A Craver of Freedom?

Do you crave freedom?

It seems like a simple question with an obvious answer, but freedom is more complicated than that. Much more.

If you ran a poll asking people if they wanted to be free or to live in a free country, the vast majority would answer in the affirmative. After all, who wishes to live at the whims of another, whether they be a despotic dictator or some group of fervent theologians limiting others’ ability to express their thoughts.

Governments of the last few centuries have written documents to allow freedom for their citizens, whether it be the US Constitution, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or any number of other documents. But as those documents are created by humankind, they are all flawed. Of course, their interpretations are also flawed, again, as they are interpreted by humanity.

In some cases, the flaws are obvious… The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a prime example. It laws out numerous rights to be enjoyed by all… speech, redress of grievances, ability to participate in their government, property… but then goes further, employment, ability to change their nationality, health, lifestyle.

Where it goes wrong is that it becomes fundamental that in order for some to enjoy these rights, others will have to sacrifice. But that isn’t the primary failure of the UN UDHR fails spectacularly in Article 29, section 3.

These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Effectively, if the UN decides that you don’t need your freedom… they can take it away.

Of course, the UN UDHR is voluntary and non-binding. We have seen dozens of military actions that are clear violations… Russia invading Ukraine, China’s treatment of the Uyghurs, ISIS and the Taliban’s subjugation of religious minorities in the areas they have administered… or invaded, depending on how you wish to view it. Even the US, in attacking those groups like the Taliban or ISIS or others could be considered one of those violations… but of course, that would be subject to interpretation.

Coming down to a national level, we in the United States have a First Amendment Right to freedom of speech. In fact, we pride ourselves on that freedom. We preach to the remainder of the world that the freedom of speech and thought are paramount. Again, if you polled Americans and asked them about freedom of speech, almost universally, they would support the idea.

As long as you don’t ask them about people with different ideas.

People on one side of the political spectrum decry the viewpoints of the other side. College students chant and disrupt speeches by those with whom they disagree, choosing to silence opposition rather than engage them in a war of ideas.

It happens on both sides.

A comedian makes a joke, and while it isn’t often that he is slapped on stage, but his career may come to a screeching halt because he has offended someone. Granted, a group of people chanting someone off the stage, or another group boycotting some company or another is hardly equivalent to the government punishing someone for speaking.

But what happens when a company owns the “virtual town square?” Take FaceBook or Twitter for example. They have almost a lock on broad communications and have often used their power in the marketplace to limit the voices of those with whom they disagree… labelling the ideas they wish to squelch as “fake” or “dangerous” or “extremist.” And some of those ideas may fit those definitions. But in other cases, they use their ability to censor speech to sway public opinion.

A good example you could find in the news right now is the fallout from Hunter Biden’s laptop. Recently, both the New York Times and Washington Post have run stories which corroborate much of what was found on Biden’s laptop. There are files that suggest the Biden family, though not Joe Biden directly, cashed in on Joe Biden’s political sway. Millions of dollars flowed to Hunter Biden and Frank Biden (Joe’s brother), even as Joe was VP.

The information is not new. The laptop was out there months before the election. But the stories, originally broken by the New York Post, were removed from both FaceBook and Twitter. Users linking the stories were suspended from the platforms for spreading “fake news” and misinformation.

In fact, members of the government publicly claimed the whole content of the drives was really a “Russian disinformation effort”, despite intelligence agencies having already verified many of the email chains. One of the intelligence officials that signed on to the letter calling the story “Russian disinformation” is more recently quoted as have been proud that he was able to “sway an election” for President.

So how free should speech be?

The trope of “yelling fire in a crowded theater” is tossed about freely by politicians as they seek to equate speech with which they disagree to being a danger to the public.

But there is a larger problem. Freedom requires tolerance. There is a distinct lack of tolerance in much of the world today. And both sides think they have a corner on the market. Neither does.

In order for one person to have the right to speak freely, another person has to exercise their right to walk away, rather than claim a right not to be offended by anything they may hear. That simply isn’t happening.

Freedom of speech has been replaced by the freedom to be free of offense. And that simply can’t stand. Too many people fully believe that THEY alone have the right to free speech, and their right not to be offended rises above everyone else’s right to have their own free speech.

When I was a kid, the common quote was “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.”

Can you imagine that quote being bandied about as two groups get ready to clash over… anything?

But freedom can even be more basic than that.

And while almost everyone says they want to be free; most don’t really want to be free. They want freedom of speech… maybe even for those with whom they disagree… but perhaps they don’t wish for the full responsibility that comes with absolute freedom.

Imagine a world where you could make a decision to work a job for less than minimum wage. Perhaps that doesn’t seem ideal… but what if it suited your purposes? Maybe it’s close. Maybe you really want to do the job, and you don’t need the money. You could be young and want to break into an industry… or in school and just needing a little money and a convenient location. Or maybe you are retired and just want out of the house.

But someone else has decided you “need a living wage”… despite the money being well down your priority list.

You aren’t free to do that.

Maybe you don’t want to give gobs of money to a possibly failing social security system and feel that you would be better off investing that money yourself. There used to be a loophole… oddly, only some government workers qualified… that allowed them out of social security. Look up Galveston County Texas to find the results. Workers were better off without social security.

The federal government decided we no longer needed that freedom.

I never drive without a seatbelt, and when I have ridden a motorcycle, I have always worn a helmet. But does that mean it should be the law?

Freedom doesn’t mean “free from harm” nor does it mean “free from consequences.” In a FREE system, one has the ability to fail. One can make bad choices.

For too many people, they want the freedom to do as they please without facing the consequences of poor decisions. And governments at all levels are only too happy to step in, take a little freedom, and guarantee some level of safety from failure.

And for most people, they are not only willing to give away that freedom, but they are eager. Most people are eager to sign away their personal freedoms as part of a “social contract” to stop others from doing that with which they disagree.

Do you wish to be free?

If this didn't completely enrage you, maybe this will...

Normally I write fiction. You can find my short fiction here on Vocal, along with a few excerpts of my novels...

You can find my novels on amazon, either for Kindle, printed, or Kindle Unlimited. Thanks for checking me out.