Freedom can mean many things to many people as the old axiom goes. I was pondering this very huge concept, the concept of freedom, while petting my dog. I thought about what my dog would say about his life, if he could talk, and would he consider himself free? I once saw in an animated comedy about a talking dog referring to the leash as being the symbol of oppression. It is true. While your dog may appear to be completely loyal to you, how much of that loyalty comes at the end of a leash? And while your dog may seem loyal, my dog, I get the strong feeling, has no particular loyalty to me or my family. Sometimes he takes off and either returns at his leisure, or by a good Samaritan. He may have thought he was free, but you and I know that in an urban environment it wouldn't be long before another human caught him and claimed him as lost property, or returned him to his "owner". If an adult human did that, as long as he wasn't breaking the law, he would be ignored; much like homeless people are.
Freedom does seem to be interpreted in many ways. Some think it means getting everything you want when you want. Most commonly it is associated with democracy. The American idea of democracy, that is, where everyone has the right to speak their mind and protest for change. This should definitely be part of what freedom is. However, if I say something that someone else disagrees with, I should expect dissent. But should I? I think the ideal definition of freedom is to be able to say, do and think anything I want. But if I am met with dissent or persecution, am I really free? In actuality freedom comes bundled in laws and social mores, the bare essence of it shackled by politics, economics, and religious beliefs. So what's left is not freedom but resigned compliance. A sort of liberty is doled out by those in power as if it were food stamps, but only for some.
The ideal freedom that is pursued by social revolutionaries and talked about by intellectuals is the ability to act, speak, and think in any way one wants. But I think true freedom is to be able to do those things with no reaction from anyone else. If we each had absolute freedom, I could say anything I wanted and nobody else would care. I could do anything I wanted, and nobody else would care. This is where things fall apart. If I did anything I wanted to someone else, and they didn't like it, it is considered morally wrong. As it should. However, I should be able to think and say anything I want with no reprisal. If we weren't the kind of creatures that we are I'd say that should be a no-brainer. But we aren't. We are a hierarchical species that needs leaders and followers. Followers tend to listen to Leaders and to that end go along with whatever the Leaders wish.
After the 911 terrorist attack in New York on September 11, 2001 where a hijacked passenger jet was flown into the World Trade Center, the shackling of freedom in the US intensified. Seen as an act of war by mid-east terrorists, retaliation by the US government was swift. Afghanistan was invaded to root out the believed terrorist stronghold and, in particular their leader, Osama Bin Laden who was recently assassinated by special US forces. The American people were all for this action. After all, their homeland had been attacked by foreigners which was unprecedented. It wasn't long till the possibility that terrorists lived on US soil became realized. So the rooting out of terrorists residing in America became almost a full time occupation for the government. The Department of Homeland Security was established and that was that. It really should have been called the Department of Eroding Freedom; because for the next eight years, two terms of office for President George W Bush, Americans' personal freedoms were gradually and systematically eaten away. It soon became impossible to have a civil discussion about Afghanistan and the subsequent invasion of Iraq with Bush supporters. Under the Bush occupation, protest was not tolerated. He even joked that things would be a lot easier to get done if he were a dictator; nonetheless, things got done with very little protest from middle-America. This erosion of freedom spread throughout the western countries like wildfire as world leaders willfully, or grudgingly, complied with American security demands.
That decade is over and while people are being less tight-lipped about the whole thing, the infrastructure is still in place. History shows us that totalitarian countries like the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea for example don't really change that quickly, if at all. Since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, while Russia is operating more like a capitalist country and there is more "openness", the ghost of the former KGB still haunts politics. Russia strives to restore it's former power by corralling breakaway nations like Georgia and Chechnya who still have to fight for their independence. This indicates that life in the West won't be getting freer anytime soon.
North African countries seem to be experiencing revolutionary dissent like no other time in history. Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iran, all run by oppressive governments are facing a tsunami of protest aided by modern communication technology and some external assistance by the UN. I'm sure that people around the world are cheering on these protestors as I am; after all they are the very symbol of freedom of expression. We all look at those oppressive governments and see evil that must abolished. But what if those governments were actually just and benign and all the protestors really wanted were free iPods for everyone? Would we in the West sympathize? Apart from the odd teenager, I wouldn't think so. Surely what the Bush Administration did after 911 was more concerning than unfettered access to iTunes. Yet, the majority of Americans stood behind their government. There were pockets of protesting across the US in the years following the invasion of Iraq, but those were quickly quelled by invoking the authority of the Department Of Homeland Security.
As I mentioned, I think the purest form of freedom is that which doesn't encumber our own thoughts, actions, or speech and should draw, at the most, indifference from others. But that would make us a disconnected society and if nothing we said or did mattered to anyone we would probably perish as a species. Indeed as a species we have evolved a high ability to communicate; we interact by responding to others' words with words of our own.We learn from what others say, and teach what we learn to those who will listen. This blog is a prime example of that. Freedom therefore should not be what we exclusively strive for, but instead a homogeneity of desires. We should all want equality for everyone regardless of our gender, race, job, education level, religion or political persuasion. We should all want equal access to food, clean water, basic education, shelter, and health care. These common desires, if realized, would bring the kind of freedom that most of us really want. It's the freedom from certain things that should be our universal goal. Freedom from persecution, freedom from war and violence, freedom from prejudice, and freedom from injustice.
Freedom does seem to be interpreted in many ways. Some think it means getting everything you want when you want. Most commonly it is associated with democracy. The American idea of democracy, that is, where everyone has the right to speak their mind and protest for change. This should definitely be part of what freedom is. However, if I say something that someone else disagrees with, I should expect dissent. But should I? I think the ideal definition of freedom is to be able to say, do and think anything I want. But if I am met with dissent or persecution, am I really free? In actuality freedom comes bundled in laws and social mores, the bare essence of it shackled by politics, economics, and religious beliefs. So what's left is not freedom but resigned compliance. A sort of liberty is doled out by those in power as if it were food stamps, but only for some.
The ideal freedom that is pursued by social revolutionaries and talked about by intellectuals is the ability to act, speak, and think in any way one wants. But I think true freedom is to be able to do those things with no reaction from anyone else. If we each had absolute freedom, I could say anything I wanted and nobody else would care. I could do anything I wanted, and nobody else would care. This is where things fall apart. If I did anything I wanted to someone else, and they didn't like it, it is considered morally wrong. As it should. However, I should be able to think and say anything I want with no reprisal. If we weren't the kind of creatures that we are I'd say that should be a no-brainer. But we aren't. We are a hierarchical species that needs leaders and followers. Followers tend to listen to Leaders and to that end go along with whatever the Leaders wish.
After the 911 terrorist attack in New York on September 11, 2001 where a hijacked passenger jet was flown into the World Trade Center, the shackling of freedom in the US intensified. Seen as an act of war by mid-east terrorists, retaliation by the US government was swift. Afghanistan was invaded to root out the believed terrorist stronghold and, in particular their leader, Osama Bin Laden who was recently assassinated by special US forces. The American people were all for this action. After all, their homeland had been attacked by foreigners which was unprecedented. It wasn't long till the possibility that terrorists lived on US soil became realized. So the rooting out of terrorists residing in America became almost a full time occupation for the government. The Department of Homeland Security was established and that was that. It really should have been called the Department of Eroding Freedom; because for the next eight years, two terms of office for President George W Bush, Americans' personal freedoms were gradually and systematically eaten away. It soon became impossible to have a civil discussion about Afghanistan and the subsequent invasion of Iraq with Bush supporters. Under the Bush occupation, protest was not tolerated. He even joked that things would be a lot easier to get done if he were a dictator; nonetheless, things got done with very little protest from middle-America. This erosion of freedom spread throughout the western countries like wildfire as world leaders willfully, or grudgingly, complied with American security demands.
That decade is over and while people are being less tight-lipped about the whole thing, the infrastructure is still in place. History shows us that totalitarian countries like the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea for example don't really change that quickly, if at all. Since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, while Russia is operating more like a capitalist country and there is more "openness", the ghost of the former KGB still haunts politics. Russia strives to restore it's former power by corralling breakaway nations like Georgia and Chechnya who still have to fight for their independence. This indicates that life in the West won't be getting freer anytime soon.
North African countries seem to be experiencing revolutionary dissent like no other time in history. Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iran, all run by oppressive governments are facing a tsunami of protest aided by modern communication technology and some external assistance by the UN. I'm sure that people around the world are cheering on these protestors as I am; after all they are the very symbol of freedom of expression. We all look at those oppressive governments and see evil that must abolished. But what if those governments were actually just and benign and all the protestors really wanted were free iPods for everyone? Would we in the West sympathize? Apart from the odd teenager, I wouldn't think so. Surely what the Bush Administration did after 911 was more concerning than unfettered access to iTunes. Yet, the majority of Americans stood behind their government. There were pockets of protesting across the US in the years following the invasion of Iraq, but those were quickly quelled by invoking the authority of the Department Of Homeland Security.
As I mentioned, I think the purest form of freedom is that which doesn't encumber our own thoughts, actions, or speech and should draw, at the most, indifference from others. But that would make us a disconnected society and if nothing we said or did mattered to anyone we would probably perish as a species. Indeed as a species we have evolved a high ability to communicate; we interact by responding to others' words with words of our own.We learn from what others say, and teach what we learn to those who will listen. This blog is a prime example of that. Freedom therefore should not be what we exclusively strive for, but instead a homogeneity of desires. We should all want equality for everyone regardless of our gender, race, job, education level, religion or political persuasion. We should all want equal access to food, clean water, basic education, shelter, and health care. These common desires, if realized, would bring the kind of freedom that most of us really want. It's the freedom from certain things that should be our universal goal. Freedom from persecution, freedom from war and violence, freedom from prejudice, and freedom from injustice.
