Concepts in Politics: Liberty and Freedom

Liberty and freedom tend to be used interchangeably in political discourse, but they are not the same thing, at least according to some sources. Wikipedia describes the difference like this:

“Sometimes liberty is differentiated from freedom by using the word "freedom" primarily, if not exclusively, to mean the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do; and using the word "liberty" to mean the absence of arbitrary restraints, taking into account the rights of all involved. In this sense, the exercise of liberty is subject to capability and limited by the rights of others. ..... Liberty entails the responsible use of freedom under the rule of law without depriving anyone else of their freedom. Freedom is more broad in that it represents a total lack of restraint or the unrestrained ability to fulfill one's desires. For example, a person can have the freedom to murder, but not have the liberty to murder, as the latter example deprives others of their right not to be harmed. Liberty can be taken away as a form of punishment. In many countries, people can be deprived of their liberty if they are convicted of criminal acts.”

Thus liberty is constrained by the rule of law and to a lesser extent constraints that flow from things like social and tribal norms and loyalties. The concepts are important in politics because many people consider rule of law constraints to be unjustifiable or unconstitutional. Differences of opinion arise because both liberty and freedom are essentially contested concepts. They are not definable with universal authority and probably never will be. People will endlessly disagree about what is a proper liberty or freedom and what is not.

This is important because an ideology such as libertarianism leads many libertarians to believe that there are far too many burdens on individual freedoms that should never be subject to the rule of law. Some libertarians argue that many or most laws are illegal because they are unconstitutional. A sociologist who worked as a financial advisor for multi-millionaires and billionaires commented on how many of those people viewed the rule of law and thus the scope of their own liberties:

“The lives of the richest people in the world are so different from those of the rest of us, it's almost literally unimaginable. National borders are nothing to them. They might as well not exist. The laws are nothing to them. They might as well not exist. ..... About a quarter of the people I interviewed [financial advisors to billionaires] really seemed to believe quite unironically in the justice of protecting the wealth of their clients from taxation. They literally view taxation as theft, and they view government as incompetent at best and corrupt at worst. They are deeply suspicious of any sort of welfare state programs because they see it as destroying initiative.” 

A lot of those wealthy people cheat on their taxes with no qualms whatever about it.

With that kind of an anti-law mindset, it is easy to see how the urge to make government so small it can be drowned in a bathtub would be appealing. Of course, we are witnessing the downside of that attitude at work in the staggering incompetence and failures of our shrinking federal government to deal competently with the coronavirus pandemic. Before the current disaster is recovered from, that anti-government, unrestrained freedom attitude will cost the US economy and taxpayers trillions, maybe $10 trillion, maybe a lot more.

In a 1944 speech, federal judge Learned Hand commented on how he saw the liberty vs freedom difference, the danger of unrestrained freedom and how he struggled to define the undefinable concept of liberty:

“What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow. ..... What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; .....” 

That language expresses sentiments that are rarely voiced in modern political discourse. Among many conservative and populist Americans, the idea of weighing the interests of others along with personal interests without bias is probably seen as naive, goofy or maybe even immoral. That attitude is unfortunate. There is nothing naive, goofy or immoral about having some concern for one’s fellow citizens and people in general.

One can see the danger inherent in elevating the concept of freedom and/or liberty to a position that negates the rule of law and any other constraints that tend to impede the rise to power of demagogues, tyrants, plutocrats, oligarchs, kleptocrats, murderers, crooks and liars.

Spiderbait, Most Boys Suck