Freedom

A Discussion of What it is, What it Means, and What it Can Be.

As Americans profusely use the word “freedom,” do they truly understand what it means?

For Americans, freedom is central to their patriotism, much like duty is to the English. They value it deeply and strive to protect it. However, they haven't fully understood its true essence. Everyone has their own perception of freedom, and these ideas can vary greatly. However, we lack a clear understanding of what freedom truly is—its essence and its impact. Moreover, each American has their own distinct interpretation of freedom, which can vary greatly from person to person.

However, Americans are living in a time when potential tyrants exploit the concept of freedom to advance their agendas among an unmindful public. Since many have been miseducated and socially conditioned to adopt a “my country right or wrong” attitude, it becomes not just necessary but crucial to discuss the meaning and implications of freedom. After spending a professional lifetime examining the U.S. Constitution, I view freedom as a resource that requires proper regulation and oversight. The Framers, reflecting Newton’s Third Law, thought that every extension of freedom could cause an equal amount of chaos. Therefore, their document emphasizes the need for limits and control to manage the forces unleashed during the revolution, rather than letting them spiral out of control.

In our everyday vocabulary, the word has become so familiar that many use it without fully grasping its true meaning. The Oxford-American Dictionary defines freedom as “the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.” Politically, it generally pertains to actions that avoid servitude and indenture. Like justice, this definition clarifies the meaning but does not define its limits.

In his pioneering 1651 work “Leviathan,” political philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that freedom falls into two specific categories: positive and negative. “Positive freedom" refers to a condition without political authority and laws, also called "the state of nature.” In this state, prioritizing one’s benefit is all that matters. There are no rights, privileges, property, or ownership, making civilization impossible. Instead of citizens cooperating for the common good—a core element of society—they focus on self-interest. Hobbes described human life in this state as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short," highlighting the danger of such self-absorbed freedom.

“Negative freedom” is based on the idea that individuals relinquish some of their liberty to a governing authority when leaving the state of nature. This government establishes laws that everyone is expected to follow for the common good, with penalties for violations. The collective aims to benefit the many over the individual. Consequently, a citizen’s freedom is characterized by the absence or silence of law; if no law explicitly bans an action, it is permitted. Hobbes argues that only under these circumstances can concepts like property ownership and citizens’ rights exist.

Elevating ourselves from this chaos, we sought to form communities and establish what is called “civilization.” This process involved sacrificing some natural freedoms in exchange for security. Such order was established through laws we agree to abide by, our loyalty to a sovereign, and a social contract that links them all. In the United States, a nation built on Enlightenment principles rather than tribal ties, this social contract is embodied in the Constitution.

To philosophically define freedom as closely as possible can spark a dialogue among citizens beyond the exhausted ideologies that have already peaked. The focus shouldn’t be on which version of freedom is superior, but on how to combine drive, ambition, civility, and society to achieve a consensus on governance. Politics need not be vicious conflicts because, at our core, we are wise beings. We all recognize that freedom is essential; now, the critical question is what form it should take to benefit the most significant number of Americans.

Since the rise of predatory supply-side economics, which favors only the wealthy, this nation has experienced stagnation and a decline in living wages for most people. At the same time, only a select few have benefited. The complex deregulation process has left small and medium-sized businesses vulnerable, often causing them to fall to megastores. Over the past 45 years, real incomes for workers have decreased by approximately 50%, while the incomes of the wealthy have increased by 265%. It is clear which vision of freedom truly benefits the community and which does not.

There is also no discussion on how to attain political balance or establish such a state. Historically, this absence of debate has led Americans to oscillate between political extremes every two generations—a subconscious attempt to reconcile conflicting ideas. It is also evident that the ideologies of both parties have reached their limits, making new paradigms essential for the nation’s long-term survival, without relying solely on an exclusive party mentality.

In philosophically defining freedom—at least as close as we can get—it's hoped this can foster a dialogue among citizens beyond the conventional party-based ideologies that have already exhausted their relevance. Now, the focus isn't on which definition of freedom is superior, but on how to blend drive and ambition with empathy and civility, and to establish a governing consensus rooted in these principles. There's consensus that some limits on freedom are essential: the pressing issue is determining the form it should take to serve the greatest good of American citizens.

In doing so, we must remember Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion, which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, just as in every cause there is a consequence. While the rest of the world advances, America appears to have regressed to the era of the Robber Barons in the 19th century. The United States remains relevant primarily through its strong military, rather than its moral leadership based on the principles of freedom. Therefore, engaging in a discussion of what freedom means is vital for its survival.

It occurs to me that Americans profusely use the word “freedom,” but we do not truly understand what it means. And that is the greatest travesty of all.