"Freedom of..." vs. "Freedom from..."

If asked about the friends that I made in my college years, I would have to say that they cover the whole political spectrum, from Marin County hippies to guys that make me look like an editor for Mother Jones. My more left-leaning acquaintances would often ask me how someone with my intelligence could possibly be a "knee-jerk, Bible-thumping, gun-toting, SUV-driving, meat-eating, capitalistic, war-mongering, sexist, bigoted, homophobe". I would tell them that it came down to the differences between "freedoms of..." and "freedoms from...".

Let's start with the "freedoms from...". In Communism, that is to say authoritarian socialism, the few rule for the good of the many. Plato wrote about a "communism of the elite" in The Republic; the best and brightest of society would own property and be in charge of the education and well-being of all the people. This included the "elite" raising all the children born in the society, to ensure that they would become functioning members of society. In such a society (like the one attempted in the U.S.S.R.), the following "freedoms" are guaranteed:

1. Freedom from Homelessness
2. Freedom from Unemployment
3. Freedom from Hunger
4. Freedom from Covetousness
5. Freedom from Decisiveness

The first three are basic tenants that have been recognized by dictatorships since the time of Ceasar. If you feed and care for your masses, you will prevent them from rocking the boat. When the people are hungry, jobless, and without a roof over their heads, they tend to get cranky. The fourth and fifth freedoms involve maintaining the overall "happiness" of the common man. If your neighbor has all of the same things that you have, you cannot covet. In order to covet, one must desire something they do not already have and be willing to do whatever it takes to get it. If the few are making the decisions for the benefit of the many, the burden of choice as been removed from the commoner. Just think: all that you, the common man or woman has to do is wake up in your government-owned apartment, go to your government job, and spend what money you have at government-owned stores on government-produced goods. You don't have any responsibilities because the government (run by people who are supposed to be smarter than you) makes all the important decisions for you. You are guaranteed equality of outcome, regardless of how much or how little you do.

However, because governments are human institutions, there is no escaping the reality of power corrupting even the most well-intentioned. They who hold the reins of power will not see any reason for them to live like the commoners. Using the "freedoms" that they give the people, the ruling class are permitted to do as they please, even if it means departing from what they preach to those they steward.

The "freedoms of...", unlike their collectivist counterparts, require the individual to take the initiative. The Founding Fathers, men familiar with the philosophy of the Age of Englightenment, based the Constitution of the United States on belief that our rights are God-given, not imparted to us by a ruling class. To compare with the previously mentioned "freedoms from" here are the "freedoms of":

1. Freedom of Having a Home
2. Freedom of Being Employed
3. Freedom of Having Food
4. Freedom of Fulfilling Desires
5. Freedom of Choice

Rather than freedoms 4 and 5 being dependent upon freedoms 1 through 3, the freedom to fulfill one's desires and the freedom to choose allow one to improve on the ability to exercise freedoms 1 through 3. By placing the power in the hands of the individual, the common good is served because each person will strive to better himself. As far as uplifting the downtrodden, it's difficult to uplift anything when you are not able to lift up yourself. The perceived downside to living in a society based on the "freedoms of" is that the individual is responsible for choices and, therefore, any failure that may occur as a result of poor choices. Some people choose to not make choices. By letting life happen to them, they believe that they can claim victim status and are entitled to sympathy. In a society that promises equality of opportunity, the possibilities of success are only as limited as one's imagination. It only requires that one be brave enough to seize the opportunity and take a risk.