“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
Rights, freedom, liberty, and limitations of government are all interrelated concepts. But what are they really and how can we connect those concepts to good government?
Freedom and Liberty
Freedom is a common rallying cry among the oppressed everywhere throughout history. But is it freedom from something? Freedom to do something? Freedom to have things for free?
Freedom has been defined as independence – Jefferson’s ideal of self-sustained living was an embodiment of that idea, where a free man could sustain himself on food he grows himself without relying much on other people or his government. Freedom has been defined as free services – the “free beer” (or free health care) kind of freedom. It’s also been defined as unrestricted activity – the ability for any person to take any action they want. Freedom has also been defined as isolation from undesirables, where a discerning individual could be free from the meddling of government, GAP, and gay people.
Freedom has taken on many meanings throughout the ages, but there are two concepts of freedom that is relevant to the context of government: freedom and freedoms. In this context, freedom (and liberty) is the degree of ability for a person to do what they want. In Milton Friedman’s words, freedom is simply the “absence of coercion”, or more accurately, a person is more free when they are subject to less coercion. A freedom, on the other hand, is the same thing as a right, which I’ll talk about further down.
This definition of freedom doesn’t suppose anything about what a person should or shouldn’t do – any restriction of action restricts freedom. But its also clear that certain actions of one individual can affect the freedoms of another. If you want to walk down a street, but I block your way, I’m restricting your freedom. But conversely, if I’m prevented from blocking your way by, say, threat of arrest or imprisonment, it preserves your freedom at the expense of mine.
From this, its obvious that it is logically impossible for everyone to be fully 100% free. One person can be given full freedom only by taking some freedom from another person. In order to have a society where everyone is equally free, there must be rules that define which freedoms a person has and therefore which they don’t have. I’ve touched on this in my previous post about the role of government.
Rights and Freedoms
A right, in the common meaning, is something owed to a person. You may think people have a right to free speech, or a right to life, or a right to that pizza after a marathon. But where does a right come from? What guarantees that right? The answer relevant to governmental policy and law is that a legal right can only come from an entity with the power to enforce that legal right – a government.
There has been the concept of “natural rights” that aren’t man made, derive from god, or are universal – applying to all people. But certainly there are certain people in certain areas who don’t seem to have any rights, because no one is ensuring any rights are upheld for them. The philosopher Jeremy Bentham thought that “Natural rights is simple nonsense… nonsense upon stilts” and I’m inclined to agree with him. At very least, natural rights has very little to do with legal rights, but is an attempt to derive a moral philsophy around what legal rights we should give people. But these natural rights seem to be more emotional and I see very little logical basis for them.
A person killed for speaking out against their government or killed in a genocide certainly weren’t given any rights to speak of. Neither their god nor their government protected them. A right someone actually has must be upheld in some way. The free market certainly won’t do it for you for free, as I’ve shown in my post about market failures. And the only other mechanism is government, which can indeed protect a person’s rights if constructed properly.
So often when people say a right is universal or inalienable, natural or god given, what they really mean is that they think it should be a right. It’s only an opinion about a possible future – one we can, as a society, choose to build into our government or even constitution, or choose not to. Many people have gotten in the annoying habit of using the phrase “we have a right to X” to mean “I think we should have a legal right to X”. Very often when we hear people say someone “has a right”, they’re really just talking about what they think should be the case. Its a very misleading way to communicate and causes a lot of confusion.
Now we’ve all been told from time to time that freedoms aren’t absolute, with the inevitable misused quote about yelling “Fire!” in a crowded building. But a short punchy phrase like “freedom of speech” doesn’t fully describe what your freedom is or should be. It’s important to understand that for something to actually be a freedom, it must be absolute.
For example, surely no one would disagree that it should be a right to privately think anything you would like at all. Even the most disgusting, racist, immoral, or perverted thoughts, if kept entirely to one’s self, can’t possibly affect other people and thus should be entirely and completely unrestricted. In other words, we likely agree that the freedom of thought should be an absolute and unrestricted right. And we’re mostly guaranteed this right only because the government doesn’t have telepathic machines that can read your mind (yet..). But even if such telepathic machines were created, we would hopefuly all still agree that freedom of thought should be guaranteed without exception.
Beyond that self-evident example, rights about one might say that are not absolute, actually are absolute in a complicated way. The rights of people as they stand in the US, for example, are defined in great detail in the hundreds of thousands of pages of state and federal laws and regulations. The non-absolute right of something like “freedom of movement” can be made absolute if included with qualifications like “freedom to move anywhere on your own property or public property as long as someone else isn’t currently using that space,” etc etc. As the popular saying goes, my right to swing my fist ends where your face begins. The point is that rights are meticulously defined with edge cases and qualifications, and those taken together indeed define absolute freedoms – at least until the law is changed again.
There is a concept of “claim rights” vs “liberty rights”, where a claim right defines a duty another person has to the right holder, and a liberty right doesn’t have any such obligation. But with such a definition, there is no such thing as a liberty right. A right always has an obligation to someone else – otherwise no right would be needed. For example, freedom of speech obliges the government to refrain from prosecuting a person based solely on the words they say.
Another concept that is often compared to a right is a privilege. How often have you heard “its a privilege not a right”? Too often probably. The need to say such a thing stems from the inherit similarity between them. In fact, its all a matter of degree. A right is only a privilege that has been made difficult to take away or is given to a much broader set of people. The US constitution, for example, guarantees various rights and guarantees them for all people. However not everyone. These things are a privilege of those living under the jurisdiction of the US government. People in many other countries don’t have these privileges. In the US, these privileges are protected by the super-majorities needed for amendment and the weight of thousands of court cases that uphold the constitution as a higher law. It takes a whole lot more effort to circumvent or change a constitutional article than it does to do the same for a mere federal or state law. And this is what makes this privilege strong enough to be called a “right”.
Let me take a step back for a second and unify all this exposition. A freedom is the same thing as a right: a privilege given to a person by a government. A person with a driver’s license (and a thousand other conditions) has the right to drive on the road. Any person (under a less weighty set of conditions) has the right to free speech. They’re both currently rights, both can be potentially taken away, but the right to free speech is stronger because it derives from the constitution (which is harder to change than a person’s driver status), and because it applies to more people (everyone vs only everyone who can obtain a driver’s license).
Basic Rights
What most Americans talk about rights, they’re often talking about constitutional rights. What many people seem to be unaware of is that all the rights in the constitution are restrictions on government. The entire point of the constitution is to restrict what government can do. Freedom of religion protects people from being treated differently by government based on their beliefs. Freedom of speech protects people from persecution by government based on what they say. The right to bear arms prevents the government from outlawing weapons for state militias. The 13th amendment prevents the government from establishing a class of slaves. And so on down the line. The only federal amendment in the US that restricted personal freedom was the quickly-repealed 18th amendment abolishing alcohol.
Too many people invoke “freedom of speech” when someone is fired from a private company for something they said, or “freedom of religion” when they want an exemption from established laws . Those people don’t seem to understand that the importance of a constitution is in limiting government, not in limiting private individual citizens.
The Argument for Freedom
So now everyone should be pretty clear on the specifics of what rights and freedom mean. But what’s the justification for believing people should have freedom? Milton Friedman made an interesting point, saying:
“Is a man free to sin? If I see you about to sin, am I free to let you sin? If I know [for certain] that you’re sinning, the answer is no. The justification for freedom is that we don’t know. Who are we to judge for our fellow man? Humility, the belief that .. I can try to persuade you but I can’t force you, must ultimately rest on the recognition of the limitations of our knowledge. We don’t say that there is no such thing as sin, all we say is we can’t be sure.” – Milton Friedman
So freedom is a good ideal because we can’t know we’re right. Our opinion may be wrong, and therefore the best course of action is to respect other people’s opinions. There is no omniscient benevolent dictator we can always be sure makes the best decisions for everyone. This logically leads to truth by consensus – the only way we have to discover what’s best for people who have different needs and wants. In order to make a change, you have to have a convincing enough argument that change should be made. Even in the scientific community, which has the benefit of the scientific method, the primary way truth is determined is through consensus. The best way to be reasonably certain a hypothesis is correct is to combine the results of many experiments to ensure their results agree with that hypothesis. And while it is certainly true that consensus doesn’t always get things right, it has been repeatedly seen that groups often make more accurate estimates than individuals, on average. There is wisdom in a crowd.
And in that way, when your goal is to maximize peoples’ freedom, a democratic system is the best way of determining which freedoms to limit, where one minor limitation can prevent other major limitations. Only by asking the people directly which freedoms are appropriate to limit can we hope to approach the best laws.
But maximizing freedom is only one possible goal.
The Power of Constitutions
Whether your goal is to maximize freedom, maximize happiness, or maximize some other measure, chances are that you believe that there are some freedoms that should be afforded to all people. Its important to repeat that freedom under our modern governments can only exist by the good grace of a government and by the same token can only exist as a limitation of that government. Limitations of a government represent the most important dimension of that government because they define what rights people have.
The modern constitution embodies this principle and defines the limitations of government in a durable way. Most modern constitutions define only the basic and most critical structures of a government. They are almost always more difficult to change than the normal code of law. Exceptions to this often lead to systemic government bloat and mismanagement (I’m looking at you, California). If our citizens understood the importance of constitutional provisions and how improving them can radically improve the behavior of government, we would be much better off.
Liberty without government
I’ve mentioned that our rights and freedoms come from limitations of government, and are enforced by government. Is this the only way we can have freedom? Well, actually no. However, you do need some way of enforcing your freedom. If you’re in the woods and you want freedom from bear attacks, you should figure out how to defend yourself from bears. All “rights” need a mechanism for defense of those rights. Without a government that has courts and police to stop or punish those who violate the rights of others, one would need another defense. Perhaps some kind of private court or police system. I plan to write more about this in the future, but for now, just know that there are theoretically alternatives that can create an environment where rights are enforced even without a government.
Liberty vs the world
Another goal might be maximizing total happiness. Many people believe that when limiting freedoms leads to a better quality of life for more people, we’re justified in limiting freedoms. People who crave more security on airplanes and want the NSA to be listening to our phones and tapping our internet believe that the added security is worth giving away the freedom of privacy.
Liberty has been pitted against security in the minds of nations that are irrationally afraid, today of terrorism, yesterday of communism or witchcraft, and so on throughout history. The spectre of fear has often lead people to accept limits on not only their freedom, but their happiness as well. This was the meaning behind FDR’s famous line “the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.” The message is that fear causes us to do stupid things, that our irrational fears lead us to hurt ourselves.
Luckily, there is a strong logic indicating that the goals of liberty and quality of life are symbiotic, where maximizing freedom almost always leads to the maximization of total happiness. But there are cases where maximizing liberty won’t lead to maximizing happiness, as I’ve talked about before.
Its worth asking yourself, what is the right thing to maximize in human society? Is it liberty? Is it happiness? Or is it something else?
My opinion is that the appropriate thing to maximize is total human happiness, but that maximizing freedom is the right way to achieve that goal. It’s much easier to determine the things that maximize peoples’ freedom than it is to determine the things that maximize happiness. But because maximizing freedom will lead people to learn what maximizes their happiness, we can focus on the easier goal (maximum freedom) in order to achieve the best approximation of the harder goal (maximizing happiness).
We should therefore construct governments to maximize our freedoms, and let the human ingenuity released by that freedom determine how to maximize our happiness.