Monday, July 17, 2006

The Real Price of Freedom

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance ~ Thomas Jefferson
Conservatives love the phrase "the Price of Freedom." It is a mantra, repeated frequently. But, for them, it has a simple, martial meaning - Death in battle. Freedom demands a far more nuanced payment schedule.

The Price of Freedom is an Inconvenient Press
Freedom requires a free press. By press I don't mean just the large, corporate entities but also the one-person pamphleteer or blogger. By inconvenient I mean reporting the truth regardless of the consequences. Truth is the enemy of despotism and, hence, the ally of freedom. Those Conservatives who charge treason whenever a truth is revealed would sacrifice freedom on the altar of security.
for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. ~ Joseph Goebbels
Paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. ~ Hugo Black
The Price of Freedom is an Open Government
A free people are required to know what their government is doing in their names. Conversely, the government has the responsibility to tell the people what it is doing. The government does not belong to bureaucrats, the President, or Congress. It belongs to the people. The people have an absolute right to know what the government is doing.
A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. ~ James Madison
From our perspective, we are in favor of open government. If you approve an exception here and an exception there, it chips away gradually and we're very fearful of what might be. ~ Thomas Hennick
All components of government prefer keeping secrets from the people. Whether the motive is sloth, pride, criminal conduct, or even national security, no secret is worth more than the people's freedom.

The Price of Freedom is Public Debate

The President wishes to make decisions based solely upon what he wants to do. Interference from the public is annoying, he loses the elements of speed, surprise, and stealth. Yet, in a free country the important decisions, such as war, ought to be made by the people after a thorough, open, and honest debate.
I can't believe that we are going to let a majority of the people decide what's best for this state. ~ Representative John Travis, Louisana Legislature (I don't know when)
The Price of Freedom is Tolerance of Diversity
Some have perverted the "Freedom of Religion" clause in the Constitution to mean they have the freedom to impose their religion upon everyone else.
We need to establish "The Word" of The Bible as the rule of law in a Christian America. If that means trampling on other citizens freedom of religion or freedom of expression, so be it! ~ a conservative minister in Marietta Georgia in 1999
Others believe that their sexual orientation or skin color or where their forefathers were born several generations ago somehow elevates them to first among equals. All this is mere tribalism.

The Price of Freedom is Peace
Freedom without peace is an oxymoron; peace without freedom is impossible. The Civil War, the World Wars, the Cold War, to today - the cost of war has included the loss of freedom. During the Civil War, people were arrested and imprisoned without trials - sometimes for cause, other times on a whim. The world wars saw people attacked and rounded up purely because of the national origins. The cold war brought McCarthyism, blacklists, and Communist witch trials. There are rare occasions where war may be a just necessity. But the price of war is the loss of freedom. For a free society, war cannot be "diplomacy by other means" but must be a last resort of self-defense.
Where is it written in the Constitution, in what section or clause is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battle in any war in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? ~ Daniel Webster
Other sources: Religious Freedom Coalition, Common Dreams, the Olympian readers, Talk Left

tags: ,

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nicely written, and I agree with most everything except one aspect of the last assertion. Is it the case that war must necessitate a loss of freedom? Just becasue it always has, doesn't mean that it always must. I recently argued that the conditions for peace are an understanding that war is sometimes necessary but also that it must always be moral, short, targeted, proportional, and defensive. Freedom is orthogonal to this understanding because war could still be conducted in the presence of freedom.

Now if we're talking about a "perfect freedom," a libertarian freedom if you will, then maybe this breaks down...because who then would fight the war? It's not clear to me that an "all volunteer" armed forces really works. But that's a different debate.

knighterrant said...

We are not so far apart. I won't argue that there are times when a just war is necessary. But even the most just, defensive war brings a cost. Wars require martial discipline. Individual liberty and freedom of expression are inconsistant with such discipline.

A culture that sees war as an extension of politics will inevitably find itself sacrificing some level of freedom. As proof I offer any number of right-wing blogs who urge restricting this liberty or that as necessary to "win" the Global War on Terror (trademark pending).

Stated differently, I believe those who desire freedom must sacrifice the desire for wars of conquest.

Anonymous said...

I answered you over at Blognonymous. In short, wars can never be justified when their aim is conquest. It does not fit the "moral" criteria of my group-o-five.

As you pointed out though, war requires discipline and the temporary sacrifice of individual liberty, but that is also not inconsistent with freedom. Those who wish to serve exercise their freedom in the temporary suspension of their liberty. Those who do not wish to serve exercise their freedom to do that.