I also checked Yahoo answers for help and many other people asked the same question as me because this is a national thing. Here's some of the answers I found:
Understanding Freedom is understanding that along with it, is a struggle required for freedom to remain uncorrupted. Freedom is a dangerous thing for those who does not exactly understand that freedom is not without responsibility. Though freedom is absolute, it can never be confined exclusively to the wishes of men. It is actually the acceptance of such responsibility that makes man free. And this is where the challenge lie.
Freedom is a way of life that has given man full authority with his own self. But this individual authority is within the bounds of certain laws but such laws are not to restrict his physical, psychological, spiritual and social state or being. It is actually such laws that fulfiills the completeness of freedom because that same law protects him from being confined to the will and desires of others against his will and likewise, his fellowmen from him.
Calling yourself a free man actually requires the understanding of the fact that real freedom is divine and is inherent in a man with a clear conscience. Having a conscience has saved souls from gullibility that befell generations from mistakes that freedom has allowed for people to commit. However, since man confuses freedom apart from responsibility, man disregards his obligations and abuses it instead.
A free man with a sound state of mind would usually ascertain that what he believe as right is exactly right. He is always ready to accept the consequences of his own deeds with no excuses whatsoever. Though he knows that evil never triumphs over good, he would usually tend to choose the easiest way out when confronted with such realities of life. This then will spell out his direction towards a chosen path from different choices that he makes.
------------
Freedoms is a myth nothing is free you are free to make decisions but at what price freedom like respect is something earned not given at some point in time some body pays or has paid a price in blood for it. From the men who fought revolutionary war and are country's founding Fathers to are troops over sea's today Freedom has always had a high price and the challenge are we willing to pay for it. There are those from the out side who for some insane reason want destroy our freedom and liberty and those among us who take advantage of their freedom they are ungrateful because they have never had to fight for their right to be free. And they mock and chastise those who take a stand up for freedom and pay the price for it I guess it come down to you what do believe what is your freedom worth to you what price are you will to pay next time you see one of our troops say thank you.
------------
Freedom's challenge is balancing the rights guaranteed under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with the need to provide for the protection of those same rights from those both within and without a society who would trample them underfoot.
------------
freedom is not only a divine right but a consitutional right. The freedom of thought. The freedom of speech. The freedom of expression. The freedom of religion. All basic rights. the challenging part of it all is that even with these freedoms do we use them? we have the right to say what is on our mind. we have the right to get up and speak bad about the president even if we are severily bashed for it. do we still do it? do we act on our constitutional right even if it is regarding our country's leader?
----------------
Freedom implies responsibility. That is the primary challenge. If you do not want someone else telling you how to live, then you must be responsible for the consequences of your own choices. So, for example, if you want the freedom to drop out of high school, you need to take responsibility for either taking and passing the GED test or accepting that you will be limited in your job opportunities henceforth. And if you do not know the word "henceforth," stay in school until you do!
So it goes with all choices. And what is freedom but the freedom to choose?
-----------------
To me it means that with freedom comes the specific responsibility to be an active citizen and the responsibility to be a 'check' on the government and overthrow or change it when it no longer represents the will of the people.
Look at the US Constitution and American history. Especially look at slavery, abortion, and women's suffrage.
-----------------
The first and obvious answer is that bondage is freedom's challenge.
The problem with America is that many people feel they are free but they are in fact bound. They are bound because of poor education; incorrect information; knee-jerk, mass-hysteria, emotional responses to things that require, instead, an intellectual response. Many Americans have consented to their own slavery unbeknownst to them. They feel free--free to eat where they want, free to say what they want, free to buy what they want--and so they think they are free. They don't realize that their thoughts have been co-opted by meaningless propaganda, and that the people in charge who are passing the propaganda are laughing hysterically at everyone's naivete, susceptibility, and idiocy.
Freedom's challenge is very simple: misinformation and under-education. We here in America value being blindly patriotic and stupid. In fact, we love the stupid people and hate the intelligent people. We have all sorts of names for those who think: elitists, liberals, communists.
But people feel that if their own ridiculous needs and wants are fulfilled--a belly full of McDonald's, an HDTV in the living room, a few iPods, a Mustang convertible, and lots of online porn--they assume that they are enjoying liberty. What they are enjoying is imprisonment. And hatred. Because anyone who isn't doing the same thing--sloppily satisfying their own wanton desires--that person is considered to be the enemy.
Last, the most important challenge to freedom is "free thought" that denies the existence of God. A lot of "free thinkers" believe that God is a joke. This is perhaps the most horrible human bondage there is: to believe that the human being is the pinnacle of all the universe. Look around at the depraved, ignorant, slovenly human being, and if you see that this is the pinnacle of existence, you cannot help but also see that we are all severely screwed. No, faith in God is neither ignorance nor bondage; it is enlightenment and liberation.
--------------
In simple form, the most serious challenge to freedom is tyranny. Tyranny can be found in many forms and the history of the planet proves this out. It does not matter whether it is religious tyranny which stifles free thought, or governmental tyrannies that not only stifle free thinking, but also freedom of movement and freedom of action.
Tyranny is the absolute enemy of freedom of all kinds and is the greatest crime there is - in actuality, the only evil there is. Consider this, no crime can exist but that tyranny is at its root - murderers tyrannizing their victims, same with rapists; arsonist and thieves tyrannizing over the property of others. Every crime has its root in tyranny, and that is all the evidence necessary to understand that tyranny is the opppsite of any and all freedom.
-------------
Freedoms Challenge is Self-Responsibility, Accountability and a Moral Compass. Without these three true freedom ceases to exist.
It is this concept that Liberal Socialists within America refuse to grasp. They see freedom as merely unbridledness from any encumbrance.
They fail to accept that each individuals actions do indeed have an effect outside of oneself and therefore must at the very least be selfgoverned if not regulated by external laws.
Liberal Socialist are quick to embrace for example ones right to engage in intercourse with abandon yet are willing to fascilitate ones denial of responsibility for the life such activity may produce.
-------------------
It is ignorance of the masses. It is the power held by the few. It corruption of the official. Those things which challenge freedom are those attributes of the American people which no longer care for the electoral system, who choose not to vote. In short the common day fool.
----------------
#1 - being able to tolerate another person's opinion without flying off the handle. We have the freedom of speech. We do not have freedom from being offended. People don't get that one. If you hear or see something on the radio or TV that offends you, change the channel or turn it off. Those are your choices. Complaining to a political figure should not be an option. We can't have a law for everything. Grow up and deal with it y'all!
------------
Complacency is freedom's biggest challenge. When an embodiment of people become complacent in their freedom, they forget the reasons why they should work hard or honor the men who fought for that freedom.
Complacency leads to the laziness of ignorance. The worst part of it, is people will graduate from Universities these days, call themselves educated but do they really have knowledge? I would say 50% or more of the graduates out there in the US have not even read it's constitution or declaration of independence.
---------------
Freedoms challenge would have to be in my opinion, not only the laziness to stand up for it or the lack of appreciation we sometimes show for it((We've been told all our lives by previous generations that we dont respect the freedoms we have and we'll probably do the same to our kids.))but, also the decline in willingness to stand has one for it we're still being hindered by racial, social, and economical boundaries that separate us soon sometimes one has to fear that one of our own people will strike a blow against us before another country does.
If we want to keep the freedoms that our soldiers fight for we need to take steps to become a more whole nation.
----------
Freedom's challenge is maintaining itself. We are a free country, yet everyday there are more and more laws being passed that take freedoms away one by one. More and more laws being passed that give governments control instead of the individual. More and more laws being passed protecting individual 'rights' instead of what's best for the community.
Examples: While it is a good idea to wear helmets, seatbelts and have children in carseats, why should there be a law forcing us to do so, giving us punishments is we don't abide? In New York is it illegal to go helmetless while riding a BICYCLE, even on the sidewalk! Again, my argument is not that we shouldn't wear helmets, or wear seat belts, or put kids in car seats, but that we shouldn't be FORCED to. Freedom is about available choices.
We're not allowed to burn plant clippings in a metal drum on our own property without a permit. You must pay fees to register your dog with the city, but not your cat?
Does that give you anything to work with?
-------------
Freedom is personal. In the U.S. freedom is different for everyone. What freedom? Freedom of expression? Religion? Speech? Freedom is a birthright to you and me. Our forefathers were not free. They gave us freedom. They died so we could be free. Freedom allows us to be different and to have different opinions and views. Do you think a citizen of China would disagreee with the government openly? Did you know they hide in basements and back rooms to read a Bible. So tell me. WHAT IS FREEDOM? We need to continue to fight for the freedoms our ancestors did not know.
I am tired of our government debating what our rights should be. It is already outlined in the Declaration of Independence what our rights are. Charlton Heston is my hero. Did I have the freedom to make that statement? Of course I had that freedom. This is a freedom that is not known anywhere else in the world.
I AM PROUD TO LIVE IN AMERICA AND EXPERIENCE SUCH FREEDOM. Do you have the right to say I am wrong. Of course you do. THIS IS AMERICA AFTERALL.
-------------
The idea of freedom is inherent in the concept of rights.
If someone is free, they have the right to do something.
The challenge of freedom is when the rights of individuals conflict with each other.
If a slave has the right to be free (leave his servitude), it interferes with the property rights of his owner. The owner's freedom to tell the slave what to do is restricted. And this was a common argument in favor of slavery in the 19th century.
Other areas where freedoms commonly conflict are freedom of speech and the press. How does the people's right to know what the government is doing conflict with the government's need to keep certain information secret? There are several major legal cases before the Supreme Court on this very issue.
The rights of free speech during war time are also a major issue, and have been since the earliest days of the nation.
As to Lori: People in Europe, South America, India and Japan could all make statements identical to those you made. The United States is not unique in the freedom department. In fact, we are more repressive than most of Europe.
------------------
TOWARDS AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
Every effort to end the Cold War and expand the process of world industrialization is an effort hostile to people and institutions whose interests lie in perpetuation of the East-West military threat and the postponement of change in the "have not" nations of the world. Every such effort, too, is bound to establish greater democracy in America. The major goals of a domestic effort would be:
1. America must abolish its political party stalemate.
Two genuine parties, centered around issues and essential values, demanding allegiance to party principles shall supplant the current system of organized stalemate which is seriously inadequate to a world in flux. It has long been argued that the very overlapping of American parties guarantees that issues will be considered responsibly, that progress will be gradual instead of intemperate, and that therefore America will remain stable instead of torn by class strife. On the contrary: the enormous party overlap itself confuses issues and makes responsible presentation of choice to the electorate impossible, that guarantees Congressional listlessness and the drift of power to military and economic bureaucracies, that directs attention away from the more fundamental causes of social stability, such as a huge middle class, Keynesian economic techniques and Madison Avenue advertising. The ideals of political democracy, then, the imperative need for flexible decision-making apparatus makes a real two-party system an immediate social necessity. What is desirable is sufficient party disagreement to dramatize major issues, yet sufficient party overlap to guarantee stable transitions from administration to administration.
Every time the President criticizes a recalcitrant Congress, we must ask that he no longer tolerate the Southern conservatives in the Democratic Party. Every time in liberal representative complains that "we can't expect everything at once" we must ask if we received much of anything from Congress in the last generation. Every time he refers to "circumstances beyond control" we must ask why he fraternizes with racist scoundrels. Every time he speaks of the "unpleasantness of personal and party fighting" we should insist that pleasantry with Dixiecrats is inexcusable when the dark peoples of the world call for American support.
2. Mechanisms of voluntary association must be created through which political information can be imparted and political participation encouraged.
Political parties, even if realigned, would not provide adequate outlets for popular involvement. Institutions should be created that engage people with issues and express political preference, not as now with huge business lobbies which exercise undemocratic power, but which carry political influence (appropriate to private, rather than public, groupings) in national decision-making enterprise. Private in nature, these should be organized around single issues (medical care, transportation systems reform, etc.), concrete interest (labor and minority group organizations), multiple issues or general issues. These do not exist in America in quantity today. If they did exist, they would be a significant politicizing and educative force bringing people into touch with public life and affording them means of expression and action. Today, giant lobby representatives of business interests are dominant, but not educative. The Federal government itself should counter the latter forces whose intent is often public deceit for private gain, by subsidizing the preparation and decentralized distribution of objective materials on all public issues facing government.
3. Institutions and practices which stifle dissent should be abolished, and the promotion of peaceful dissent should be actively promoted.
The first Amendment freedoms of speech, assembly, thought, religion and press should be seen as guarantees, not threats, to national security. While society has the right to prevent active subversion of its laws and institutions, it has the duty as well to promote open discussion of all issues -- otherwise it will be in fact promoting real subversion as the only means to implementing ideas. To eliminate the fears and apathy from national life it is necessary that the institutions bred by fear and apathy be rooted out: the House Un-American Activities Committee, the Senate Internal Security Committee, the loyalty oaths on Federal loans, the Attorney General's list of subversive organizations, the Smith and McCarren Acts. The process of eliminating these blighting institutions is the process of restoring democratic participation. Their existence is a sign of the decomposition and atrophy of the participation.
4. Corporations must be made publicly responsible.
It is not possible to believe that true democracy can exist where a minority utterly controls enormous wealth and power. The influence of corporate elites on foreign policy is neither reliable nor democratic; a way must be found to be subordinate private American foreign investment to a democratically-constructed foreign policy. The influence of the same giants on domestic life is intolerable as well; a way must be found to direct our economic resources to genuine human needs, not the private needs of corporations nor the rigged needs of maneuvered citizenry.
We can no longer rely on competition of the many to insure that business enterprise is responsive to social needs. The many have become the few. Nor can we trust the corporate bureaucracy to be socially responsible or to develop a "corporate conscience" that is democratic. The community of interest of corporations, the anarchic actions of industrial leaders, should become structurally responsible to the people -- and truly to the people rather than to an ill-defined and questionable "national interest". Labor and government as presently constituted are not sufficient to "regulate" corporations. A new re-ordering, a new calling of responsibility is necessary: more than changing "work rules" we must consider changes in the rules of society by challenging the unchallenged politics of American corporations. Before the government can really begin to control business in a "public interest", the public must gain more substantial control of government: this demands a movement for political as well as economic realignments. We are aware that simple government "regulation", if achieved, would be inadequate without increased worker participation in management decision-making, strengthened and independent regulatory power, balances of partial and/or complete public ownership, various means of humanizing the conditions and types of work itself, sweeping welfare programs and regional public government authorities. These are examples of measures to re-balance the economy toward public -- and individual -- control.
5. The allocation of resources must be based on social needs. A truly "public sector" must be established, and its nature debated and planned.
At present the majority of America's "public sector", the largest part of our public spending, is for the military. When great social needs are so pressing, our concept of "government spending" is wrapped up in the "permanent war economy".
In fact, if war is to be avoided, the "permanent war economy" must be seen as an "interim war economy". At some point, America must return to other mechanisms of economic growth besides public military spending. We must plan economically in peace. The most likely, and least desirable, return would be in the form of private enterprise. The undesirability lies in the fact of inherent capitalist instability, noticeable even with bolstering effects of government intervention. In the most recent post-war recessions, for example, private expenditures for plant and equipment dropped from $16 billion to $11.5 billion, while unemployment surged to nearly 6 million. By good fortune, investments in construction industries remained level, else an economic depression would have occurred. This will recur, and our growth in national per capita living standards will remain unsensational while the economy stagnates.
The main private forces of economic expansion cannot guarantee a steady rate of growth, nor acceptable recovery from recession -- especially in a demilitarizing world. Government participation in the economy is essential. Such participation will inevitably expand enormously, because the stable growth of the economy demands increasing "public" investments yearly. Our present outpour of more than $500 billion might double in a generation, irreversibly involving government solutions. And in future recessions, the compensatory fiscal action by the government will be the only means of avoiding the twin disasters of greater unemployment and a slackening rate of growth. Furthermore, a close relationship with the European Common Market will involve competition with numerous planned economies and may aggravate American unemployment unless the economy here is expanding swiftly enough to create new jobs.
All these tendencies suggest that not only solutions to our present social needs but our future expansion rests upon our willingness to enlarge the "public sector" greatly. Unless we choose war as an economic solvent, future public spending will be of a non-military nature -- a major intervention into civilian production by the government. The issues posed by this development are enormous:
A: How should public vs. private domain be determined? We suggest these criteria: 1) when a resource has been discovered or developed with public tax revenues, such as a space communications system, it should remain a public source, not be given away to private enterprise; 2) when monopolization seems inevitable, the public should maintain control of an industry; 3) when national objectives contradict seriously with business objectives as to the use of the resource, the public need should prevail.
B: How should technological advances be introduced into a society? By a public process, based on publicly-determined needs. Technological innovations should not be postponed from social use by private corporations in order to protect investment in older equipment.
C: How shall the "public sector" be made public, and not the arena of a ruling bureaucracy of "public servants"? By steadfast opposition to bureaucratic coagulation, and to definitions of human needs according to problems easiest for computers to solve. Second, the bureaucratic pileups must be at least minimized by local, regional, and national economic planning -- responding to the interconnection of public problems by comprehensive programs of solution. Third, and most important, by experiments in decentralization, based on the vision of man as master of his machines and his society. The personal capacity to cope with life has been reduced everywhere by the introduction of technology that only minorities of men (barely) understand. How the process can be reversed -- and we believe it can be -- is one of the greatest sociological and economic tasks before human people today. Polytechnical schooling, with the individual adjusting to several work and life experiences, is one method. The transfer of certain mechanized tasks back into manual forms, allowing men to make whole, not partial, products, is not unimaginable. Our monster cities, based historically on the need for mass labor, might now be humanized, broken into smaller communities, powered by nuclear energy, arranged according to community decision. These are but a fraction of the opportunities of the new era: serious study and deliberate experimentation, rooted in a desire for human fraternity, may now result in blueprints of civic paradise.
6. America should concentrate on its genuine social priorities: abolish squalor, terminate neglect, and establish an environment for people to live in with dignity and creativeness.
A: A program against poverty must be just as sweeping as the nature of poverty itself. It must not be just palliative, but directed to the abolition of the structural circumstances of poverty. At a bare minimum it should include a housing act far larger than the one supported by the Kennedy Administration, but one that is geared more to low-and middleincome needs than to the windfall aspirations of small and large private entrepreneurs, one that is more sympathetic to the quality of communal life than to the efficiency of city-split highways. Second, medical care must become recognized as a lifetime human right just as vital as food, shelter and clothing -- the Federal government should guarantee health insurance as a basic social service turning medical treatment into a social habit, not just an occasion of crisis, fighting sickness among the aged, not just by making medical care financially feasible but by reducing sickness among children and younger people. Third, existing institutions should be expanded so the welfare state cares for everyone's welfare according to read. Social security payments should be extended to everyone and should be proportionately greater for the poorest. A minimum wage of at least $1.50 should be extended to all workers (including the 16 million currently not covered at all). Equal educational opportunity is an important part of the battle against poverty.
B: A full-scale public initiative for civil rights should be undertaken despite the clamor among conservatives (and liberals) about gradualism, property rights, and law and order. The executive and legislative branches of the Federal government should work by enforcement and enactment against any form of exploitation of minority groups. No Federal cooperation with racism is tolerable -- from financing of schools, to the development of Federally-supported industry, to the social gatherings of the President. Laws bastcuing school desegregation, voting rights, and economic protection for Negroes are needed right now. The moral force of the Executive Office should be exerted against the Dixiecrats specifically, and the national complacency about the race question generally. Especially in the North, where one-half of the country's Negro people now live, civil rights is not a problem to be solved in isolation from other problems. The fight against poverty, against slums, against the stalemated Congress, against McCarthyism, are all fights against the discrimination that is nearly endemic to all areas of American life.
C: The promise and problems of long-range Federal economic development should be studied more constructively. It is an embarrassing paradox that the Tennessee Valley Authority is a wonder to foreign visitors but a "radical" and barely influential project to most Americans. The Kennedy decision to permit private facilities to transmit power from the $1 billion Colorado River Storage Project is a disastrous one, interposing privately-owned transmitters between public-owned power generators and their publicly (and cooperatively) owned distributors. The contracy trend, to public ownership of power, should be generated in an experimental way.
The Area Redevelopment Act of 1961 is a first step in recognizing the underdeveloped areas of the United States, but is only a drop in the bucket financially and is not keyed to public planning and public works on a broad scale, but only to a few loan programs to lure industries and some grants to improve public facilities to "lure industries." The current public works bill in Congress is needed and a more sweeping, higher priced program of regional development with a proliferation of "TVAs" in such areas as the Appalachian region are needed desperately. It has been rejected by Mississippi already however, because of the improvement it bodes for the unskilled Negro worker. This program should be enlarged, given teeth, and pursued rigorously by Federal authorities.
D. We must meet the growing complex of "city" problems; over 90% of Americans will live in urban areas in the next two decades. Juvenile delinquency, untended mental illness, crime increase, slums, urban tenantry and uncontrolled housing, the isolation of the individual in the city -- all are problems of the city and are major symptoms of the present system of economic priorities and lack of public planning. Private property control (the real estate lobby and a few selfish landowners and businesses) is as devastating in the cities as corporations are on the national level. But there is no comprehensive way to deal with these problems now midst competing units of government, dwindling tax resources, suburban escapism (saprophitic to the sick central cities), high infrastructure costs and on one to pay them. The only solutions are national and regional. "Federalism" has thus far failed here because states are rural-dominated; the Federal government has had to operate by bootlegging and trickle-down measures dominated by private interests, and the cities themselves have not been able to catch up with their appendages through annexation or federation. A new external challenge is needed, not just a Department of Urban Affairs but a thorough national program to help the cities. The model city must be projected -- more community decision-making and participation, true integration of classes, races, vocations -- provision for beauty, access to nature and the benefits of the central city as well, privacy without privatism, decentralized "units" spread horizontally with central, regional, democratic control -- provision for the basic facility-needs, for everyone, with units of planned regions and thus public, democratic control over the growth of the civic community and the allocation of resources.
E. Mental health institutions are in dire need; there were fewer mental hospital beds in relation to the numbers of mentally-ill in 1959 than there were in 1948. Public hospitals, too, are seriously wanting; existing structures alone need an estimated $1 billion for rehabilitation. Tremendous staff and faculty needs exist as well, and there are not enough medical students enrolled today to meet the anticipated needs of the future.
F. Our prisons are too often the enforcers of misery. They must be either re-oriented to rehabilitative work through public supervision or be abolished for their dehumanizing social effects. Funds are needed, too, to make possible a decent prison environment.
G. Education is too vital a public problem to be completely entrusted to the province of the various states and local units. In fact, there is no good reason why America should not progress now toward internationalizing rather than localizing, its educational system -- children and young adults studying everywhere in the world, through a United Nations program, would go far to create mutual understanding. In the meantime, the need for teachers and classrooms in America is fantastic. This is an area where "minimal" requirements hardly should be considered as a goal -- there always are improvements to be made in the educational system, e.g., smaller classes and many more teachers for them, programs to subsidize the education of the poor but bright, etc.
H. America should eliminate agricultural policies based on scarcity and pent-up surplus. In America and foreign countries there exist tremendous needs for more food and balanced diets. The Federal government should finance small farmers' cooperatives, strengthen programs of rural electrification, and expand policies for the distribution of agricultural surpluses throughout the world (by Foodfor -Peace and related UN programming). Marginal farmers must be helped to either become productive enough to survive "industrialized agriculture" or given help in making the transition out of agriculture -- the current Rural Area Development program must be better coordinated with a massive national "area redevelopment" program.
I. Science should be employed to constructively transform the conditions of life throughout the United States and the world. Yet at the present time the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the National Science Foundation together spend only $300 million annually for scientific purposes in contrast to the $6 billion spent by the Defense Department and the Atomic Energy Commission. One-half of all research and development in America is directly devoted to military purposes. Two imbalances must be corrected -- that of military over non-military investigation, and that of biological-natural-physical science over the sciences of human behavior. Our political system must then include planning for the human use of science: by anticipating the political consequences of scientific innovation, by directing the discovery and exploration of space, by adapting science to improved production of food, to international communications systems, to technical problems of disarmament, and so on. For the newly-developing nations, American science should focus on the study of cheap sources of power, housing and building materials, mass educational techniques, etc. Further, science and scholarship should be seen less as an apparatus of conflicting power blocs, but as a bridge toward supranational community: the International Geophysical Year is a model for continuous further cooperation between the science communities of all nations.
http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/library/...
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/a... There are not many ideas which are more revered than the concept of democracy, the system of government lead by the great body of the people themselves. Indeed, it is true that democracy has done much to give a voice to many and make politics more representative of the public at large. Yet, in our unending affection for the democratic process, we become apt to forget the true purpose of political systems: the maintenance societal order and individual liberty. Democracy is only as useful and important as it satisfies these goals. We risk the danger of valuing the tools intended to protect freedom above the very ideal itself. Democracy is only a means to an end, not a goal in and of itself.
If we were able to discover and prove a system which was more conducive to such freedom, society should not be wary of releasing itself from the tenets of democracy to adopt the new ways. All things being equal, living in freedom under an absolute ruler would be much preferred to representative tyranny. Of course, history has shown that democracy has generally been the political system most conducive to a free society, a sentiment perhaps most accurately portrait by former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill when he quipped, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried."
Whether there actually is a better system out there, either currently existing or yet to be thought of, is anyone's guess. The great minds of history have given us no shortage of utopian visions of possible government administration. What is indisputable is that fact that democracy does leave much to be desired. The course of modern nation-states like America, which of course is not a true a democracy but rather a republic or representative democracy (but which does not really change the study of the problem at all), is in this regard particularly enlightening to analyze.
The spread of enfranchisement to wider swaths of the population has helped to contribute to the growth of the federal government in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The power of the vote is essentially the power to control other people's lives, including their pocketbooks. As the nineteenth-century South Carolina Senator John Calhoun so ably demonstrated, the spread of democracy tends to separate the population into the distinct classes of taxpayers and tax consumers. Democracy enables the mass of the population to vote themselves benefits from others who are not so numerous as to defend themselves at the ballot box. The process only gets more vicious as the ranks of the tax consumers continue to rise, being supported by the smaller and over-burdened taxpayers, who, being in the minority, have little recourse to protect their resources from the voting plunderers. This process has born itself out in America, though not yet to the extent of the socialist nations of Europe, which itself demonstrates the further progression of this phenomenon.
More generally, it is this fundamental conflict between balancing the will of the majority with the fundamental rights of the minority which plagued, among others, our founding fathers during deliberations in creating a new government. King George III had shown the Americans the danger of the centralized control of power, a situation we were keen on not repeating. It was under such conditions that the concept of federalism gained acceptance, devolving most powers to the several states and ultimately to the people themselves. This avoided the dreaded centralization of power and the accompanying evils that come with it. Yet, most American political philosophers of the time were just as fearful of the rule of the tyrannical majority, dreading a "mobocracy" which would trample the rights of the minority and those out of power. It was one of the great attributes of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in that it placed limits on majority decision-making by specifically delineating a small number of areas where the government could interfere as well as listing fundamental rights of citizens and thereby guarantee many of the absolute political rights of minorities against the fleeting whims of temporary majorities.
Governments, as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently phrased in the Declaration of Independence, were not instituted to be an instrument of the popular will (though they were legitimized by the consent of the governed) but rather to secure our rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is nothing mythical about the "will of the majority." Obviously, the popularity of a decision in no way demonstrates its justness or morality. The fundamental individual rights of every person are above the will of even the greatest of any majority; the vote of a plebiscite can not take that away.
Today, the danger of supplanting democracy for freedom as our striving ideal is even greater as apply this principle in attempting to reform foreign nations' political institutions. An important goal for the Bush administration in foreign policy has been democratic reforms in the Middle East. Such reforms have been part of a very slow process, but a process that has been making progress nevertheless. Mr. Bush's desire to mould a democratic society has seen the most progress in those nations which America has invaded during his tenure, Afghanistan and Iraq. The people of these nations have born many hardships from the repressive, dictatorial regimes of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime, respectively. Understandably trying to avoid the failures of the previous system, America has nurtured a transition to democratic institutions in these burgeoning nations. However, we have seemingly ignored the potential tyranny of the majority which could ensue.
For instance, Shiite Muslims make up approximately 60 percent of the Iraqi population and will undoubtedly be the winners of a new, democratically-elected government. This has raised fears that the majority of Iraqis in a democratic process may just vote themselves into a theocracy along the lines of Iran. Whenever administration officials and their supporters are pressed on the issue of a potential popularly-elected fundamentalist government, their answer inevitably comes down to the simple reply "they won't." That may very well be true yet, in the end, it provides absolutely no surety that such a course of events will not occur. This is because the fundamental nature of democracy forbids any such assertion from being truthfully declared.
No such guarantee of one's individual liberties can ever be truly safe as long as such decisions rests in the hands of any majority that develops. Of course, such a guarantee will not be safe anywhere as long as any individual has such political power, with or without the consent of the majority. In America, the Constitution has gone a long way to protect those individual rights. However, in the end, it is simply a piece of paper, constantly evolving as it is subject to the differing interpretations of those in power. There is also nothing sacred about the document; it has the ability to be changed by future generations. And as history has repeatedly shown us, the Constitution can simply be ignored when it gets in the way of the plans of those ruling over us. The answers to our essential political questions will never be discovered if we continue to mistake the ends we wish to strive for with the means we utilize to achieve those ends. "Liberty is the highest political end," Lord Acton said. Representative government – democracy – should only be pursued for as long as it not detrimental to that highest of ideals. Christopher Coyle is the president of The Liberty Coalition at the University of Virginia.
http://www.rhlschool.com/read5n25.htm...
http://www.democracyisnotfreedom.com/...
http://www.scs.unr.edu/~tenney/democracy... At this time of year our minds and hearts are turned to reflections on such things as freedom, democracy, tea parties, human and economic rights, and government. For this year's Fourth-of-July message, I provide a few thoughts on the important and often misunderstood matter of democracy -- and its relationship to freedom.
In popular parlance, the fact that democracy and freedom go hand in hand has become a foregone conclusion. We are taught that government "of the people" means democratic governance, and we sometimes infer that a democratic form of government ensures the existence of a free society. Even more interestingly, we are sometimes under the illusion that freedom is measured by the ability to vote, or that we can vote ourselves into prosperity as a nation. In this essay, I would like to suggest the opposite -- that democracy is no guarantor of freedom, that it often leads to tyranny, and that attempts to use democratic methods to attain prosperity are dubious and morally questionable.
What is often overlooked in thinking about democracy is that when allowed wide latitude in rule-making, democratic majority rule can be just as tyrannical as a dictatorship of any variety. Democracy has aptly been defined as two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Sadly, it is sometimes true.
The problem with much modern thinking about democracy is that it is often conceptualized in the absence of other concepts such as minority rights and limits on the scope of what can and ought to be done under the name of democratic rule. This kind of one-track thinking is what gives power to the wolves in society. The founders of our nation knew and understood these things, and they made a valiant attempt to address these matters in the Constitution. But we oft-times don't adhere to that document very closely.
A study of economics gives abundant examples of democracy gone haywire -- but I will mention only one. Perhaps the very best example, and always my favorite is the law that make it illegal for a person of low productivity to work for wages. It is disheartening indeed to think that a democratic nation that in theory is dedicated to liberty and justice for all can pass a law that makes it illegal to go to work if you are not physically or mentally capable of producing $5.15 worth of value in an hour's time. The minimum wage law strikes squarely at the heart of the problem of majority wishes running roughshod over the rights of the minority. All wishful thinking to the contrary, there are a small minority of people who are exploited by this perverse law. Of all the people in the world that ought to have the right to perform meaningful work in order to better their lives, it is those that, for whatever reason, were not blessed with the ability to do very much that is of monetary value to other people. Under what theory of justice are these people banished from the world of work and improvement?
As people around the globe are making changes in their forms of government, there seems to be a clamor for democracy. While it is true that a democratic form of government is probably the best approach to determining those few matters that are properly within the realm of political control, we and they would do well to think hard about the restrictions that can and ought to be put on the scope of governments everywhere.
Perhaps the story of Hong Kong provides a good example of a nation where democratic rule played a minor role, and yet where personal and economic freedoms flourished. Honk Kong, for a hundred years, was an English colony that developed under a system of government that was limited to a small role. In my mind, the key to the success of this small nation was the limited government that afforded a great measure of freedom to the ordinary people in their everyday lives. Time will tell what the Chinese government does with these freedoms.
Meanwhile, we in America are celebrating 222 years of freedom this weekend. While our freedoms have often been attenuated seriously, and we feel hurt as a result, we are still free to a great extent. Is this freedom a result of majority-rule democratic politics or are we free due to the fact that we have honored a Constitution that was meant to limit the scope of what can be done at the hand of majoritarian politics? The Scottish historian Alexander Tytler commented that "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." It is my hope that we in America will prove Tytler wrong by demonstrating that we have what it takes to protect freedom from democracy. Happy Birthday America!
Hope this helps!!! Good Luck!!!
----------------
Hmm, "Freedom's Challenge." I suppose you could make a list of things that are 'free.' Then, rank them in order of importance.
For example: 1) Freedom of Speech 2) Worship, etc.
Also, we are free to walk about and go wherever we want. We don't have to carry papers or IDs (yet).
We are free to correspond on the Internet, hopefully, with no one "watching" what we say.
We are free to complain about the government, school and life in general (that's where freedom of speech comes in).
Then, after you rank them, think about the high cost to keep these ideas "free." That's the challenge.
Also, another "challenge" would be if I were say something or write something that you strongly disagree with. Do I still have these freedoms - even though they are interfering or disagree with what you believe?
I hope these ideas help.
----------------