What, exactly, constitutes freedom in the context of living, of surviving communally; of respecting and generating respect for our ideas and, perhaps to some extent, the freedoms of others?
We as a society struggle mightily with that issue, trying to distill freedom into a single, all-purpose philosophy.
“If you give up your freedom for safety, you don’t deserve either one,” Benjamin Franklin famously said.
It’s a powerful sentiment. But could Ben, a source of so much wisdom, have possibly envisioned climate change, identity theft, cyberbullying, or online scammers?
Safety has taken on a far more complex meaning, and far different contexts than the Founding Fathers could ever have imagined.
We might separate freedom, or liberty if you prefer, into two categories: “freedom to” and “freedom from.” Researchers Jack Schneider and Jennifer Berkshire talk about the two in their educational research.
Freedom to, they say, are freedoms that translate into individual choices we have available to us and can make as we please. Freedom from are those freedoms that we agree to collectively for our general protection and peaceful coexistence.
Does government legislation, regulation, and intervention, necessarily curtail our rights and freedoms, as many would suggest? Does “less government” mean a better quality of life for its citizens?
The twin notions of “freedom” and “liberty” have taken on many diverse implications, and continue to evolve as our nation and our democracy evolves and matures.
The government had to step in during the darkest days of the Great Depression to offer assistance to an unemployed and often starving nation. Was that “overreach,” or just the government’s obligation and primary function?
Is income inequality, growing wider by the year, a “freedom of choice,” or a societal problem we need to address – a freedom from?
We grapple to address definitions of our collective freedoms – like freedom to own a gun, freedom of speech, freedom from vaccination mandates, freedom from diversity and philosophies of race and gender.
In our schools, the term “age-appropriate” is being taken up by conservative legislators, to whom it usually means bans, restrictions and mandates to curtail freedoms, from library access to classroom discussions in sensitive areas.
Choice or protection? Freedom to or freedom from?
One of the hot topics discussed today is labelled “parental rights.” It generally refers to the parent’s right to oversee the upbringing, care, and education of their children. That is something that we can agree on, because it makes sense. Parents should be free to make choices for their children – of course within the bounds of the law.
But what of the parents who gave their son with mental health issues a semi-automatic handgun, which he took to school to shoot and kill four students and injure seven more in Michigan?
Or what of the parents who made the choice not to vaccinate their children, leading to an outbreak of more than 300 infections of measles spreading to three states?
What of the parental choices that result in considerable communal harm?
We’re five years out from one of the most significant spreads of contagious disease since the Black Death, with millions dying around the world, and yet, some continue to fight the fight of “freedom to” not get vaccinated, even though it puts others at risk.
The virus we hoped was behind us keeps transforming itself, necessitating new booster protections. I have mine up to date, but a significant number of people don’t.
We have now entered the realm of overlap between freedom to, personal choice, vs. freedom from, collective protections. Herein lies the rub. And instances of individual decision-making and public protection are growing and becoming more complex.
What would Ben Franklin say now?
Tom Walters is a retired music teacher and school arts administrator. He lives in Londonderry, and has a blog: imthinkingno.com. Reach him at tomwalters729@gmail.com.