Liberty vs. Freedom

We often use the words "freedom" and "liberty" as if these words had the same meaning.  But in truth, and as used by the Founders, these two words have very different meanings, and sometimes conflating them can create confusion in the listener.  At Ammo.com there is post that explains the differences entitled Freedom vs. Liberty: Understanding Negative vs. Positive Rights. I urge gentle readers of this blog to go read the whole thing over at Ammo.com, and I want to thank David Codrea of the War on Guns for pointing me to it.

In a nut shell, the word "freedom" refers to your personal attitude toward the world around you.  "Liberty" on the other hand refers to your freedom of action as an individual.  Here is how Ammo.com puts it:

Freedom comes from Old English, meaning “power of self-determination, state of free will; emancipation from slavery, deliverance.” There were similar variants in Old Frisian such as “fridom,” the Dutch “vrijdom,” and Middle Low German “vridom.”

Liberty comes from the Latin “libertatem” (nominative libertas), which means “civil or political freedom, condition of a free man; absence of restraint, permission.” It’s important to note that the Old French variant liberte, "free will," has also shaped liberty's meaning. In fact, William R. Greg’s essay France in January 1852 notes that the French notion of liberty is political equality, whereas the English notion is rooted in personal independence.

The emphasis is mine. I wanted to make a point here. Did George Washington care how Thomas Jefferson ran his plantation? Only to such degree as Jefferson might impose upon Washington by force of law. Yet each agreed, if on nothing else, that they each had the natural rights granted to everyone by our Creator.  the rights granted to each of us by our Creator, in turn are negative rights.  They impose no requirement on others to satisfy them.  Thus, each of us has the right to bear arms.  That right includes the right not to bear arms, and a duty to bear them responsibly.  It also properly recognizes that the Constitution may be the highest law in the land, but itself is under a higher authority that may impose further duties than those listed. 

Since the so-called "Progressive Era" in American politics, roughly from the beginning of the 20th Century, rights have been framed more and more as what are called "positive rights."  Positive rights are obligations one person, or classification of persons must perform for another.  One has no choice, and thus is actually a form of slavery.  As an example, let us take healthcare.  Under the negative rights concept, each of us has a right to healthcare, but each of us must pay our own way, and therefore the more you can afford, the better the healthcare you theoretically will have up to the limits of human technology and understanding.  Under the positive rights concept, the state decides who has what rights to healthcare.  Under this scheme, usually the state taxes those who can pay and then turns the funds as welfare over to those who can't or won't pay.  The rich therefore are enslaved to pay not only their costs, but the costs of others as well.

If truth be told about so-called "positive rights," they would instead be called "entitlements."  And entitlements can be given, and entitlements can be taken away at the whim of the majority, a majority that can never be satisfied, or trusted.

Please go read the article in its entirety.  I promise that unless you are a scholar and a philosopher, there is some nugget you have not run across before.  The Founders got it right, no doubt through the workings of the Holy Spirit, and the French got it wrong.  May the Holy Spirit turn us away from the evils road we are going down.