Freedom at its core is the ability to do what I ought, not simply
what I want.
The inescapable beauty of the drive through
the Colorado mountains last July Fourth weekend caused my mind to wander to the
famed lyric, “of purple mountains majesty,” and next, due to my roots in
classic R&B, Donny Hathaway’s legendary “Someday We’ll All be Free.”
Well, I am fortunate enough to have
Hathaway on my iPhone playlist and wisely let that ballad loose. It did what
Hathaway perhaps desired. It moved me, and made me examine my own and our
country’s relationship with freedom. In that examination it became abundantly
clear that we have misunderstood and belittled the true essence of freedom.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S043B5fKXSM
The concept of freedom is now erroneously championed as “I can do
whatever I want.” Freedom has been reduced to a completely self-serving ideal
that proclaims because I am free I am guaranteed to do and have particular
things in life. This concept and the actions and attitudes it produces are key
components in the “me and mine” attitude our nation is struggling with. Many
are even interpreting freedom to mean that no one should disagree with or fight
their views.
Freedom has to be bigger, deeper and more
than this. Freedom at its core is the ability to do what I ought, not simply
what I want. I will demonstrate with examples.
Am I Free to Do What Is Right?
The father in North Korea should be able to
tell his children the truth about their leader. He could better his children by
explaining why persons who disagree with that leader are in work camps. He may
desire to do so, and he ought to, but the price of being taken from his family
means he is not free to do so.
Freedom is always exercised to benefit
another. It’s not as simple as thinking the father speaking truth in North
Korea simply has to be brave enough to face the punishment, and hopeful enough
to believe he may spark bravery in others. Actions or speeches that improve or
bring attention to only my desires at others’ expense are shortsighted and
become efforts of entitlement, not freedom.
Declaring that I lack freedom because
someone will not hire me due to my race is a misapplication of the term. A
particular opportunity may have been taken away by one person, but not my
freedom to do something that benefits others. The Constitution and the Bill of
Rights ensure my freedom, because they set me free to speak against that
employer’s action and hopefully plant seeds that stop the same action from
happening to others. I have freedom because I can do “what I ought” without
trepidation.
First, We Have to Agree on What’s Right
This catches those who claim there are no
moral absolutes in a quandary. To exercise freedom, which inherently includes
having that exercise protected, there must be some moral consensus on what is
right, what is worth fighting and sacrificing for. If there is no consensus,
there is no way to determine if I am fighting for freedoms or for anarchy
and tyranny. Despite arguments from the misinformed that many Founding Fathers
were Deists (who incidentally still believed in the Christian God, but made his
active role more debatable), it is clear that our Founding Father’s consensus
was based on Judeo-Christian tenets at the least and pure Christian teachings
at most.
Even if
we bring up examples in which they did not practice those beliefs—slavery,
extramarital affairs, etc.—that does not deny what they wrote and affixed their
signatures to. Therefore in this nation holds to a definition of what we
consider sacred truths and principles to be protected. These are our reference
for what one “ought to do.”
Another misunderstanding of
freedom is evident when one’s “freedoms” interferes with rights of another. Your
freedoms end where mine begin. Our government’s denial of this principle is a
catalyst of many current social, financial, and attitudinal problems. Everyone
is free to pursue higher education, for example; however, it is immoral for
anyone to demand that I pay for another’s pursuit. Whether the pursuit is
beneficial or morally right is subjective and irrelevant. Your desire for
something cannot mandate my support of it.
Just Because
You Can Doesn’t Mean You Should
Let’s get our hands a little dirtier and
apply this to deeper political issues, remembering the earlier principle that
freedom allows me “to do what I ought and not simply what I want.” Consider
abortion. Abortion is not a freedom. One may have a legal right to the
procedure, but it only benefits one person of the many involved (and that is
questionable).
In it, one person’s act infringes upon at
least one other person’s right, that of the child to its life. It also
abrogates the rights of fathers, grandparents, and other family members to
provide for and love their child or grandchild. Abortion is a choice to
avoid the consequences of one’s previous choices, to the detriment of another
human life.
Accomplishing an act does not equal having
the freedom to do it. Surprisingly, a free action can subvert freedoms.
For example, people clearly have the freedom to speak publicly—let’s say
against Donald Trump. However, when the government supports or allows that
speech to block others from supporting him, that is subverting freedom. That
act then infringes on another’s freedom to exercise the same right. Conversely,
if those at a Trump rally decide no one can speak against him, they too are
subverting freedom, not protecting it.
Political correctness, judicial activism,
attacks on religion and exercise of the Second Amendment all fall in this
category of subverting freedoms. Each ultimately punishes citizens for
exercising freedoms, changing how those freedoms are practiced or
unconstitutionally subverting social consensus. It becomes onerous to
practice these freedoms as intended, and infringes on where another’s freedoms
begin. One can practice these rights or freedoms as one sees fit, but it is a
misunderstanding of freedom to insist all must practice the freedom as a small
contingent deems correct.
Defining Where My Rights End and Yours Begin
Freedom is a grand and broad idea. It
requires accepting others’ rights to express and practice differing ideals
without forcing others to comply. That is where personal and national
independence are born. I am free to choose from a plethora of opinions,
practices, and actions without generated consequences. A generated consequence
means results produced independent of the choice. If I smoke, I’m risking my
health; the generated consequence would be someone petitioning to remove my
children from my home because smoking is unhealthy.
We have misunderstood freedom.
People are so sure they are right that they limit the speech of those who
criticize them or their lifestyle. We have misunderstood freedom when we enact
a law outside of the legal process for doing so. We have misunderstood freedom
when we say I lack something and it must be because another has too much, so we
must take from them.
Freedom is designed for one
consequence only: to promote equal opportunity but never to ensure an equal
outcome. We embrace freedom to put all in the game, but effort and preparation
determine if we score, not manipulating the rules. Anything else for any reason
is a misunderstanding of freedom, and it is running rampant.
W. Douglas Williams is the founder of Dominion PR and Marketing
and TheAVMart.com. Douglas's work has aired on ESPN, Oprah, CBN, CNN, and
scores of other networks. He holds a master's of marketing management from New
England College, and his crowning achievement is his relationship with his wife
and two sons. Follow him on Twitter @wdouglaswms.
