Freedom in One Lesson

73.

Progress Depends on Freedom

People often claim various sorts of freedom, asserting them as rights, but they may not think through the meaning of freedom with as much care as the topic deserves. In conducting a serious examination of freedom, we may discover that we have been deceiving ourselves.

Leonard Read considers freedom with a care that others might not invest. If we wish to think as carefully as he does, we should consider what he had to say in “Progress Depends on Freedom,” from his 1971 book Then Truth Will Out (Read 1971a).

From what should anyone wish to be free? . . .

. . . Why try to think this one through? . . . No social concept is more important to understand than freedom, and . . . no word, standing by itself, conjures up a greater variety of meanings and connotations than freedom. Used alone, that is, in the absence of definitive phrases, the word explains nothing. When I say only that I stand for freedom, all people, even communists, will agree with me, although what they have in mind may well be the very opposite of what I mean. . . .

. . . Freedom . . . is fundamental. . . . Freedom is not man’s goal, but without it man can never achieve his goals. Freedom is . . . man’s most important “tool,” the essential means to his progress. . . . And let us bear in mind that freedom is not a social relationship to be designed, constructed, or created; freedom exists unless prevented, that is, it exists in the absence of restraints.

. . . From what should anyone wish to be free? . . .

. . . People not only demand freedom from various disturbing influences but demand it as a right.

. . . So far as I am concerned, one has a right to do anything he pleases—silly or brilliant—if the action in no way infringes upon the creative aspirations of any other person.

. . . Freedom is not some incidental gimmick but is fundamental to all progress.

Reflect on freedom from want, a highly popularized and broadly accepted concept. Is this valid? Yes, so long as it remains a strictly personal aspiration. It is legitimate to seek freedom from destitution—poverty—and other deterrents to fulfillment.

But have we a right to be free from want? The word “right” in this context can have but a single meaning: a claim on the resources of others. And this is the only meaning it does have in today’s political world. The mere fact of my existence, regardless of my indolence, laziness, incompetence, misfortune, or whatever, entitles me, so it is argued, to a “decent standard of living” at the expense of you and others. And, further, you are negligent, antisocial, and unrighteous if you object—for is not my claim on you a right? What this absurdity really means is that you have no right to refuse my demands!

Or take freedom from fear, another common political phrase. All of us wish to escape fear. But do I have a right to be free from fear? This, again, implies that you and others have a commitment to shelter me against fearsome events to which I may be exposed, possibly through my own action or negligence. Plainly, an absurdity!

Freedom from competition appears to be a natural or at least an instinctive aspiration. . . . Most people favor competition for everyone except themselves. . . . Can competition against me be wrong if it is right for all others to compete?

But has anyone a right to be free from competition? Or, is this of the same order of absurdity as a right to be free from want or fear? Implicit in the noncompetition argument is a denial of entry by others into one’s chosen domain. It is nothing less than a claim to the championship founded not on a contest in creative efficiency and consumer-pleasing ability but, rather, a tantrum-like urge to be champion. Each person who suffers this monopolistic fever is saying in effect, “Stay out of my ring all of you would-be contenders; I cherish my privileged position and insist that it remain exclusively mine.” And note the arguments they’ll conjure up to “prove” that their cases are exceptional!

There appears to be no end to life’s obstacles and contests and the nagging desire to be free from them. If anyone of them tops the list, it probably is the itch to be free from the responsibility for self. Obviously, there’s no right to free myself from me, that is, for me to foist myself and my problems upon you. . . .

Responsibility for self is a privilege to be embraced, not a terror to be shunned or a burden from which to be freed. Becoming is man’s highest goal—achievement consonant with each individual’s uniqueness, whatever it is. . . . The art of becoming is composed of acts of overcoming. Obstacles, problems of varying sorts, are stepping stones to achievement. When I turn the responsibility for me over to you and others, or let government take it away from me, the essence of my being is removed. . . .

. . . All ideas, inventions, discoveries, insights, flashes of intuition take place only in those moments when responsibility for self is being experienced. . . .

. . . Is there, then, something from which we should be free and have a right to be free? Indeed, there is!

Keeping in mind that man’s highest goal is intellectual, moral, and spiritual progress along the line of each individual’s creative uniqueness and that this is a condition which exists at its best in the absence of restraints, it follows that to be free from restraints is the most important means to man’s ends or purposes.

. . . We have a right to be free from the power plays of those possessed by the little god syndrome.

From all of this can easily be deduced an appropriate definition of freedom as related to the social realm: no man-concocted restraints against the release of creative energy. Freedom, as thus defined, is all-important to man’s highest goals, to his progress. Freedom is neither “narrow” nor “limited.” Freedom is fundamental!

Read considers asserted freedoms from want, fear, and competition, and found that each asserts freedom from responsibility; therefore, they not only remove the basis of individual growth and development but also force that responsibility on others. He sees that to enable such development requires a very different type of freedom—freedom from artificially imposed restraints, “the most important means to man’s ends.” For those who take as a crucial goal of society the development of individuals rather than their use as fodder for others, Read’s understanding of freedom deserves serious consideration.