Thread by @Doc_0

The battle to define freedom must be won before the war to defend it can be fought.

That's why totalitarian statists and outright fascists can look you in the eye and claim they love "freedom" and see themselves on a patriotic crusade to preserve it.

America was founded on a vision of individual freedom, built from the ground up. The Founders tried to isolate the essential characteristics of individual sovereignty and write a Constitution that would limit the power of government to damage those vital freedoms.

The notion of "inalienable rights" is an example of building the definition of freedom from the ground up. These rights are inherent to free men and women and cannot be compromised, so a just and moral government will fully respect them.

The competing view of freedom is designed from the top down, not the ground up. Powerful political elites and academics decide what "freedom" looks like, then use raw power to impose it. They scoff at the notion of abstract principles getting in the way of concrete results.

This top-down model of freedom is materialistic, not philosophical. "Freedom from need" is a core concept - you're not really "free" until your "rights" to various goods and benefits have been secured by force and delivered to you by the State.

This line of thinking has a long pedigree that stretches back to the concept of "authenticity" and work as slavery - i.e. you're not "free" if you have to work for cruel, rich exploiters to scrounge the money it takes to provide for your basic needs.

Modern absurdities flowing from this dogma include the "cowboy poetry" idiocy spouted by Democrats when they push welfare programs and statist takeovers. Once the State provides your health care and guaranteed income, you'll finally be free to do whatever you want!

The materialist concept of State-managed freedom merges very well with anti-capitalism, thanks to that core "work is slavery" concept. Power-hungry authoritarians can easily climb aboard this ideological train. If freedom must be provided, then the providers must be powerful!

Top-down, materialist "freedom" looks like a cargo cult. The elites decide what "freedom" should look like, and then employ vast amounts of destructive force to bring those trappings to the people they think are "unfree."

From the ground-up perspective of the Founders, freedom is a renewable resource. More people doesn't mean less freedom, because every one of them has the same inalienable rights. But from the top-down, freedom is a zero sum game of forced redistribution and rationing.

There's only a limited supply of freedom to go around, so for some people to get their fair share, others must be compelled, regulated, and looted. Conversely, if you lack the proper materialist benefits of freedom, it must be because some villain has exploited you.

You can easily see this dynamic in the perverted modern understanding of "free speech," with ideas like the "freedom from offense," "triggering," and "safe spaces." Free speech is zero-sum now: some must be silenced so others can feel free to express themselves.

Under this new, diminished, twisted ideal of "freedom,' there's really no limit on what the State can do. "Defending freedom" is entirely a matter of the State controlling individual behavior to achieve the coercive, redistributed freedoms envisioned by the elite.

Don't underestimate the allure of this top-down, materialist idea of freedom. it's not hard to convince people to surrender seemingly abstract liberties for solid material rewards, especially if those people are frightened, disillusioned, or envious.

The top-down collectivist model of freedom is very aggressive, while the classical liberal model is essentially defensive in nature. When you build freedom from the bottom up, you're always working to protect it, while your adversaries are constantly on the march.

It is difficult to mount a proper defense of classical liberalism when the other side controls the education system. Freedom from the ground up has to be taught at an early age. It's very difficult to plant those ideals after a lifetime of collectivist indoctrination.

I've always thought a good working definition of freedom begins with the right to say "no." The fundamental freedom, the ultimate expression of sovereignty, is the ability to refuse demands and see your refusal properly respected. Free people must be persuaded, not commanded.

The Planet of the Apes saga got it right: freedom begins with the word "no." The question free people never stop asking is, "And what if I refuse?"

The classical American model of individual freedom, built upon inalienable rights, embraced that truth more fully than any other.

Many of us have forgotten that simple wisdom, so today we are confronted by people with an endless list of things they would force us to do, all in the name of "freedom" - which they measure by counting the leaves that fall from its branches, not the strength of its roots. /end