Opinions

Cherish freedom? Then pay your dues

"Freedom is not free." This aphorism is generally taken to mean that the freedom enjoyed by Americans has been and must be defended with force, when necessary, and thus is often used to express honor to and gratitude for those who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces, particularly those who have died defending American freedom. As such, the phrase has special meaning for me as a U.S. Navy veteran.

How should we understand the freedom we enjoy as American citizens, the defense of which we entrust to our military? Most Americans likely think of freedom first in the political sense of a government which places minimum restrictions on their movements, their opportunity to express themselves without official sanction, including criticism of power, and their leisure to conduct their personal affairs as they see fit, without let or hindrance. Cognizant of the social context in which we live, most also would assert that individual freedom should be circumscribed by its effect on others, as in the notion that one should be free to do as they wish so long as doing so does not diminish the freedom of others.  For Americans these exercises of freedom are usually understood as constitutional or legal rights. They should be understood, also, as moral rights, as described in Jefferson's affirmation in the Declaration of Independence that it is self-evident that all are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights (can't be taken or given away, though their exercise may be denied or suppressed), among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[Too many Alaskans, other Americans cower at the risks of freedom]

Philosophers have long noted that we are social beings, meaning we cannot live satisfactorily for long without reference to and interaction with other human beings (we were all dependent on the actions of two other people for our existence in the first place). It's in this context that we limit our freedom to those actions that do not detract from the right of others to their freedom. It's not always understood, though, that this is a moral as well as a constitutional or legal matter. It's the social context that turns the self-limitation of our freedom into an obligation. We have an obligation to attend to the rights of others in the exercise of our own rights. While most don't, there are people who do chafe mightily under the notion that they have an obligation to other people in society to behave and perform in a certain manner, a manner cognizant of the legal and moral rights of others. Should one choose in their behavior to disregard the rights of others, it is commonly understood that one must accept the consequences of such action. Such acceptance is understood as part of the obligation one has as a member of society.

[Fear, not freedom, seems to drive student protests — and that's no way to live or learn]

Some flaunt their freedom to behave any way they wish. Some go further, denying their moral, social obligation to be careful of the moral rights of others.  In legal terms, we call these outlaws; in moral terms we call them boors, louts, churls, the uncouth.

But there is a deeper, more personal aspect of freedom and its obligations: the obligation we each have to ourselves. Immanuel Kant more than two centuries ago, along with many others, argued that because we have agency as persons, because we have reason and free will, we have an obligation not to waste our talents. This is especially so when we enjoy the freedom of expression and movement we possess as Americans. Yet too often we squander our freedom, or sell it cheaply. We succumb to whatever is on TV; we look only at websites whose authors mimic our own casual opinions rather than reading across a spectrum of analysis; we find excuses for not helping the organizations that work to advance the ideas and causes we espouse; we duck jury duty; we pass on taking an enrichment course, or even reading a heavy book.

ADVERTISEMENT

So there is another meaning to "freedom is not free": there are duties that go with it, obligations to the society of which we are a part, and obligations to enrich ourselves and maximize our talents, to treat freedom responsibly. It's only in fulfilling these obligations that we truly honor freedom.

Steve Haycox is professor emeritus of history at the University of Alaska Anchorage. 

The views expressed here are the writer's and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com. 

Steve Haycox

Steve Haycox is professor emeritus of history at the University of Alaska Anchorage.

ADVERTISEMENT