What is freedom? It is a question I am still trying to tease out, after spending about an hour debating it, and an hour before that writing down ideas on it.

Clearly, it is a fundamental political question, and inevitably, it is the reason for governing. Hobbes was probably right when he argued that perfect freedom lead to "war of all against all."

The Problem of Liberal Theorists on Freedom

A lot of it seems to be reinforcing the notion of government as being an decent thing, if not perfect. Liberal theorists, much to my despise take it a step further—they seem to believe that if we give people some basic rights, then it's okay for government to strip people of all other rights.

It's seems to me that Locke is more then content with any government that seems to give us just the basics: he ability to participate and be represented in government. It doesn't matter to him if the government strips us of all of our rights, legislates all our actions, and watches all of our movements—and kills us for every little technical violation.

Rosseau seems to take this all a step farther. If I understand it, he argues that the freedom is little more then having equality in being governed. It's not was Sir Robert Filmer called the right to do whatever, whenever when pleases.

Other 'Better' Concepts of Freedom

But at least Filmer's notion is what my opinion of what freedom is. To me, 'freedom is the right to be left alone' (in the words of Supreme Court Justice Brandeis) is the true definition of freedom. It's going through your day without direct force being applied on you by the state—living you life through your own choices, not those imposed directly on you by the state.

Max Weber's argues in one of his essays (I forget which one) that freedom is simple 'irrationality and privacy'. With irrationality being one major leg of freedom, it would seem to me that freedom can only exist in a state of nature or a state close to nature.

And then there of course is Janis Joplin with Bobby McGee song that suggests that freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

My Theory of Freedom

I see freedom as a thing that is forever in peril, it can never be increased in society, and it can only be diminished. Freedom and the creation of more government seems to follow this model (in part from my reading of Hobbes):

Freedom -> Abuses of Freedom -> Crisis Event -> Citizen Outrage -> More Government -> Less Freedom -> More Abuses, etc.

Or a domestic policy example:

Ability to Own and Bear Firearms -> Morons who shoot up Schools -> Mass Media Sensationalism -> Citizens want to limit the availability of guns -> More restrictions on guns -> more abuses continue, etc.

In addition, it seems to be a circular process—given enough time all government will become increasingly bureaucratic and eventually, totalitarian.

Just think of all the new laws and regulations society has created in the past 30 years in reactions to various crisis, be it OSHA or the EPA.

While I like clean air, and I like to have a safe workplace, I have to wonder what is going to happen to society over the long run—the iron cage of rationality will take us over.

To make matters worst, there are many factors that cause the problem to grow at least at an expositional rate. Population is increasing, meaning that more people will be coming into conflict with each other and therefore the need for more power to moderate them. Technology has a similar effect; it brings people closer together, and gives them more powers, causing more conflict and eventually more government. Finally, we are consuming earth's natural resources at an increasing rate, inevitably leading to more conflict.

Who is Truly Free?

Who is free in American society? That's not an easy question to answer by any state of the imagination—there are too many diverse groups in society. Well, maybe it's easier to figure out who is non-free. I'll list those groups below:

Urban and Suburban Peoples.

These people live in close proxmity to each other, so they are forced to put so many restrictions on their lives.

To me, New York City seems like one of the most non-free places in society, it's a place where everybody must follow strict rules in order to live together. I'm not sure if I could go to such a rationalized totalitarian city like that, much less their live there.

There are suburbs that prohibit the ownership of more then one non-registered car on their property, that mandate your lawn be a certain length, that your house be in a certain condition, etc. How can this type of life be free?

Wage Slaves.

There are many Americans who know what they are doing is morally wrong and destructive, but they are in a place in which they can't do anything about it. They can't quit their jobs, as if they do they'll end up on the streets, they'll strave.

I know this so personally. I've worked jobs in which I know I'm doing immoral things, but I need the money. Rape and murder is okay, if bureaucracy sanctions it I guess—but it sure seems like your unable and not free to do the right thing.

I've come increasingly sympathetic to the nazi bureaucrats who sent the jews to the death camps—I mean they knew it was wrong, but did they have any choice not to do that? Everyday, as a condition of my life and others, I have to do things almost as horrible. Maybe that's why I'm sort of unemployed right now.

Bureaucratic Slaves.

Those who have to constantly put up with figures of authority in their lives limiting what they can do. It can be police extensively patroling your area, people from the NYSDOL checking every little detail of the asbestos job your working on and citing your for every violation.

Conclusions

The liberal-democratic thesis of Locke and Rousseau seem so irrelevant in such a world. Their attitude to government is that if we give some implicit consent (we do not take to the streets with shotguns) it is okay, especially if government preserves some basic human rights like equal representation.

I do not care how my government is represented, as I see little difference between a dictator and democracy. The real issue is the right to control and choose my surroundings and my thoughts without the leaning of bureaucratic authority constantly on my shoulder. Yet, inevitably probably a democracy is the only way I will get limits on government (democracy makes for inefficient governance which leads to fewer controls on society).

I just hate artificial limitations on the power of the governing. However, do I really? No, I do not, because artificial limitations make it more difficult to pass legislation, to rationalize things, to coerce people.

The bill of rights is a rather trivial technical thing in a vacuum, but it is a good thing in reality. I could care less about some freedom of speech amendment, but I do not want my ability to publish and disseminate ideas to be limited. Federalism is the same way—I do not want the fine people in D.C. deciding if I can burn trash in my backyard (Albany is bad enough).