I re-surface this question from time to time, because I have yet to see a really enlightening answer. I've tried, and others have made good efforts, but I know someone out there really has a good answer to this.
These closely-related words - liberty and freedom - have found themselves on opposite sides of our political debate. I'm going to keep returning to this because clearly there's a difference in usage and as such it's ripe for discussion.
One side touts Freedom. "Freedom isn't free." "We're bringing freedom to oppressed peoples." They tend to shy away from the word "liberty".
The other side, including the American Civil Liberties Union, says the government is infringing on our liberties. I don't hear this side saying "freedom" very often.
Dan Merritt suggested is might be usage. We tend to say "Freedom from", and "at liberty to ____". Seth Williams observed that "freedom is a very general word indicating the state of being unrestricted. Liberty is more specifically the state of political freedom--ie: to be free in a society".
Gary Boyd (if I understood him correctly) said liberties are like the canary in a coal mine. If your liberties start to drop by the wayside, you need to start worrying about your freedom. That's my interpretation of what he said, anyway.
Me, I have observed that some with especially tight sphincters might feel others are "taking liberties" they ought not to. I also feel that the general (and hence conveniently vague term) freedom is getting a lot of lip service. When we get down to discussing specific liberties as might be contained in an equal rights amendment for women, or gays' liberty to enter into a marriage contract, or the liberty to carry on a private conversation (some might observe these are "rights" in which case I'd be talking apples and oranges) - then our powers-that-be seem to start making exceptions right and left.
Though I clearly have my own opinions here, I'm not above learning from the rest of you. What do you think?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 26
I am making it a feature in what's the difference as it truly is a testament to what this group is about,
those questions you pose are hard, in many cases we cannot agree because of semantics, and I doubt if anyone will ever agree on a standard definition to these terms.
I do tend to follow liberties as being a political explanation,
and when our liberties are violated where is our freedom, perhaps in that sense a liberty is a precursor for freedom.
whereas I see freedom as more philosophical.
what is freedom, is it the right to do anything or say anything we want whenever it pleases us?
does freedom have any constraints?
am I allowed to walk naked outside if I please? For that matter can I be naked in my own kitchen when the blinds open?
Can you rape someone because you feel like it?
Is a ghetto child free to go to any university he so pleases?
Sounds good on paper, but in reality there is no unlimited freedom,
the criminal curtails the public's freedom to walk the streets safely
the kid from the ghetto may not get into the school of his choice because he does not have the money to do it, the grades, or even the social status.
heck sometimes were a not even free to think our own thoughts and voice them, because others expect different of us.
heck even when we think we were free to make the decisions we made we many very well have been influenced by others.
But that is a side issue here, and I don't want to hijack the topic, which is an excellent one. My thoughts pretty much parallel George's on freedom vs. liberty.
Freedom is an easy word to throw around. It is vague, and everybody has some degree of freedom. Even in a totalitarian regime. But no-one enjoys complete freedom. No-one lives in total anarchy, and even in total anarchy, the will of the strong would inevitably control the weak. therefore, total freedom is impossible to acheive, as we must either enforce laws to keep society in order, or submit to total rule by those more powerful than ourselves.
Liberty is used less often by certain administrations because use of that word requires that you be tolerant of someone elses rights, no matter how vile you view their philosophy, or execution of those rights.
Carol, thank you for inviting me to your new group. When I saw the concept, I knew it was time to raise this topic again. You bring into the mix the issue of rights, which some feel have a way of restricting freedoms (meaning the more you expect from society the more you connect to it in such a way as to become controlled by it). I'm not saying that is so, but I know there are those who feel that is the case.
George, your's is a great answer. I like rolling it through my mind with different masters - socialism, anarchy, a church – and it comes up with very different results. Each allows us to be "free" to have certain liberties.
What Bert said.
Timoty, power politics and the need for order both have a great influence on the mix of liberties. Thank you for articulating an example where liberties are infringed in an anarchic system. And again we have liberty and rights used in close association. That could be a topic in a further discussion, though I by no means wish to discourage it here.
America does fine. It has some nice checks and balances, even if it is a bit unbalanced right now.
Aniko, thank you for sparking my memory of Baugh's 'History of the English Language', a great book I've re-read four or more times. As you've pointed out, there tend to be at least three synonyms in English for just about everything: the earlier Germanic, Anglo-Saxon term (free-dom), that tends to be the more down to earth of the three; the borrowed French term (in this case "liberty"), which tends to take over the more highbrow interpretation; and then the Latin term (in this case ?), which we tend to find in governmental, religious or scientific descriptions of whatever the concept is. So, what *is* the Latin equivalent of "freedom" and "liberty"? I'm not sure right now . . .
The terms coming from the three sources often also take on subtle differences of meaning.
I'd be delighted to post this to that group.
Using Ken Wilber's four-quadrant model of cultural evolution, I understand freedom as the subjective aspect of it, and liberty as the objective aspect.
Subjective is first person, the I (individual) and We (collective). It refers to the interior, the immediate, the personal, the feelings and sensations about being free (or non-free) from restriction or control. Example: Creating a work of art (not the study of art)
Objective is third person, the It (individual) and Its (collective). It refers to the exterior, the behavioral and social expressions of being free (or non-free) from restriction or control. Example: Law
Both interior and exterior points of view are necessary for a complete picture.
The words, like all language, probably are evolving given that the words have been used as spin for a point of view.
Of course, French "liberté" might evoke a different narrative than Latin "libertas" for some people. :-)
Yet another extraordinary discussion under your aegis. Thank you for introducing me to Aniko and Verie. Thinkers worth knowing.
Arguments just poison my brain. I participate sometimes, but rarely in a hostile way. There was that one guy who signed on as "hatemex shootumall", and I pretty much let him have it, but for the most part I work at being civil.
"Freedom is the liberty to do as we ought" Liberty is the freedom to do as we please " "In taking some liberties we sometimes infringe on the freedoms of others "
I ran accross this article which I really liked : http://antone.geckotribe.com/alpha-gecko/2005/03/28/personal-liberty-vs-necessary-constraints/#comment-680