Skip to main content

What's Freedom For?

Everybody's talkin' 'bout freedom. Define your terms. What is freedom? Two choices: 1. Absolute individual autonomy to make whatever choice you want to make.

 People are already getting jumpy, because most of them don't want to kill someone else, or seriously hurt them. But then, most people are going to do some serious equivocating, because "My Body, My Choice!" Not your body, or your choice, in fact. Except for that. I think most people could make a distinction between killing and murder, such that it would be morally licit to use lethal force against another person, in tragic and unavoidable circumstances, in self-defense. Was the Second Iraq War in self-defense? Debatable. Were the ends sought significant enough to render numerous unintended bad effects acceptable? Except for that.

Not to beat up on anyone here, but we're getting into the weeds pretty fast. It's like we're talking about morality. Uh-oh.

What's our second definition of freedom? 2. A certain modicum of self-determination, flourishing in the absence of coercion, for the purpose of seeking the good, the true, and the beautiful. Let's leave this aside for the moment.

I think the only thing worse than libertarianism is what I like to call "lazy libertarianism." Tell me you've heard this before: "As long as two consenting adults want to do it (or even one), and no one is getting hurt, it's no one else's business." How do you know no one is getting hurt? In fact, that you are not hurting yourself? Ever drank way too much? How do you know "the kids are all right," to pose a question with a little more relevance for our lives today. Do you know, or do you just agree with whatever countenances the thing you've already decided?

I might add, if a person lives in a mud hut in El Salvador, and works for the equivalent of 2 pennies a day, he doesn't have that self-determination I'm thinking of. You know what his "consent" to that situation means? Two things: Jack, and Squat. I digress.

Personally, I just feel guilty that I've been here in this world for thirty-odd years, crowing about freedom and liberty no doubt for most of it, and only recently stopped to ask, "What does that mean, and what's it for?"

Somebody recently asked me, "Why can't people make their own meaning?" Well, they are. How's that working out? In all my years as a citizen of the land of the free and the home of the brave, never have my fellows been less free, or less brave, than they are right now.

Some people worry that if we start asking all these questions, a tyrannical theocracy of fanaticism will somehow appear. I suppose that's always possible. In my experience though, there is nothing more tyrannical than a guilty conscience. I'm doubting whether the dudes with Bibles ever really had that much power. Maybe you need to silence them, because if you don't, and loudly, the cry of your heart will be too much to bear. But that's none of my business.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
My wheelchair was nearly destroyed by a car last night. That's a bit melodramatic, I suppose, because it is intact and undamaged. But we'd left my power chair ("Red Sam" in the official designation) in-between the maze of cars parked out front of Chris Yee's house for Bible Study. [Isn't that a Protestant Bible study?--ed.] They are good friends, and it is not under any official auspices. [Not BSF?--ed.] They're BSF guys, but it's not a BSF study. Anyway, I wasn't worried; I made a joke about calling the vendor the next day: "What seems to be the problem, sir?" 'Well, it was destroyed by a car.' As it happened, a guy bumped into it at slow speed. His car got the worst of it. And this only reinforces what I've said for a solid 13 years [Quickie commercial coming] If you want a power wheelchair that lasts, get a Quickie. They're fast, obviously, and they're tanks. Heck, my old one still would work, but the batteries ar