As I mentioned in my last post, I ran into some people with rather peculiar views in another forum. One of the things that really upset them was bans on incandescent light bulbs. While they gave some pseudo-scientific cover (which this article debunks), the extent of their ire—and the multiple paragraphs devoted to it—made me wonder why they were so upset.

On a long walk, I started to put the pieces together and came to the conclusion that what offended them about the incandescent bulb ban was that it restricted their freedoms. Moreso, I think that feeling is a big part of why people who would seem not to benefit from them are so opposed to constraints on free markets. 

Freedom: the power to act, speak or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. (Definition courtesy the dictionary widget that comes with OS X.)

That's a pretty simple definition for a complex word. In usage, freedom means something more than that definition would suggest.

In many ways, freedom is a word much like authenticity, which has a specific meaning that is rarely invoked. Authenticity is used not for its denotative meaning, but its strong, emotional connotation of something modern Americans fear we’ve lost. It bundles up nostalgia for an earlier, pre-consumerist, pre-manufactured era with a conviction that there is a bedrock truth that can and should be spoken to. It is, of course, completely bunk. Rather than speaking to fundamental truths, the use of the word authentic is a dodge we use to avoid asking fundamental truths. It grants us the emotional feeling of insight and achievement without any work. In short, authentic is the least authentic word in the English language.

Freedom might be the second least authentic word. We use it on a gut level, never examined. It means, on a purely emotive level, American. Necessary. Vital. True. Just. We know it less for what it is than for what it isn’t; for what takes it away.

Often, we don’t emotionally define freedom in the realm of action: it’s not about what we can or cannot do. Instead, we judge whether or not our freedom has been constrained by who and how it has been constrained.  In the case of something like a light bulb, it could disappear from the shelves of your local markets for a variety of reasons: a natural disaster destroys the manufacturing plant; the manufacturer stops making them; the markets decide to not stock them; the government bans them. Only the later would be viewed as an infringement on our liberty. Because we don’t think of nature and markets as capable of restraining our actions, we don’t think of their actions as denying us freedom.

Politically, this works for the libertarian/free market right very well. It’s easy to create ire over government policies when, de facto, the definition of freedom is understood to be without government interference rather than without restraint. It allows us to formulate an economic system in which blame for the economic failings is passed from systemic flaws to government and specific actors.

It’s been a long time since Kris Kristopherson penned those words. Maybe it’s time to start thinking about freedom again.