The Freedom to be Foolish

Freedom isn’t free. Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither. The tree of liberty is watered by the blood of patriots. Give me liberty, or give me death…

During the 18th century, and continuing on to this very day, enough quotation on the subject of freedom has been cataloged as to boggle the mind. Heartfelt, truly genuine feelings of great persons, thoughtfully penned in their times and grossly cliched in ours. In America especially, the axiom of personal freedom is hammered into young minds, to varying degrees, from birth. There is perhaps no greater moral pillar in the American mind than freedom. Our very existence as a country was predicated on the nonnegotiable right of liberty for mankind. Lofty quotes like the ones above are tossed about like affirming scriptures when we talk about freedom, especially amongst those on the right side of modern politics. Whatever we might gain or lose, freedom is not up for debate.

Except, it is. It always is.

Whenever we negotiate rights, privileges, restrictions, and laws, we are necessarily debating the length and breadth of our freedoms. This should be unsurprising, as we all seem to understand that, though we are free, we cannot do whatever we want. The first and most obvious limits are against things that cause harm or otherwise negatively affect other people in some measurable way. Since the time of Moses, even Hammurabi, freedom has not included the right to murder, mame, steal, or enslave (in most cases anyway). In addition, though often enforced with less weight, we are never afforded the freedom to steal or destroy another person's property or possessions. These points are obvious to the point of redundancy, but for the sake of discussion, they must be recognized for what they are; limitations on freedom.

Freedom has been historically limited, to varying extents, by societal norms and mores. Public indecency and immodest behaviors have been regulated to differing degrees throughout history, and though these regulations are often eschewed as archaic and prudish in a modern context, they were considered paramount in our past. Of equal importance, and of lesser dispute today, are the limitations placed on sexual freedoms. Most people in western societies do not have the freedom to enter sexual relationships with members of their blood families. Incest is not considered a right to anybody. Similar regulations are in place regarding sexual relations with children and animals, and for good reason, as neither of the above parties can consent, in a legal sense, to sexual activity. These are limitations on freedom deemed necessary for a good and proper society, and almost nobody argues against these limitations. Laws regarding public indecency, immodest behavior, and sexuality have relaxed greatly in times passed, but every law regarding said topics was once considered of paramount importance to society at one time or another. The whyfors are important matters for discussion, and too little thought has likely been given to such things.

So important is the distinction between unregulated, anarcho freedom and well regulated civil society, that the word “liberty” is often employed as a more nuanced descriptor of the latter. This, despite most dictionary definitions equating liberty and freedom. Liberty, for all intents and purposes, is that freedom within the law that governs western societies and makes them something to be desired.

Those appropriate limitations on freedom are often taken for granted, it seems, in the 21st century. The reasons why freedom is limited are seen as a matter of course, and no real consideration is given to the implications of loosening taboos and mores. When something changes, it is thought to be a sign of the times; a necessary evolution of human society. Even those who protest such changes do not do it for long, and more often than not, they get used to the different world all too quickly, with the only real consequence being growing embitterment toward a society they no longer feel fully a part of. That is what happens when we get old, one might think. In America especially, there is a sort of libertarian prevailing view on personal freedom that can be somewhat perilously reduced to “do whatever you want but leave me alone”. This is a truly selfish view, but also incredibly enticing for the American psyche. Why should anyone care what another person does in the privacy of their own home, or with their own property, or with their own bodies? “It’s none of my business” we might say, and right we would be, for did we as Americans not cross an ocean and fight a war for just such sentiments? Perhaps we did, but perhaps it isn’t that simple.

The aforementioned libertarian sentiment is all well and good in a vacuum, but it totally ignores the entire reason laws, taboos, and mores even exist; humans are social creatures. Certainly, we have a right to be left alone if that is how we wish to be, but that is clearly NOT how we wish to be. Humans join sports teams, we go to churches and social clubs, we marry and start families, and we certainly do not want to be alone. This statement is not semantic either, for even families don’t wish to be alone, and, biologically speaking, they face genetic devastation if they find themselves isolated for long. And so we face the reason for our great struggle, the necessity of social integration. In short, we have to live with each other. Is it not, then, fair to say that we should care in earnest about how our countrymen, and more importantly, our community members comport themselves? These are the people that will suffer with us in famine and celebrate with us in plenty. These are the daughters that will marry our sons, and the fathers that will rear our grandchildren. Can we really afford to be so uncaring about the moral centers of our society when we are that society?

And what about that dubious and near meaningless term, morality? The importance of bygone societal norms was put forth above, and the reasons behind these norms, and the enforcement of them for that matter, all stem from that concept of morality. This does not mean that every lost stricture in our societies was a terrible loss, but it does mean that the people who thought they should be enforced had some moral reason for doing so. To venture into the perilous realm of analogy, one might consider indecent exposure laws that still prevail in most western societies. The reasons for these laws are rooted in the moral taboos regarding nakedness, particularly in regard to sexual purity and temptation. These two factors are often considered prudish and “old” in a post modern sense. What is sexual purity aside from the desired level of sexuality in the individual? And temptation implies a wrongness of sexual thought that is all too “catholic” for modern sensibility. So why do we continue to perpetuate these seemingly useless laws? The answer is unclear, but it likely has to do with the age of our lawmakers and a still-strong cultural taboo that cannot be erased overnight. During so-called “moral holidays” like Mardi Gras, civil societies relax these taboos about indecency and allow for increased freedom, so it is not absurd to think that we might totally let go of these laws in the future. Those that deny this possibility are burdened with reasoning, why not?

One of the greatest costs of freedom is dealing with people’s right to be foolish. Despite whatever reasons and strongly held beliefs we might have, we cannot wholly enforce our will onto others. That is not freedom. Dullards have the right to espouse whatever idiocy they like, amplified in public forums like twitter or on mainstream media for that matter. Ill advised youths with consent of their parents have the right, as of yet, to alter the physical and chemical makeup of their bodies, and we cannot enforce our will to stop them. But precedent has been set to regulate societies, or at least function within said societies, based on moral grounds, and we ignore this precedent at great price to our future. This paper is not meant to provide answers, for these issues are too deep and complex for simple solutions, but we must plumb the depths of the problem of freedom, the problem of liberty, and the pervasive and ever important problem of morality. For morality may lose all meaning, and freedom may become barbarity, and liberty might turn to bondage, if we do not.