Liberty paper for 01/18/02 by Benjamin M. Walsh (the 2nd draft, if you must know):

Americans love liberty. 'Oh, we're so great, we're a free people and we smell better than you, too!' seems to be the watchword of the hour. When patriotism is called for, liberty seems to be the meaning behind our esteemed flag that seems to generate so much revenue for American flag-adorned T-shirt-manufacturers these days. But just what IS liberty? If it's so popular, shouldn't more people know what it means? Yes they should. Do they? I'm not so sure that they do. Like the concepts of 'religion' and of 'love', 'liberty' is a concept which is, in my opinion, vastly misunderstood. Too many people lack a proper definition of what liberty means - and so, it will be the aim of THIS paper to see what we can do to rectify this unfortunate situation. Every little bit counts, right?

First of all, let's start by reviewing what the majorities seem to think liberty means. This information is almost entirely based on surveys that I *could* have conducted if I wasn't so lazy and it wasn't 11:45 Thursday night as I was writing this... so yes, I'm guessing. So, some people seem to think that liberty is freedom from consequences. And yet, this big place we all live in being assumed to be a logical and ordered universe, the world itself seems to go against this. You fly a plane into the ground, chances are that you're going to die... presuming that you're actually riding in the plane and that it's not some sort of hobby store model plane that you're flying via remote control. The idea of karma and the concept of Heaven and Hell also restate this concept in much the similar ways, as does Newton's First Law of Motion. Even x + 1 implies that if you go to the trouble of adding 1 to a number, the number will be 1 greater. That will be the consequence resulting from the addition performed. But if liberty really is a good thing, would it really go against such a broad consensus of moral theory, math, and physics? For myself, I don't think so. It just wouldn't make much sense.

Then again, it seems that another large group might vaguely think that liberty is the freedom to do as one pleases. Consequences will come later - but for the present, just do it, Rockapella. No one's gonna stop you - you can answer for it after the fact. But if this is true, it would seem that nature once again would violate this doctrine. Now, not knowing quite what I believe but knowing that I could still very well be wrong, I do not entirely discount the possibility of flying through act of will, or levitation, or instant transportation, or creation of matter, or metapresence (one step below omnipresence). I will not argue here either for or against their possibily or feasibility. However, to say that we should be free to do anything we want tends to imply that we should be ABLE to do anything that we want, regardless of our faculties and abilities... or even the simple possibility of anything. Yes, I know that this is extending the doctrine beyond where it is meant to go, but here I am anyway. Oh well.

Actually, I don't think that would be my definition of liberty even if we DID leave the doctrine within reasonable limits and didn't take it to mean that we should be able to defy the physical and other laws of the universe (which certainly is one meaning to be had from that, though not the only one). Why? It's quite simple, really: because even if we're PHYSICALLY allowed to do anything within reason, we may not want to do it. But then again, our vices may COMPEL us to do it. We may not be free to make that decision. Yes, I know that we're now erring on the other side of the line, giving it too little meaning instead of too much, but I suspect that this is about where most people would place the meaning of that phrase. And here is what I mean.

Consider, if you will, someone who will remain nameless for as long as possible. They knew that if they eat that huge box of noodles sitting in the fridge, they'd feel fat and lazy and lacking in energy, but they go ahead and eat it anyway, because they somehow feel 'compelled' to eat it. Why is not important. The fact is, though, that just the other day I was forced to eat a huge box of noodles that had been sitting in my grandmother's fridge since - gasp! - lunchtime, and I felt quite ill afterwards, if not lazy or fat. I was free to make the wrong choice, and whoptee do, I did. Is that a good thing?

The answer may surprise you, at least it might if you've actually been listening and not sitting there doodling like I would have done under the circumstances. Yes, it was a good thing, because I learned and grew from the experience. Yes, I also grew rounder from the experience, but aside from that, I learned a valuable lesson: don't eat such huge quantities of noodles. While my self wouldn't allow me to walk away THAT TIME, it's possible that my experience will help me to do so NEXT TIME.

But this is all getting very confused and noodle-y, isn't it? Let's get back on track. Was I really free when I ate all those noodles? I don't think that I was. My sizing-up of the situation led me to determine a course of action suggesting that I DON'T eat the noodles, but yet for some reason something compelled me to do so. I was a slave to that something, and I'm sorry for it.

So maybe human laws DON'T have much to do with liberty after all. Sure, they can affect our liberties, the things that we're free to do without legal repercussion (every action has a natural repercussion, though; there's ultimately no avoiding that), but our liberty is actually determined by our own self. If you are kept from doing something by fear of the unknown or of whatever, well, I guess it's comforting to know that you're a wimp, too, but you're not free. You're a slave to fear. Fear has produced an unsigned document of legal ownership of you. The key, though, is recognizing that it's unsigned - fear doesn't own you without your permission. If fear owns you, it's because you LET fear own you. It's a problem, yes, but it comes with an ultimate solution.

So maybe that's the meaning of liberty - to be freed from one's own vices. We're fighting ourselves here - the good us versus the bad. We have to decide which part of us really IS the good and which the bad, as well as which is the real essential ME. It's a hard job, yes, but it must be done if liberty is to be had. I might even go a step further and say that liberating oneself and others is part of our very task here, a core part of the meaning of life.

Now, you're free to agree or disagree with all of this. That's part of your basic right - to agree or disagree with anything and anyone as we see fit. Granted, perhaps in some cases it is more or less wise or advisable to do so - but that's a point for another time. For now, though, just be glad that you now know what it might just mean to be truly free... the first step in achieving that lofty but ultimately neccessary goal.

Anyone got a box of noodles?