America is the Land of the Free

To evaluate this debate, we must clarify what the word freedom means. Freedom is not the ability to do whatever you please without consequence from nature or from others. It is not violation of freedom to send a criminal who has broken a just law, say by committing murder, to jail. We may say that an imprisoned man is not free in the sense that his actions are restricted by iron bars, but this is not the same as the political freedom we mean when we speak of “the land of the free.” When we speak of “the land of the free,” we mean the land where political liberty is respected and protected. To argue that freedom requires the absolute ability to do as one pleases reduces the concept to meaningless garbage and contradiction, for if men are allowed to kill with impunity there can be no freedom at all. Murder necessarily destroys the freedom of the victim, so only by forbidding murder can we uphold freedom. Instead we should acknowledge that freedom is simply respect for the moral autonomy of all individuals. We violate freedom when we attempt to usurp an individual’s moral responsibility, when we try wresting the ability to make autonomous moral decisions from the individual. This is what we see in the truly tyrannical societies that behead those who dissent or imprison individuals who speak against established authority. The examples Pro brings up make a mockery of the word tyranny and disrespect the true violations of freedom that happen all over the world. Freedom is neither freedom from the consequences of your actions nor freedom from judgment of other morally autonomous individuals. If my acquaintance insults me, I am not imposing tyranny by refusing any further contact with him. If many of my friends similarly refuse association, we have still not restricted anyone’s freedom. We have not tried to take away the ability to make moral decisions; we do not disrespect anyone’s responsibility for their actions. Ostracization does not take away anyone’s moral autonomy, so it is not a violation of freedom. Directly to Pro’s point, in ostracizing someone, I do not take away their ability to sincerely say whatever they please. Similarly, when public opinion turns against certain positions, it is no violation of freedom when individuals feel societal pressure for voicing unpopular opinions. Not only is social coercion not a violation of freedoms- I respect moral autonomy even as I try to persuade an individual- but coercion is unavoidable. Every social interaction contains a million coercive acts; social coercion is ubiquitous and does not violate individual autonomy. Do I violate my friend’s freedom when I offer to set him up on a date if he goes to a Phish concert with me? I have provided a clear and well justified guideline for when coercive action restricts freedom, while Pro’s standard makes all interactions a violation of freedom. We see again that Pro reduces the phrase “the land of the free” to a meaningless standard in which social friction magically evaporates. Pro’s argument puts him in the awkward position of claiming that respecting other’s freedom means refraining from acting on my own moral autonomy. If any negative reaction to free speech infringes on the freedom of others, this obligates me to refrain from any negative response. Pro would have me nod and smile while being harangued by vile insults lest I violate the “freedom” of my bully by standing up for myself. Moreover, who is to say what action might deter someone from speaking their mind? I have no way of knowing whether my response has caused someone to self-censor, thus I have no way of knowing when I am violating Pro’s “freedoms!” I have no obligation to associate with those I find morally repugnant. In anticipation of an objection by Pro, I will cryptically note that all interactions must respect the dignity of all people just as we must respect the autonomy of all people. This fact may generate obligations of associations in special situations where individuals take on roles of public responsibility such as a medical practitioner or public official. Finally, Pro’s argument ignores the continuum on which political societies exist. There will never be a society in which freedom is perfectly respected. While we should always strive for the ideal society, there comes a point where we can say that a society is doing pretty darn well and is in general a free society. America is well beyond this point- I can drink booze and shoot guns and say pretty much whatever I damn please, if that isn’t freedom I don’t know what is.