The Freedom Follies
What happens when libertarian thought is injected into society.
From our early history as a nation, the concept of individual liberty has been an essential component of our political and social DNA. When freed of the heavy-handed British monarchy, the Framers of the Constitution faced the dilemma of creating an effective national government while assuaging the population’s near-pathological distrust of a powerful centralized state. The result was to enshrine individual rights in the Constitution’s first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights. American mythology celebrates the idea that this is a “free country”. Most of us, regardless of our political leaning, oppose intrusion by the state into our private lives. We are jealous of our personal liberties and, as a consequence, desirous of minimal interference from government. In the 20th Century, the ideology which conflated individual liberty with limited government became known as libertarianism. Various strains of libertarian thought emerged, including supporters of free-market capitalism, anti-tax crusaders, and advocates for legalized marijuana. All shared a similar concept of the individual vis-a-vis the state.
The Social Contract
The concept of the Social Contract- the idea that individuals surrender some of their personal liberties in order to be a member of a group which in itself can provide its own set of rewards- underpins much of modern political theory. The idea of an implicit agreement between citizens and the state which guarantees most people the opportunity to live in a civilized society is accepted as the basis of modern political systems. It is also the cause of tension between the freedom of individuals and the restrictions placed on that freedom by government.
This tension is now on display as state and local governments, following the advice of medical professionals, attempt to stem the spread of Covid-19 by limiting business activity and enforcing social distancing and the wearing of masks. Segments of the population have opted to disregard these limitations, claiming that they are “free” to decide for themselves how to act. It is their “right”, they say, to live their lives as they see fit. Whether it is the result of ignorance of the individual’s responsibility to the society, or by rank selfishness, the most kindly description of this behavior is anti-social.
But it would be more apt to call it childish.
Most of us have probably witnessed the circumstance of a child exclaiming, “it’s a free country so I can do what I want”. While I am not a child psychiatrist, observation leads me to the opinion that children form a puerile conception of behavioral autonomy early in their lives. Observe the way toddlers, having learned to crawl and then walk, use their increased mobility to go where they want to go, restrained only by child gates and closed doors. So, while children act with a primitive concept of freedom of choice, they soon learn those choices are limited. As they mature, they learn- in one way or another- to balance their freedom to make choices and decisions within the constraints imposed upon them by parents, schools, civil society, and even peer pressure.
If we extend this simple example to the political level, it is reasonable to infer that, in a “free” society, our individual liberties are defined by their limitations. I prefer to picture this as a geometric explication: If you were to draw a circle or square, or any other shape, on a piece of paper, and you were told that liberty exists only within that shape, you would necessarily conclude that, without the lines defining the shape, you would have no freedom. The unfettered ability to act without limit is anarchy. Think of a boxing match without the ropes to define the ring and a referee to maintain a fair fight.
The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.
John Locke
In an op-ed in today’s New York Times, Pope Francis commented on the challenges presented by the coronavirus pandemic, stressing the theme of helping others. He pointed to those who protested or ignored restrictions on their behavior:
— as if measures that governments must impose for the good of their people constitute some kind of political assault on autonomy or personal freedom! Looking to the common good is much more than the sum of what is good for individuals. It means having a regard for all citizens and seeking to respond effectively to the needs of the least fortunate.
It is all too easy for some to take an idea — in this case, for example, personal freedom — and turn it into an ideology, creating a prism through which they judge everything.
While the Pope’s comments were addressed to the entire world, they are particularly apropos of American society.
Note to readers: The 168 newsletter is posted weekly on Friday evenings. Additional posts will be made from time to time and will be restricted to paying subscribers only.
Aside from your comments- which are encouraged- if you would like to submit a piece of your own for the 168 newsletter, please email me at nicrosato2@gmail.com.
For those of you reading this as an email newsletter, you can view all my newsletter posts at www.1hundredsixty8.substack.com. My past blog posts are viewable at 1hundredsixty8.com.
Ethics, the core of your editorial is what we need back in American politics. Nice job again Nic.
Well thought out piece. The social contract is such a fundamental and clear concept, that it’s hard to fathom why so many seem to have a hard time grasping it. We have a nation where a large portion of adults behave as children . Unfortunately, there is a price to pay and the rest of us will be stuck with the bill.