The Power to Begin the World Again

“Liberty is the power to do everything that does not interfere with the rights of others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every individual has no limits save those that assure to other members of society the enjoyment of the same rights.”

Thomas Paine, Plan of a Declaration of Rights, 1792

A thousand years from now, how will the United States and its citizens be remembered? Will the gestation, birth and flowering of our style of representative democracy be viewed as a positive turning point in the history of civilization, or an experiment that collapsed under the weight of pursuing illogical ideological extremes and not equitably applying our founding precepts?

Recent protests in the U.S. against stay-at-home orders and prohibitions on large gatherings are driven by the belief that these rules infringe on hard-fought American “freedoms”, or “liberties”. I find this argument both worrisome, and confusing. Worrisome, because refusal to agree to do these things has led - and will continue to lead - to the unnecessary loss of life and confusing because of how freedom and liberty are actually defined.

The definition of these two terms were very clear to our country’s founders - freedom being the “right to act, speak or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint”, and liberty, “freedom from arbitrary or oppressive authority”. It is important to remember “arbitrary” means “based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system” and oppression is “prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control”. So if one agrees to these definitions, then it is perhaps clear that freedom cannot exist without liberty. What is not obvious; however, is that even when liberty allows freedom that unfettered freedom is not ideal.

I am not simply dictionary-diving: I am pointing out that freedom and liberty are two different concepts, and people being asked to socially distance or voluntarily take special precautions due to the pandemic have not, and do not impinge on either. By definition.

Liberty was the paramount consideration for our founders, as non-representative monarchical rule by an all-powerful King George III sitting on a throne across the Atlantic Ocean was often “arbitrary” in its delivery, and freedom was felt to be much more likely if individuals were governed by reason and a system inclusive of many opinions. So when Patrick Henry declared, “give me liberty or give me death!” to the Second Virginia Convention in 1775, he wasn’t saying “let me do whatever I want to do, or let me fight for that, even if I may die!”, but “free me from the arbitrary authority of the throne or let me fight for that, even if I may die!” (I am obviously paraphrasing him to make this point).

While we rightfully cherish both liberty and freedom in America, we do not actually seek unlimited freedom, but the ability to do more and say more than in most other places in the world as long as in doing so, we find ways to strike the right balance between the freedoms for all of us. What we strive for; therefore, is not the freedom to do anything we want because freedom unfettered always impinges on the freedoms of others. Thomas Jefferson (admittedly a slave owner - so quoted here as more of a “do as I say, not as I did” situation), summed it up well, saying, “rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”

You may want to drive 150 mph on the interstate, but if you do so, you are impinging on the freedoms and rights of others by putting them at unacceptable increased risk of dying in an automobile accident. And this is exactly what is at stake as we continue to deal with the pandemic. Failure to act responsibly turns you into a “speeder” - an agent who erodes the potential freedoms and real rights of others, such as hospital workers who contract the disease (and who may die simply because they were caring for you) or family members who you expose unnecessarily by failing to follow simple precautionary measures.

In my opinion, when Ben Franklin said “they who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security”, he was referring to the downside of someone willingly subjecting themselves to arbitrary authority to garner temporary security, not a willing acceptance of restriction of freedom. As it turns out, we have used authority as an important tool to promote the progress of humankind, understanding authority and power are not at all the same thing – the former being a right freely given by the majority, and the latter the use of force or coercion. We actually willingly accept frequent temporary restrictions on freedom when we feel it is suggested or mandated by an authority we trust, and not arbitrarily forced upon us. When we willingly drive our cars on the highway at a reasonable speed we are doing so because we trust those who have asked us not to do so as suggesting this in our collective best interest, and we then strike a “best-for-all” balance between freedoms. These types of balances are necessary to ensure democracy works well.

The ongoing protests related to the differential experience some Americans – mainly those in communities of color - have had at the hands of law enforcement is perhaps even more instructive. Only a minuscule minority of the millions of peaceful protestors who have taken to the streets of cities and small towns of America in the wake of George Floyd's death support an unfettered “freedom” to loot, destroy property or end lives, as this obviously impinges on the human rights of many others. However, those enforcing the law should unequivocally be limited by our founder’s definition of liberty, or freedom for many simply cannot follow. The arbitrary meting out of profiling and punishment based on the color of someone’s skin is nothing more than an affront to this concept, and any attempt to limit First Amendment rights of protest when it is peaceful and does not impact the human rights of others – is to prevent a specific cherished freedom that follows from liberty.

Our form of government is not perfect. It will continue to change, and must over time as we seek balance and an effective democratic system.  However, “balance” means more than avoiding impinging on the rights of others: It also means the provision of balanced, equal opportunity to all as well, and so we have much work to do. The unequal distribution of misery related to COVID-19 based on the lack of balanced opportunities in black communities, as well as the much different experience of these same individuals have with law enforcement and countless other interactions in modern American life serve, in my mind, as striking examples of the challenges we face in actually leveraging evenly distributed freedom to create “a more perfect union.” 

While they are not prices we would willingly pay or ask for, the COVID-19 pandemic, now combined with a period of significant social unrest over continuing racism in America, provides a opportunity. A chance for us to thoughtfully and globally revisit – as the (theoretical at times) champion of these concepts over the past two hundred years - what freedom and liberty actually mean, and how they are best and more importantly - equitably applied. 

In Common Sense, written in 1776, Thomas Paine brashly said as Americans, “we have it in our power to begin the world again”.

That world we helped to begin to recreate more than two centuries ago now watches us. 

Which version of it will it be said we continued to foster?