Land of the Free?” Certainly, economic woes have dampened the national outlook, but the malaise runs deeper than the pocketbook. Perhaps Americans are unhappy because they have lost touch with the true meaning of the freedom they cherish and so heartily celebrate on Independence Day.

Over the years, Americans have subscribed to three myths, or half-truths, about freedom. This partial understanding of freedom undercuts relationships, enfeebles the rule of law, and leads to an aversion to responsibility. By looking briefly at each myth, this article endeavors to aid leaders in rediscovering the essence of authentic freedom.

Myth #1: Freedom is doing what I want to do.

The Founding Fathers designed the United States government to keep citizens free from oppression. Americans don’t like being told what to do, and undoubtedly protection from tyranny has immense value. Yet insisting on the liberty to do as one pleases, when taken to the extreme, both isolates and debilitates people. Individuals bent on fulfilling their every desire overindulge their appetites and wreck their relationships.

For the Founding Fathers, freedom depended on more than just the removal of oppression. They understood that freedom most fully expresses itself in a relationship characterized by unity, sharing, and accountability. They named the new country that they created, “The United States of America” since its existence rested upon the mutual commitment of 13 separate colonies. In the system of government they devised, the states shared power with the federal government. None of the states could break off and do its own thing, but neither could the federal government dictate to the states how to conduct all of their affairs. Additionally, the Founders divided power between three distinct branches of government, creating a system of checks and balances in which each branch always remains answerable to another.

American pop culture often idealizes the singleness of college years as the phase of life when a person experiences the pinnacle of freedom. Yet the Founders actually may have regarded this unattached, self-focused, and largely unaccountable season of life as the time when freedom is most at risk. Instead, they likely would seen a healthy marriage, with its give-and-take, joint commitment, and shared sacrifices, as a better metaphor for the apex of freedom. For the Founders, freedom was not just about independence, but also about linking up with others to make a valuable contribution to the world.

Myth #2: Freedom means doing away with restrictions.

The American Revolution was fueled by the colonial backlash to heavy taxes levied by the British Crown. The sense of injustice felt by Americans was not due to the tax itself, but to the fact that residents of the colonies had no representation in Parliament, where the tax laws were enacted. The colonists wanted to be free from a system of government in which they were subject to decisions of legislators on the other side of the ocean.

Over time, the original protest against arbitrary taxation has given way to a prevailing American attitude which instinctively opposes all limits on behavior. Increasingly, people in the United States equate freedom with the elimination of rules. However, the fact that freedom involves limits seems painfully obvious at a time when so many Americans suffer from indebtedness and obesity. Clearly, setting a budget aids the quest for financial freedom, and faithfully observing a diet helps to keep a person free from physical ailments. Budgeting and dieting, by imposing limits, bring much-needed structure that protects freedom rather than curtailing it.

Myth #3: Freedom is a function of a person’s surroundings.

Most people think that others determine their freedom. They believe that liberty depends on external conditions. Consequently, when they encounter problems in society, they’re more likely to blame the system than to volunteer a solution.

Genuine freedom, however, is an inside job, and each person must take responsibility to cultivate it. As Dwight D. Eisenhower observed, “Freedom has its life in the hearts, the actions, the spirit of men and so it must be daily earned and refreshed—else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die.” Freedom is not simply the political inheritance of present-day Americans, but also their daily challenge. In the words of Franklin Roosevelt, “In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved.”

Summary

Over the centuries, the American understanding of freedom has atrophied to the point where many people only partly grasp its meaning. While it’s true that freedom signifies the absence of oppressive rulers and rules, genuine freedom involves much more than the removal of external restraint. Freedom occurs when people join together and share their strengths on behalf of a common cause, when they live within the bounds of well-chosen limitations, and when they accept their share of responsibility for creating a better world. At its core, freedom is relational, regulative, and responsible.

© 2011 THE JOHN MAXWELL COMPANY, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

So he's saying that freedom includes both positive and negative freedoms? Okay then.

That was kind of the vibe I got, too. But it does explain why it's important for political uprisings (like Libya) to do these things more or less on their own. They must earn their freedom for themselves, we can't give it to them.

"I became free when I learned how to be me."

Think that's relevant?

Romanticized view of the founding fathers, there.

That's the entire United States governmental and political philosophy in a nutshell, really. There are really only two kinds of people in this country, if one wants to oversimplify: those who think the Founding Fathers built something designed to last, from a functional standpoint, forever and which is something that is still useful in its entirely and a practical guideline for government today, and those who think the Founding Fathers were shortsighted and that the Constitution or at least aspects of it ceased to be relevant sometime around when the United States was vaporizing two cities in Japan with memorably-named nuclear warheads.

Those two viewpoints are obviously variable, but think about it this way: the entire political system of the US is built on a document ratified in the late 1700s, which is several singularities into the past. Either you have to believe that the people who founded the country and built the principles it bases itself off of were well-meaning and intelligent people who may or may not have had a case of slight Values Dissonance, but whose opinions are still valid, or that our entire governmental position is flawed and the country is destined to collapse if we keep using it. What other option is there to take?

edited 27th Jul '11 2:05:34 PM by USAF713

How does slavery fit into all of this?

Stepping away from the founding father aspect of the article, what about the basic premise suggested by the three points - 1) I do what I like, 2) I don't need no stinking rules and 3) it's this crappy environment holding me down?

T Hose things are pretty universal as stuff people want/believe its just that its a bit more pronounced in the USA owing to too much of an emphasis on "Manifest Destiny" and "Rugged Individualism".

As much as I would love to throw in with anyone seeking to refute Libertarianism, there seems to be a lot of Personal Dictionary in this.

This article seems to be filled with a lot of buzzwords.

Josef - see, I think that's what the article is trying to demonstrate. That our culture has shifted away from... something... to being all about that rugged individualism and "you can't tell me what to do" and all that other stuff. Or something like that.

In light of tea partiers who are pushing for absolutely no tax increases even as our budget is about to run into a wall, they take the "no taxation without representation" thing and truncate it to "no taxation", period. Hey look - you have representation now, and just maybe it's time to wake up and see that "well okay, maybe we need to do this and that and the other thing" to get things to work.

Or is it just me who sees it like that?

It seems he's playing a sly little bait-and-switch game with the word, "freedom".

Well, here's the dictionary definitions...

1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.

2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.

3. the power to determine action without restraint.

4. political or national independence.

5. personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.

6. exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually followed by from ): freedom from fear.

7. the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.

8. ease or facility of movement or action: to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.

9. frankness of manner or speech.

10. general exemption or immunity: freedom from taxation.

11. the absence of ceremony or reserve.

12. a liberty taken.

13. a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation: freedom to levy taxes.

14. civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.

15. the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.

16. the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will: to have the freedom of a friend's library.

17. Philosophy . the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination. Compare necessity ( def. 7 ).

Hmmm, interesting.

edited 27th Jul '11 4:35:04 PM by pvtnum11

I disagree with the third choice of myth—freedom is a matter of the restrictions placed upon you, whether by yourself or by others. It's meaningless to say you're free to break the law if doing so will bring harsh punishment. (Yes, there's such a thing as civil disobedience, but that's not a matter of being free—that's a matter of acting to advocate change that will bring freedom.)

edited 27th Jul '11 6:55:00 PM by feotakahari

I was just thinking the other day that I find the term 'freedom' to be sort of useless in itself without any other qualifiers. I only care about the freedom to do or have specific things, not just the nebulous idea of 'freedom woooo'.

Egosit anarchist Max Stirner defined freedom as doing whatever one has the might to do. PoliticalIdeologies

edited 28th Jul '11 7:01:30 AM by secretist

It started "moving away" from that in around about the early to mid 18th century. The colonisation of the West and the south lead to people assuming that American arms and armaments could do anything and all it needed was spit and elbow grease.

The subsequent mytholigising of the Wild West and the abject failure of prohibition brought about a grand resurgence in the idea that "I don't need no-ones rules". -srhug- after that it all just trickles through to now, with most of the post war children not remembering the great depression except how their parents talk about it, and even then they see it as something that can't happen again.

All this eventually leads into a nation that ends up with the strong feeling of freedom unfortunatly married to the idea that they don't have to do anything for anyone else.

Mind if I quote that?

I look at freedom as more of a means than an end. You have freedom in order to live a more comfortable life.