Is Freedom a Universal Value?

The 20th century saw the greatest advances in technology and science and, at the same time, the most destructive wars in history. It saw the expansion of democracy and, at the same time, the most complete totalitarian systems in history. Throughout the struggles of the 20th century, and on into our own new millennium, major decisions have been made and great wars fought in the belief that freedom is a universal value, that all men and women—in all places and in all times—have wanted freedom.

Freedom really consists, as we normally use it, of three components: national freedom, political freedom, and individual freedom. National freedom is the freedom of an entity—a nation, even a tribe—to be independent of any foreign control. A nation of people defines itself, defines who foreigners are, and its national freedom is being free from any foreign control. Then there is political freedom. Political freedom is the right to vote, to choose your own officials, to participate in the assembly, to say what you want in political discussions, and the right to fair trial. These are all part of political freedom.

Then there is individual freedom. That is the freedom to live as you choose as long as you harm no one else. That is what the founders of our country meant when they spoke of freedom time and time again. It is the freedom to live as you choose as long as you harm no one else. Cicero already gave us this definition as the Stoic definition of freedom.

Under individual freedom, we include a number of major elements—the freedom of conscience, the freedom to believe what you choose. It's the freedom to speak, the freedom to think what you want. It's economic freedom, the freedom to follow your profession, and of course, religious freedom. All of these are part of individual freedom. They are not the same, and moreover they do not all have to exist together.

In the United States, we have achieved a remarkable balance and intermingling of national freedom, political freedom, and individual freedom. In fact, we have never known foreign conquest. We have a remarkable system of political freedom, so much so that we take it for granted. During the American Civil War, in 1864, we had an election. Despite the crisis of the contemporary world, we hold our elections and go right ahead. We also have individual freedom, freedom to do and say what we want in a degree seldom equaled in all of history. That is not true, however, in many places and in many times.

National freedom is the most basic of these freedoms. We see it today, for example, in North Korea. North Koreans are nationally free, but there is no political or individual freedom. We might say the same of Hitler's Third Reich. There, there was national freedom, but no political and no individual freedom. In the same way, the Roman Empire was a splendid example of having no national freedom. All the ethnic groups and nations were ruled by Rome, sometimes with an iron hand. There was no need for political freedom, but there was enormous individual freedom. As Lord Acton said, the Roman Empire did more for individual freedom than did the Roman Republic. That's an example of individual freedom but no national or political freedom.

We might say that Germany and Japan, after World War II, saw the end of their national freedom, but saw the birth of political and individual freedom in those two countries.

It is very carefully that we distinguish among these and realize that the kind of balance we have in America is almost unique in history. One of the closest examples before the 20th century was the Athenian democracy, which had national freedom. As Pericles's Funeral Oration tells us, it had individual freedom to live as you choose as long as you harm no one else, and it also had political freedom.

Historically, national freedom is the most essential component. Time and time again throughout history, nations have been willing to give up political and individual freedom in order to protect themselves against foreigners. In fact, that is exactly what happened in Hitler's Third Reich.

It is also true that great civilizations have risen and fallen without any clear concept of either political or individual freedom. In fact, ancient Egypt, the civilization that built the pyramids that still awaken our awe, did not even have a word in their vocabulary for freedom, for liberty. In the ancient Near East, in Mesopotamia, there was indeed a word for freedom, but it meant the gift of a sovereign, whether god or king, such as the privilege of not paying taxes that year. That was a liberty you were granted that the king or the god could take away at his choice. There was no clear concept of political or individual freedom.

China, along with Mesopotamia, one of the earliest civilizations, never developed an idea of freedom. It had a concept of national independence from very early on but the most subtle influence on China was Confucius, and the Analects of Confucius which does not talk of freedom. It was all about order.

The United States has seen a unique evolution in its idea of freedom, which has given us the illusion—and it is a noble illusion, but at times it is dangerous—that the whole rest of the world wants freedom of the kind that we have.