Imposing Freedom?

2006-10-9 00:59:00

I've been thinking about the idea that is in circulation lately that freedom can be imposed. This popular idea which is used as an attack on attempts by the United States at spreading democracy has really run against my grain yet the only counter to it I have heard presented is the opposing argument:  Freedom cannot be imposed.

One side says freedom can be imposed for we could invade any totalitarian country and then impose the type of government we desire and mandate the creation of a democracy.

The other side says freedom cannot be imposed because freedom itself is the opposite of compulsion.

Neither answer satisfies my soul, but now the answer has come it is very simple and I wonder why the realization never came earlier.

It is indeed true that freedom cannot be imposed. Can you force a man to be a Democrat or Republican when he has complete free will (freedom) to choose?

No. This is impossible. If he has freedom to choose then the choice cannot be imposed. If the choice is imposed then he has no freedom.

So what about Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? Did we not defeat them by force and impose freedom on them?

The answer is key. We did overpower them by force but we did not impose freedom.

If we did not impose freedom through the use of force then what did we do?

The answer is that freedom was not imposed. What was imposed by force was the destruction or holding back of those powers that restrict freedom.

This is the principle that is behind the justifiable use of force which is this:

Authority and force are positive things if they are used to restrict those forces which restrict life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If the bully is beating up a helpless kid and stealing his lunch money it is a positive thing to use whatever means necessary, including force, to restrict the bully. When force is used to restrict the bully only the fool would say the lunch money was imposed on the kid.

It is equally as silly to say that defeating Nazism by force imposed freedom on the Germans.

It is also silly to say that we are seeking to impose freedom on Afghanistan and Iraq. Any freedom that manifests there will be the result, not of imposition, but of the restriction of imposition.

It is interesting that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, which gave us the freedoms we have enjoyed over the past couple centuries, did not impose freedom but restricted the forces that prevent freedom.

The essence of them could be summed up by this sentence:  "Congress shall make no law that restricts freedom." If we substitute many of the restrictions instituted by the Founding Fathers with that phrase - "restricts freedom" we can see that it fits in nicely with the intended meaning.

Conclusion:  Freedom cannot be imposed. It can only manifest through free will when those conditions, which prevent freedom, are restrained.

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
Soren Kierkegaard (1813 - 1855)