Billy's Silly Blog

Freedom

They say that being retired gives a person FREEDOM...the same way they say that having a good relationship brings HAPPINESS, or having engaging work to do brings FULFILMENT. Sometimes, for example, people rush into retirement anticipating freedom, only to find they had no idea what freedom consisted of. They become bored and find they are free to get sick and die without reporting to Personnel. George W. Bush declared war in order to bring freedom to Iraqis, and it is unlikely that this was the same freedom I yearned for when I retired.

So the first contemporary stop in any investigation of freedom seems to be Nelson Mendala. Somehow this guy managed to overcome the personal outrage of being caged for eighteen years for "terrorism", was liberated and managed to make fundamental changes to the power structure in South Africa without the country following the traditional path of civil war and whole scale violence. Obviously the man had some idea of freedom.

Quoting from "Long Walk to Freedom", here are some of his comments about freedom:

"It was during those long and lonely years that my hunger for the freedom of my own people became a hunger for the freedom of all people, white and black. I knew as well as I knew anything that the oppressor must be liberated just as surely as the oppressed. A man who takes away another man's freedom is a prisoner of hatred, he is locked behind the bars of prejudice and narrow-mindedness. I am not truly free if I am taking away someone else's freedom, just as surely as I am not free when my freedom is taken from me. The oppressed and the oppressor alike are robbed of their humanity.

When I walked out of prison, that was my mission, to liberate the oppressed and the oppressor both. Some say that has now been achieved. But I know that that is not the case. The truth is that we are not yet free; we have merely achieved the freedom to be free, the right not to be oppressed. We have not taken the final step of our journey, but the first step on a longer and even more difficult road. For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. "

So it is clear that true freedom was not, to him, a selfish notion. Freedom was a shared mindset, and hatred (and probably fear and greed) are antitheses to true freedom. If "freedom" is defined as the "absence of repression or oppression", political or economic goals are reasonably easy to understand. But what about the freedom to EAT, or the freedom to MOVE, or the freedom to MARRY whoever appeals to you (assuming the person is not already committed). Or freedom from war or intimidation? Or freedom to THINK?

It is understood that there are limitations on my freedom. I am not free use your car without permission, or to spend $1000 if I can only scrape together $100 and do not have credit, unless I am Enron. I am not free in this society to marry several wives, which is a relief to women everywhere. Apparently I am not free to question why Muhammed had 11 wives when the maximum set for Muslims who could afford it was four, for fear of being jihaded.

With apologies to the patriotic in our midst, I am sometimes confused by the notion that we "fought two world wars to preserve our freedom". Freedom from Hitler was well worth fighting for, since even his compatriots knew he was a dangerous, evil fool. If he had been assassinated, Germans would likely have won and ended up running the European Common Union! But what about other wars? Did Americans really obtain additional freedom when they vanquished the British in 1776? In retrospect, did the South LOSE freedom when Confederate troops were defeated by the North in 1885? There was of course the well publicised freedom for the slaves, which turned out to be a bit of a slippery slope itself! In both wars, they won the freedom to be taxed by Washington instead of the alternatives. But it is not perfectly clear what other freedoms were involved that might not have evolved had wars not been fought. And of course these freedom assessments are often difficult. The freedoms we enjoy are clearly worth fighting for if the alternatives are those of other times and places! Jews could not own property or enter trades in Germany and many other "Christian" countries for generations. Christians are not free to build churches today in Saudi Arabia. And of course there are a legion of other examples.

"Freedom transactions" are difficult to assess. Quebec sovereignty might provide Quebec, and in fact the remainder of Canada, more cultural freedom with the loss of economic power and security. When sovereignty comes to Quebec, they will be the chaff of North America and we will inevitably become the resource rump and integral part of the United States. Perhaps something worth fighting against.

We do need to be conscious of the "golden rule" in freedom transactions.. that we are not fighting for freedom for SOME at the expense of others. That we are not fighting for property rights for the elite in Central America or Africa at the expense of the vast majority. We need to guard against bringing OUR views of freedom to others. Perhaps the attempt to bring freedom to Iraqis a repeat of the cultural arrogance of past colonial powers in invading North and South America, India, Australia, and Africa in order to bring European values (freedom) to indigenous folk?

In the home of the brave and the land of the free,
We are conscious of freedom, and we all agree
That we'll fight for world freedom! In light of this debt
They will let us determine the freedoms they get!

Many consider "free" a a synonym of "good" without defining freedom. "Free Trade" has been less "free" than had been anticipated. Canada is "free" to send its energy south, but not its softwood lumber. Countries may restrain my freedom to immigrate there to control their ability to deliver on the obligations to their residents which might be in jeopardy if they were swamped. Of course, this also obligates countries from NOT effecting economic practices (such as subsidies) that subvert other countries, or allowing repression or war, forcing people into emigration. The "free world" is often construed as a world where trade barriers have been removed, providing freedom to big companies to sell their goods but in many cases relieving locals of their freedom to make a living and eat.

Mandela suggests that basic freedoms, like the freedom to EAT, are a matter of justice, not charity. Given the inability of structures such as the World Trade Organization and World Bank to provide this economic justice to places like Africa, the world has relied on Bono and Bill Gates to provide charity. Real freedom should be put on a more stable basis.

Perhaps Mandela put his finger on the missing link in the common perceptions of "freedom".. the absence (or at least reduction) of selfishness. The massive increase in "consideration for others" required in business and politics is unlikely without significant changes in people. And where reduction of selfishness is the focus of religions, as opposed to ethnicentricity, or emotional / political power, or conformity to certain (mainly sexual) norms, or love of pageantry, they are making their contribution to freedom.

They said "You're retired! Go on home; you are FREE."
Then this concept of freedom was worrying me.
"Am I free to get drunk, spend the work week in bed?"
"Watch the soaps every day eating popcorn?" I said.

The answer came slowly, " Your values will tell"
" If you are defined by the folks you love well,"
"Or the things you experience, ponder, or do."
"You now have the freedom to simply be YOU!"

posted by bill @ 10:55 AM