To Free or Not to Free...That is the Question.

If under the Patriot Act our freedoms can be repressed just as they once were under British Colonization, and dare I say the slave trade, then what substance does our freedom have? And, if we cannot decline to serve in the military, if drafted, for fear of imprisonment, then what stability does our freedom have? If history teachers are banned from colleges for merely exposing the truth and offering an alternate opinion on the cruelty that the United States has done to other countries, then what use is our freedom? If these are the examples of the opportunities for the cessation of our freedom, then freedom seems just as ambivalent as the “pursuit” of happiness.

Noting this, I would like to pose a few questions. Must freedom inherently come with the vice grip of moderation? Is being truly free the exact same thing as complete chaos and anarchy? Lastly, is it better to live in a society with moderated freedoms, than to live in a society where you had no knowledge of freedom at all?

I fear that the true definition of freedom is fleeting, just as a pure capitalist society. Is it up to the people, the democracy in a republic, to define freedoms? Or, is it up to the government, the overarching superpower that regulates our lives and keeps us “safe,” to dictate to us what freedom is? Truthfully, free society has to be the most burdensome society to govern. It is similar to trying to domesticate a wild animal in its own habitat. Freedom is its own habitat and breeds a particular type of creature; ones that know neither chains nor bondage. So how is that we have found a way to domesticate this wild animal, and why even try to in the first place?

But then again there is that saying, “Freedom isn’t free?” That seems a little paradoxical to me. Why can’t freedom be free? Well, my argument is that people don’t know how to handle freedom; they abuse their freedoms. But if liberty is as it is defined, then we reserve the right to even abuse our freedoms without being punished for it, right? And if something is indeed free, can it ever really be abused? If this at all makes any sense, then, could we not argue that to abuse a freedom would be to try and cage it in the first place?

You be the judge.


-- Chauncey Jenkins, Executive Editor