Freedom has been a scarce commodity in human history. And somewhat confusing. As we shall see, one problem with freedom—and there are a few—is how to define it. In the Western tradition, political freedom arose from ancient Greece and Rome. "Democracy" is a compound Greek word that means "rule by the people," and "republic" comes from the Latin "res publica," or "things of the people." After Christianity spread into the West, it became the accepted moral code. Thus, the ideas from Israel, Greece, and Rome defined Western "freedom." Until recent decades, this has not been challenged in the United States.
The vision of freedom which arose from Greece and Rome, through England, and into America is basically "political freedom," which means "freedom from (governmental) tyranny." Its primary thrust was that the people have a right to govern themselves, i.e., to choose their leaders, thus limiting what those government officials can do. Such ideas were not unknown in certain eastern, oriental cultures, but they never took root until spread worldwide, mainly by the British Empire and the United States.
Everybody wants "freedom" now, but unfortunately, most people in the world still do not have much—at least not the "political freedom" defined by Western tradition. The Chinese people do not elect their leaders nor limit what they can do. They do what the government tells them they can do. In the Western tradition, that is "tyranny," not "freedom."
Now, freedom doesn't mean a person can do anything he/she wishes. We don't (shouldn't) allow murderers the "freedom" to murder, and so governments are established to protect against the vilest abuses of humanity (murder, rape, theft, etc.). Thus, "free" societies allow their governments some authority to pass laws to protect the innocent and restrain those who would not be denied without some threat of punishment. Those laws should be equally applied to all. This is true equality, not some artificial "equality of outcome," which can only be accomplished by force and tyranny (see "communism," which allows neither freedom nor equality).
Recommended
But a limited, non-tyrannical government cannot control all behavior. There is not only "political freedom," but there must also be "moral restraint," which is far more crucial. For example, most people consider lying to be immoral. Lying can be highly harmful to oneself and others. But no "free" society gives the government the right to pass laws against lying; such would be impossible to enforce. And thus, another "problem" with "freedom" is that it needs moral boundaries, or the people will not be truly free; they will live in fear. And suppose the government is limited in what it can do due to its tyrannical tendencies. People must voluntarily specify their actions by accepting a just, fair, upright moral code. The less people voluntarily restrain themselves, the more the government must do it, and thus the less "freedom" society will have, and the more "tyrannical" government will become.
Unrestricted "political freedom" is called "anarchy." Such is very uncommon in human history. Unrestrained "moral freedom" is called "licentiousness," which is very common in human history and has been the bane and destroyer of many body politics. People must largely agree on moral standards to have a civilized, ordered society (let's call it "America"). If they do not, there will be constant violations of other people's freedom in ways limited government cannot prevent, and thus societal chaos will result. Again, that has happened frequently in history, Rome perhaps being the best-known example to Western readers. But it is hardly the only one. An orderly society must either have a strong government or strong morals. A strong government is usually tyrannical. Strong morals produce freedom because people freely CHOOSE to behave wisely.
But the age-old problem faced by a society that wishes to be "free" is, whose moral standard will guide us? Why should I accept your moral standard, or why should you accept mine or any other human being's? What makes one human's moral standard better than another's? This problem is precisely why religion is so vital to a national ethos. Moral laws come from God, not man, and are not defined by any man. Christianity, of course, became the norm that expressed and limited "licentious" behavior in America. It worked reasonably well for a long time. Government tyranny was limited to protecting political rights; immoral "tyranny" was limited to protecting human rights. As John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
But now, in America and much of "Western Civilization," Christianity has been rejected by the elite class, which broadly defines culture and more. Because Christianity is no longer the moral standard for untold millions of Americans, the country—unsurprisingly—has descended into licentiousness, hedonism, and bitter division. That is always the result of "moral laws" created by man—no fixed standard. Individuals decide their morality. The debate is raging because nobody any longer knows who to follow morally. Too many people do not know the difference between "freedom" and "licentiousness." The latter is no way to run a country any more than political anarchy is. As James Madison said, "Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power." Too much (moral) liberty is as dangerous as too much (political) power. Also attributed to Madison: "The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded." People who do not realize that true freedom and security are based upon God's moral laws, not man, will soon lose both.
That is the direction the United States is heading. The only answer is to return to the true meaning of freedom—political and moral.
Check out my new Substack for articles and podcasts at mklewis929.substack.com. Free signup. Read my Western novels, Whitewater, River Bend, Return to River Bend, and Allie's Dilemma, all available on Amazon. Also, search YouTube "mark kevin lewis" for my Bible commentary videos. You can follow me on Twitter: @thailandmkl. And rumble: lewandcou
Join the conversation as a VIP Member