Freedom and Liberty

Benjamin Franklin wrote, "Those who would give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will eventually lose both." When viewed in the context of our post 9/11 anxiety, these words are more relevant than ever. But what of freedom? Does it occupy the same niche on the endangered species list? Before we can answer this we must clarify what we are talking about and whether a difference between the two terms actually exists.

A major trap in comparing freedom and liberty lies in the fact that they are, in many ways, synonymous - dictionaries quite commonly use one in the definition of the other. Most people will admit, however, that juxtaposing them is more than just semantics and lies in their fundamental connotatively distinct interpretation. Liberty describes the degree to which the exterior world impinges upon my person and its limits are codified in law or community standards. Freedom, on the other hand, describes the degree to which I have broadened or restricted my own limits. In other words, the state can grant me liberty but not freedom in the same way my mind can grant me the freedom to doubt a regime that demands unquestioning allegiance.

Another way to differentiate the two is in their relative goals. The goal of liberty is to grant members of the state the maximum amount of latitude possible without endangering the good of the whole. The liberty to kill and steal would not be seen as liberty by any sane system because of the concomitant restrictions of the liberties of the majority (the robbed and the killed). The concept of absolute liberty is never examined because it is equivalent to anarchy. Liberty is such a sine qua non of states (since they are all about structure and ‘archy’) that totally removing restrictions to freedom obviates the concept of liberty.

The goal of freedom, conversely, is moral autonomy and the concept of absolute freedom is utopian rather than anathematic. It constitutes the quest of the individual to free him/herself from encumbrances to the goal of that autonomy. The free individual, unlike the liberated individual, would be a threat to the wellbeing of any community in that he/she becomes the sole arbiter of his/her activities. Perhaps we’ve misjudged psycho/sociopaths for all these years - maybe they’re just the ultimately free individuals in our society.

To sum up: societies determine liberties whereas individuals exercise freedoms. The dance from the dawn of time where society leads and freedom follows is an inextricable part of human existence. One could say that we give up personal freedoms to secure social liberties and we would, in one sense be right. The danger lies in never realizing our freedom and never realizing the value of liberty.

Next, Part 2 (this was getting way too long)