“And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world?”

– Frederic Bastiat1 (1850)

If there is one thing that is uniquely associated with America, it is freedom. From the moment that Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown, America has been a symbol of liberty to the entire world. Since the end of World War II, when the United States assumed a worldwide leadership role, it has been the leader of the “free world.” At sporting events, standing crowds begin their ovation when the vocalist singing the national anthem gets to the words, “O’er the land of the free.” Even in everyday conversations, scarcely a day goes by that one does not hear someone say, “Do what you like, it’s a free country.” Come what may, the overwhelming majority of Americans are grateful that they live in America, the land of the free.

However, although we all agree that America is the “land of the free,” the next question may be a bit more difficult to answer. What is freedom? How is it defined? What makes America the land of the free? How would we know if we were to lose our freedom? What is it that our soldiers die for, and our politicians swear to defend?

We have been told a lot of things about what freedom is not. From the end of World War II until 1991, most Americans knew that freedom was not communism. For almost three generations, Americans lived in the “free world” during its cold war with the communist eastern bloc. Without further thought or instruction, it is not surprising that many children of the 20th century simply think of freedom as the antithesis of communism. In some ways, this is not completely untrue, although it hardly provides a complete answer to our question. In any case, what we do know about the communist regimes of the 20th century is enough for us to conclude that they were definitely not free societies.

Of course, that certainly does not mean that all systems of government besides communism provide freedom for their people. Our own country fought for its freedom against the monarch George III of England, whom the American colonists accused of tyranny. Likewise, the Royal House of Saud may be an ally of the U.S. government, but most Americans would not regard Saudi Arabia as a “free country.” In addition to monarchies, there are plenty of dictatorships around the world that are symbols of oppression. While some may likewise be allies of the U.S. government, they nevertheless represent an absence of freedom for their people. So, a society is not free merely because it is not communist.

On the other hand, Great Britain has been a relatively free country for its people throughout much of its history over the past several centuries, even when the monarchy was much more than a figurehead. Despite the dispute between George III and the American colonies, Great Britain was at that time the freest society in the world, and with the exception of the United States remained so for some time afterwards. Therefore, rather than conclude that no freedom is possible under a monarchy, we might conclude that monarchies neither guarantee nor necessarily exclude freedom, while dictatorships for the most part exclude it. Still, examining these systems of government, at least superficially, does not get us any closer to defining freedom.

Perhaps we can define freedom more easily by looking at its antithesis. Merriam-Webster Dictionary lists slavery among antonyms for freedom. Surely, here we have found a start. Most people would agree that slavery is the complete absence of freedom. Who can we imagine that is less free than the slave? This is helpful in beginning to try to frame an answer. However, freedom cannot be the mere absence of slavery. Surely our founding fathers bled to give us a higher standard than this!

If we are told anything about what freedom is by our teachers, politicians, or media, it is that freedom is democracy. If you ask most Americans what freedom is, this is the most likely answer that you will get. This is reinforced ad nauseum by those same politicians, media, and teachers in our public schools. When Iraq held its first elections after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, politicians and journalists universally celebrated the Iraqis’ “first taste of freedom.”

Certainly, democracy is a vast improvement over the autocratic rule of a dictator, but does democracy automatically mean freedom? If democracy is rule by the majority, what about the minority? What if 51 % of the people voted to oppress the other 49%? Would that society truly be free?

Most Americans would be quite surprised to learn what our founding fathers thought about democracy. Any objective analysis would conclude that their feelings about democracy lay somewhere between suspicion and contempt. While he often extolled the virtue of majority rule, as long as it continued to protect natural rights, Thomas Jefferson also wrote,

“…that the majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.”2

James Madison said, “Democracy is the most vile form of government … democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths,”3

In a letter to James Monroe, Madison also said,

“There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong.”4

Can this be true? The founding fathers were ambivalent toward democracy? For many people, this is tantamount to sacrilege. More shocking still is what the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution say about democracy – nothing. Nowhere in our founding documents will you find the word democracy or the assertion, either implicit or explicit, that our government is a democracy. How can this be?

Despite what we are taught almost from birth, the United States of America has never been a democracy. As only contrarians seem to point out these days, the United States of America is a constitutional republic. We choose our leaders using the democratic process of majority vote, but that is the extent to which the United States involves itself with democracy.

So, like monarchy, democracy neither guarantees nor necessarily excludes freedom. In fact, our founding fathers actually feared that democracy poses a great danger to freedom. Apart from the pure heresy of the idea, it leaves us with an even greater problem. We are no closer to defining freedom. If even democracy is not freedom, then perhaps freedom doesn’t really exist! If we are not to find freedom in democracy, where else can we look?

We certainly won’t learn what freedom is from our politicians. While terrorism, healthcare, unemployment, gay marriage, and a host of other “major” issues dominate public debate, freedom is an issue that is just too quaint, too academic, or too forgotten to get any airplay. Yet, as we shall see as we explore the different subjects of this book, freedom is the fundamental issue. In fact, despite what we perceive as a myriad of different problems facing the United States of America today, freedom is actually the only issue. That may be hard to accept at this point, given the decades of shoddy history, obfuscation, and plain old bad ideas that we’ve been bombarded with. Nevertheless, no matter what specific issue we confront in this book, every one of them actually revolves around freedom. Therefore, if freedom is really that important, if our soldiers are truly dying for our freedom, we’d better be absolutely sure that we know what it is.

In order to answer the question posed by Bastiat at the beginning of this chapter, we will have to go back to the beginning. Our founding fathers faced no such quandary about the definition of freedom; they knew exactly what it was. They were children of the Age of Reason, and derived their ideas about freedom directly from the enlightenment philosophers, especially John Locke. While these philosophers were powerful thinkers and their ideas were (no pun intended) revolutionary at the time, the principles of liberty are relatively simple. They are, as the namesake of this book concluded, Common Sense. In fact, it was an understanding of these revolutionary ideas by average American colonists that inspired the revolution that gave birth to a nation.

The idea that opens the door to the true meaning of freedom is individual rights. Despite the emphasis in today’s discourse placed upon the “general welfare” and the “common good,” the tradition of liberty that our country was founded upon had nothing to do with either. Instead, our founders believed that each individual was born with natural, unalienable rights. The Declaration of Independence states,

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” 5

This passage is quoted widely in popular culture. Invariably, the words that are emphasized are “that all men are created equal.” Certainly, these are fine words, and worthy of veneration. However, the rest of this passage is equally important. It says that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Thus, every human being, having been created in a state of equality with all other human beings, has rights that no earthly power can take away. These rights are “endowed by their Creator,” so that government – even a democratically elected government – has no power to revoke them. To the founding fathers this was “self evident.” It was true based purely upon man’s existence itself.

This idea is drawn directly from the philosophy of John Locke, who wrote,

“A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection,”6

While the rights alluded to are “endowed by their Creator,” it is important to note that the founders did not specify who the Creator was. Too often, those arguing for the ideals of our republic make the fatal mistake of basing the natural rights upon belief not only in God, but specifically upon the Christian God. While the founders were by no means ambivalent towards Christianity, and in fact most of them either practiced it or at least admired its teachings, belief in Christianity or even in God is not necessary to support the argument made by the founders for the natural rights. The beauty of this idea is that it transcends religion and thus welcomes members of all religions, and those with no religious beliefs at all. Thus, the first building block of freedom – individual, unalienable rights – can be claimed by Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists – by every person on earth.

So what are these individual rights, which cannot be taken away by any power on earth? Our Declaration goes on to say, “That among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”7

At first glance, this statement might be a bit deceiving, maybe even a little disappointing. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Is that it? Surely we have more rights than these! Of course, the Declaration says “among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” so it does not limit the natural rights to these three. However, these three are hugely important. It is worthwhile to determine the meaning of each.

The right to life is pretty easy to understand. Most civilized societies have laws against murder. Each individual has a right not to be killed. So far, so good. What about the other two? We are in the midst of trying to define “liberty,” or “freedom,” so let us put that aside for the moment. The third right listed is “the pursuit of happiness.” What does that mean? Does it mean nothing? Or does it mean everything? What if it makes me happy to steal cars or blow up buildings? Surely, I don’t have a right to pursue happiness like that!

Again, we can find the answer in Locke,

“To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.” 8

A careful read of this passage reveals that there is a limit on our actions while pursuing our happiness. For, while people are free to do what they want, they must do so “within the bounds of the law of nature.” What is the “law of nature?” Locke goes on to tell us,

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and Reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions…” 9

Finally, we have some indication of what freedom is, rather than what it is not. The first part of the Locke passage is easily understood. No one has the right to harm another person’s life or health. This prohibits individuals from initiating violence against one another. Therefore, freedom or liberty is not the unlimited ability to do whatever you want, nor is it confined to the arbitrary limits placed upon people by governments. Contrary to the spurious argument that unfettered liberty would result in societal chaos, we see that the law of nature, Reason, very clearly and unambiguously prohibits some actions, even for people in a state of perfect liberty. They are:

1. Initiating the use of force or violence

2. Infringing upon another person’s liberty

3. Harming them in their possessions.

This last limit upon the actions of free individuals is important. Locke spends an entire chapter of the Second Treatise talking about it. It has to do with the right to property, which is arguably the most important right, while at the same time the least understood. Property rights are important enough that we will spend some time in the next chapter examining the subject. To do this we will have to come to a clear definition of property, including how it is acquired, how it is exchanged, and what right the owner has to it.

Most importantly, we have arrived at a definition of liberty, or freedom. It is the right of any person to do as they please, as long as they do not violate the equal rights of anyone else. This principle is generally referred to today as the “Non-Aggression Principle.” Political activists associate this principle with libertarians, while intellectuals associate it with Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. Certainly both movements recognize and venerate this principle, but it is important to realize that neither is its source. In fact, the Non-Aggression Principle has been articulated with very little variation by all writers in the liberal tradition, including Locke, Jefferson,10 Paine, Bastiat, Mill, and later Rand and other 20th century writers and thinkers.

By applying this principle, the most complicated societal issues become astoundingly simple. The ambiguous becomes unambiguous. The answers become clear. As we said earlier, almost every “problem” facing America today can be solved by applying the principle of freedom.

In conclusion, there are a few points that we should review for emphasis. First, the rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and drawn out of Locke’s philosophy are unalienable. They cannot be taken away by any power on earth, including a majority vote. The reason that the founders were suspicious of democracy was because of their fear that the majority would oppress the individual by voting away the individual’s rights, especially property rights. This was the reason for the separation of powers and the limits on government authority. Even a majority vote can be a threat to freedom.

The difference between a right and a privilege is a vital concept to understand. A right is something that you are born with, that you possess merely because you exist. A privilege is something that is granted by another person, group, or a government. Our country was founded upon the principle that all people have unalienable rights that cannot be taken away, not privileges granted by their government. As John Adams so eloquently put it,

“I say RIGHTS, for such they have, undoubtedly, antecedent to all earthly government, — Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws — Rights, derived from the great Legislator of the universe.”11

There is no need to “be thankful that we have the rights that we have in America.” All people have those rights and gratitude is neither necessary nor appropriate. Rather, people are justified in demanding their rights, and any violation of them should be recognized as an act of aggression.

Second, in any conflict between individual liberty and the will of the majority, individual liberty makes no compromise. The majority has no right to violate the rights of the individual. This is to some extent merely making the first point in reverse, but it is important enough to state in more than one way. Society doesn’t have rights; individuals do. Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals, so protecting each individual in society protects society. This was also “self evident” to our founders.

Despite these undeniable truths, individual liberty is today under almost constant attack because of its perceived conflict with “the common good” or “the needs of society.” While living together and agreeing not to initiate aggression against each other seems astoundingly simple, our politicians would have us believe that there is something incredibly complicated about it. They create a world in which civil society is a maze of moral dilemmas that only their astute guidance can lead us safely through. Once individual rights and liberty are properly understood and applied, all of these supposed dilemmas disappear.