The word 'Freedom' has forever been the rallying cry of the United States. We pride ourselves as being known as 'The Land of Liberty' and our leader is known as 'The President of the Free World.' Of all the virtues Americans claim to cherish, freedom is always listed at the very top.

But what is freedom anyway?

The question seems almost absurd. The word freedom is tossed about with such frequency in America, that nobody even thinks to stop and ask for a definition. But think about it, when George W. Bush comes on TV and says that "terrorists hate freedom" just what exactly is he talking about? Do they hate the concept in general? Or do they only disapprove of the particular manifestation of it that America claims to champion?

When you really sit down and start to examine it, freedom is a fairly difficult concept. First of all, there are several types of freedom: freedom from and freedom to. In a nation that offers free education to the doctorate level, you have freedom from the fear of paying your tuition. That's a freedom that Americans don't get to enjoy. In a Communist nation, you have the freedom from the anxiety of looking for a job because the state appoints you one. On the other hand, you are denied the freedom to go into business for yourself. The ironic thing is that a person who was born in either a democratic or a communist regime could look at a person in the other and find examples of freedoms that were being denied.

For a long time, communism was the word that identified the one true enemy of freedom. It was a reference to Stalin's "communism" which was a dictatorship and had nothing at all to do with Karl Marx's "communism" which he outlined in the "Communist Manifesto." Marx wasn't attempting to invent some new form of government with his book, he was simply hypothesizing about the evolution of human political interactions and he threw out a theory of how highly evolved beings might one day organize themselves. The original theory sounded quite lovely, and several enterprising people used the pretty words in order to seduce the masses and get themselves in positions of power. Yes, there was a time when communism was considered a pretty word, just like freedom is now. Back before the concept got tarnished by charlatans who decided to use it as their rallying call to make a profit.

There are some freedoms that are inherent to any society which will never be taken away. It doesn't matter if it's a society based on the most perfect realization of human potential, or the most depraved, fascist regime. People will always have the right to go to sleep, wake up, eat, work, and have children. If you deny any massive percentage of the population these rights, the people will die and the society will eventually crumble into nothing. All societies need to have people who will work, and people cannot work unless they are rested and fed. All workers are eventually going to get old and the work force has to be replenished with children. This isn't going to change.

So it is contrary to logic to assume that the enemies of America "hate all freedom" as is frequently implied. It simply isn't possible for a regime to exist that denies all freedom. Even a power-mad dictator has to understand that it isn't in his or her best interests to subjugate and oppress everybody. The power of any nation comes from its people, and it just takes too much time and energy to keep people from doing anything they want.

When freedom is revoked it is usually on a small scale. For example there are some countries in the world where you are prohibited the freedom of drinking unless you are over 21. Shocking isn't it? But sadly, it's true. The poor people of those countries are strictly guarded by a government employed police force. Of course, many citizens of such nations have been convinced by propaganda that this is really in their best interests because people under 21 are not responsible enough to handle alcohol. In many ways, this rigidly held, socially dictated belief is much more disturbing than the thought that there are freedoms being denied.

Another wrinkle in the freedom debate comes from whether, as champions of freedom, America stands for freedom for everybody, or just freedom for ourselves? There is no doubt that power and wealth create freedom, but does that mean it is justifiable to make slaves out of some people in order to pursue greater personal freedom? America often talks about bringing freedom and democracy to the rest of the world, but what do they really mean? It's not a politically sound strategy to construct world super-powers that could someday threaten us, yet it seems contrary to our ideology to keep the weak down just to preserve our own sense of well-being.

Somewhere along the line, somebody picked the rather ambiguous word "freedom" as the representation of everything America stands for. Unfortunately, after more than two centuries of conditioning, every time that word is tossed out American citizens stand at reverent attention with their hands over their hearts and never even think to ask for a clarification. This seems a rather reckless attitude for a people who claim to cherish freedom above all other concepts.

The question of what is actually meant by "freedom" has become, perhaps, the most significant moral and ideological problem of our time. Saying that you acted to "protect freedom" doesn't vindicate you, it doesn't mean anything at all really. It has long been noted that everything is simply a matter of perspective. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The whole thing has caused me to wonder if the American definition of freedom is really an aspiration to a higher ideal, or is it just a political tool meant to blind the masses from what they really stand for?

The End