Q&A: Clearing Up the Sloppy Use of the Word 'Freedom'

A reader asked us to provide a consistent definition of freedom as the term is very often used in contradictory ways.  Specifically, the reader queried how one could objectively determine whether a society is free.  This is our answer. 

What Freedom Is

We ascribe to the classical liberal definition of freedom which we feel is the only truly logically consistent definition.  Under this view, freedom is a person’s capability for independent action in terms of his/her relationship to others.  It is the ability to exercise choice, free will, within one’s means. 

Freedom is defined in terms of the relations among people.  To be free is to be exempt from the coercion of others. .  When we say coercion, we mean physical force or the threat of force, not the ability to sway another person with good argumentation or monetary exchange because, in either of those cases, voluntary choice is involved—an individual still makes a decision whether to accede.  

What Freedom is NOT 

It is important not to confuse this definition of freedom with ability.  A person who desires to flap his arms and fly may be free to do so, as there is no one preventing him from doing it, but he is also unable to fly according to the laws of physics.  This is a consequence of reality as opposed to the result of any relations with others.  

Means or resources should also not be confused with freedom.  A person may be free to own a business but will not be able to if he lacks the resources to build or purchase one.  Having the material means to do something is distinct from being hindered by another.  The capacity to do something has nothing to do with one’s freedom to do it.  One can have either, both, or neither.   This error of confusing these is evidenced in the concept of “freedom from want” where the assumption is that a person has a certain “right” to “an adequate living.”  To guarantee this right, one necessarily infringes on the freedom of another; thus this cannot be a form of freedom.  People should be free from others preventing them from earning an adequate living, but they are not entitled to the goods or services of others. 

Lastly, freedom is independent of subjective emotion.  “Freedom from fear” is a nonsensical concept that is completely subjective, impossible to fulfill, ignorant of human irrationality, and one that would necessitate infringement on the freedoms of others.  It should be obvious that freedom from an emotion is absurd.  Emotions are tied to conditions and, therefore, these fears are triggered by other situations.  Freedom from the threat of force is guaranteed but this is very different than an ambiguous notion such as freedom from fear.

Absolute Freedom

Absolute freedom would entail the right to do whatever one desires as long as it is within your ability to do so.  To use Thomas Hobbes’ definition, a free man, "is he, that in doing those things, which by his strength and wit he is able to do, is not hindered to do what he has a will to do."  This definition allows for total freedom and thus a person’s only limits are his or her capacity (strength and wit, according to Hobbes) to act.  In a world with only one human being, a person would have absolute freedom. 

Because absolute freedom is complete independence from the will of others, it cannot exist for more than one person in a society--that person being is the most powerful.  Depending on constraints imposed by those below the most powerful person, it might not even be possible for that person to experience absolute freedom.  But generally, the power required to remain free from the coercion of anyone else also provides the power to coerce anyone else.  If the world immediately reverted to the state of nature, or pure anarchy, then every person would immediately possess absolute freedom, just as they would if they were the only person in existence.  But this condition would only last until they met the first person who had more capacity to act (aka more power).  They would then be subject, through the use or threat of force, to any limits on their own action that the more powerful person imposed.  In short time, the world would reflect a situation in which one person, with the most power, would have absolute freedom, and the rest of the population would have only the freedoms allowed by those above them.   

Real Freedom or Liberty

A free society will clearly not be one of absolute freedom.  Absolute freedom centralizes and monopolizes independence.  It leads to violations of the belief that all people are inherently entitled to an equal level of freedom.  It does not maximize freedom and leads to almost no one enjoying any real degree of autonomy.  In order to maximize freedom for all, it must be reaffirmed that all persons are deserving of an equal level of freedom, and that level is the maximum amount possible, so long as it does not infringe on the freedom, or right, of others to do the same.  In order for that to occur, any right or freedom must be able to be enjoyed by all persons simultaneously, without conflicting.  Rights of this type are described by philosophers as “negative rights” or liberties.  Negative rights are those that exist and can be respected simply by others refraining from blocking them.  These rights require that others refrain from interfering in their exercise.  Freedom of speech is an example of this type of right.  Natural rights, defined by John Locke as the right to life, liberty, and property, are the “self-evident and unalienable” rights human beings have by virtue of being alive and are an example of a type of negative rights.  There is, however, another category of rights.  Positive rights, or claim rights, are the inverse of negative rights.  They require action rather than inaction.  Legal rights, those provided by law, rather than natural rights protected by a law, are an example of positive rights.  For positive rights to be respected and enjoyed, they impose a duty on another person.  Positive rights, by requiring action of another, can conflict with each other and conflict with the negative rights of others.  

 In order for all persons to enjoy the greatest level of freedom, a society obliges people to refrain from preventing each other from doing things which are permissible—a system where rights are limited only by the obligation to respect the liberty of others.   People are only entitled to their natural rights (and the negative rights that are derivatives of them) and they are only entitled to a positive right if the third-party, of whom action is required to respect the right, agrees voluntarily to it.  One can never have a right to the goods or services of another without voluntary consensual agreement, that is without contract. 

This construction of freedom which we will call “liberty” means that people are free to make any arrangements they wish among themselves so long as they are voluntary (absent coercion) and do not infringe on the rights of others.  

The Purpose of Government in a Free Society is to Protect Liberty Only

Even though one has rights, there is still the potential for them to be violated by another.  This is exactly what happens in the case of absolute freedom in the state of nature.  In order to protect their natural rights, citizens create societies with rules, typically overseen by institutions like government.  The purpose of these institutions is to ensure that people can enjoy their rights to a greater extent than they would in the state of nature.  A social contract is created and individuals grant the government a monopoly on the use of force in the society so that it can protect their rights from those external to the society (through the use of the military), internally (through the police) and to adjudicate disputes (through the courts).  The government is required to act objectively and is limited in its exercise of power by laws.  If it is not achieving its purpose of protecting the natural rights of its citizens, then the citizens have the right and duty to abolish the government and can revert to the state of nature and form a government that will better discharge its duties.  This contract’s promises can be seen in written constitutions. 

Governments, however, have traditionally, and almost exclusively, expanded this contract, thus expanding their roles and power vis-a-vis the individuals in a society—through both legislative and judicial processes—leading invariably to less liberty.  In virtually every society, over time liberty tends to decrease.  This fact was noted by Thomas Jefferson, who wrote, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground."  Social contract theorists justify this by asserting that citizens’ lack of action in replacing such governments (through law or revolt) implies tacit agreement with such policies.  Though no person has ever been given a contract with the government to allow it to apply its rules to him in exchange for promises to protect his liberties, social contract theories posit that living in a country and remaining there indicates consent.  This view is not unchallenged. 

In any case, using this definition of freedom and applying it to how government is envisioned to function, we can see that there is no truly free society on earth.  There are merely varying degrees of freedom and the debates center around where to draw the line between a free and unfree society. While that is a subjective matter, this definition provides us with an objective way to rank societies in terms of freedom. 

Euromaidan Is Not About Freedom. It Is About Power.

In late December 2013, I spent two nights walking through Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Майдан Незалежності), or Independence Square, in Kyiv (to use the transliteration of the Ukrainian "Київ", rather than the Russian "Киев").  The famous square is one of the main plazas in Kyiv, home to several monuments and, most recently, the nexus for the Euromaidan protests.  The dissent which began in late November has risen to prominence in the past few weeks due to an uptick in violence,  in some instances resulting in death.  The protests arose in reaction to the government backing out of talks regarding joining the European Union, but the majority of those currently involved are demonstrating against the excessive measures and obvious human rights violations of the Ukrainian special police or “Berkut.”  The claim is that Ukrainians are “fighting for their rights.”  And while they may believe they are, the reality is a different story.  

As I toured the square and nearby streets, I was guided by a friend who had been involved in the protests at the onset. A young professional, he found himself assisting in constructing battlements during the tense stand-off with police in early December.  He was especially proud that, in one section of the square, he personally acquired a metal cable and ran it through hastily-constructed barriers making a connected mass that prevented the police from removing the barriers.  He described in detail how the protestors used fire hoses against police as they defended one of the buildings they had occupied. As we walked and shared stories, I noticed the signature yellow and sky blue ribbon on his bag, the colors of the Ukrainian flag. In the week I spent in Kyiv, it was very common to see ribbons, buttons, banners, stickers, and flags.

 The Ukrainian diaspora has similarly voiced support.  Facebook profile pictures reflect the Ukrainian ribbon overlaid on black to represent the recent deaths. Here in Washington DC, public rallies are held in a sign of solidarity.  Social media exhortations for support abound.  And it is not only Ukrainians.  Rallies are taking place in London, Vienna, Seoul, and elsewhere.  Such causes tend to attract naïve idealists, and they have been quick to jump on the bandwagon – those who worship at the altar of democracy assuming it is always and everywhere a good thing.  Sadly, this show of support is only encouraging more violence and death. 

The choices Ukrainians are making are not between good and evil but between two equally bad options.  To fully grasp the situation requires an understanding of history, politics, economics and international relations.  Most of those involved, including many in Independence Square itself, and especially the many outside the nation, lack that understanding.  

This was evident as I toured the square.  Far from a tense standoff, the police had been ordered to leave the area to the protestors.  The result was a very “Occupy” atmosphere.  Much like those protests in the U.S., the bulk of the participants are young people who want to be involved in something, to belong to a unifying cause.   It is easy to garner support when your cause rallies to a simple, ambiguous and politically unquestionable theme such as “equality” in the Occupy movements, or “nationalism,” or “rights” as in Ukraine, rather than confront the systemic and deeply embedded ills of your society. 

The ambiguity of cause has resulted in the kind of conglomeration of participants that was seen in the U.S.-based Occupy protests.  Nationalists walk among those upset over their economic circumstances, while the increasing violence has attracted anarchists, neo-Nazis, and gang members.  Another parallel to the “Occupy” protests was the scale of destruction and filth that accompanied the protests.  A far cry from orderly and disciplined, the crowds have damaged nearby businesses and property and the once idyllic square and nearby streets are covered in refuse, resembling a post-apocalyptic wasteland.  Others have more recently noted the same climate. 

Though most participants were inspired by the desire to be part of the action, and all are genuinely incensed by the police brutality, there is also a more sinister element.  There are many reports of protestors being paid to engage in such activity by those who would benefit from the current leadership’s replacement.  This is well known to have occurred during the 2004 Orange Revolution, a civil resistance movement that arose in response to perceived election fraud.   Although my guide acknowledged the payment of protestors in that event, he claimed that this time it is different.  Involved in the protests from the beginning, and a true nationalist, he is passionate about the cause but perhaps, understandably, a bit biased.  In my visit to Kyiv, I was accompanied by another friend, half-Russian and half-Ukrainian, who had heard first-hand accounts of protestors being paid large sums of money to participate.  Later, two other acquaintances, one Ukrainian and one Russian, provided similar accounts.  My patriotic guide had also informed me that Russia was covering up the protests and that Russians had no idea of what was happening in Ukraine.   Having been in Russia prior to and after my visit to Ukraine, I was readily able to counter this mistaken assumption.  My guide also asserted strained relations and suggested a nationalistic animosity between Ukrainians and Russians as we discussed historical tensions.  This view was neither prevalent among the Russians with whom I engaged,  nor in the Russian media,  however, this rationalization is consistent with favorable attitudes about EU membership and dislike of Russian involvement in Ukrainian politics. 

At the time of my visit,  Kyiv was experiencing what can now be described as a lull in the violence.  What I had observed was not so much a protest as a spectacle.  Within the square, enclosed by barriers, was a tent city comprised of a variety of makeshift shelters, some selling food, some providing medical supplies, some for heat.  Men stood around fires warming themselves while others wandered around selling souvenirs.  Despite claims that there is no alcohol, I personally saw a great deal of it.  There was a huge stage where, between musical acts, various people would spew the Ukrainian equivalent of “MERICUH!”  The substance-less nationalism did not address any of the issues but rather consisted of statements like, “Ukraine is the best nation in the world!”  “Long live Ukraine!”  The atmosphere resembled a carnival more than a protest, evoking images of Woodstock and Bonnaroo.  It had become commercialized and was actually become a tourist destination.  My guide even informed me that it is  rumored that U2 might play in the square.  From protest to music festival…and now, a war zone?

I  passed by several booths and numerous signs dedicated to the freeing of Yulia Tymoshenko, the former Prime Minister of Ukraine, jailed by current (and legitimately elected) President Viktor Yanukovych, against whom the protests are primarily directed.  The irony is that Tymoshenko (and her party ally and former President, Viktor Yushchenko) were every bit as corrupt as Yanukovych.  Tymoshenko’s imprisonment may have been politically motivated, but it was certainly justified by her crimes.  It is peculiar that a people would vilify the corruption of Yanukovych but overlook it in Tymoshenko simply because the latter opposes the former.  Tymoshenko gained favor through her leadership in the aforementioned Orange Revolution and has supported this latest unrest as well, most likely with a view to her own freedom despite officially dropping demands to be released in exchange for an EU deal.  On November 22, she was one of the main proponents for the protest, urging Ukranians to take to the streets in order to sway the government of her adversary.  But Tymoshenko represents only one segment of the opposition currently headed by Arseniy Yatsenyuk.  There are also the nationalists, led by Oleh Tyahnybok, as well as those members of boxer Vitali Klitschko’s party.  While all have traditionally competed for power, they all have a hand in supporting and fueling Euromaidan, as they all stand to benefit from the fall of the current party.

Despite rants about Russian influence, it is telling that polling of those involved in the protest reveals that only about 50% wish for integration with the European Union (though only 15% support a similar union with Russia). Western Ukraine has always leaned more European, while Eastern Ukraine has traditionally adopted a more Russian perspective.  The effects can be seen in economic ties as well as cultural ones, like ethnic background, language, and even election results.  The desire to join the EU is based more on ideals than practical matters.  Indeed, a pragmatist might note that the harm resulting from the loss of Russian support could far outweigh any potential gain from joining the EU. Russia has been providing funding to Ukraine since its independence.  It supplies Ukraine with discounted gas and Russian trade accounts for a significant percentage of the Ukrainian economy.  Initial entry into the EU would provide a boost, but in the long term may result in more bad than good.  Indeed, even the long-term feasibility of the EU itself has been questioned by some of its members.  Further, even a union with Russia would likely bring about the economic changes that EU membership would force.  These issues are largely not addressed by the outcry in Ukraine because, despite anti-Russian sentiments, the protests are about dissatisfaction with Ukraine's own government and its power, specifically the power of the President and his “family” – those closest to him.  Under a presidential system which, unlike the U.S., doesn’t seem to value a separation of powers or limits on government’s role in society, intimidation and corruption naturally abound, regardless of the person holding office. 

Ultimately, the situation has little to do with Russia or rights.  At its core, it is purely about internal politics and the distribution of power.  Naive Ukrainians are being used in an attempt to shift government control from the corrupt party in power to other corrupt parties.  This should be obvious form the results of the Orange Revolution which reacted against corruption, cronyism and abuse of power only to result in more of the same.   There are those who decry Yanukovych while conveniently ignoring that his predecessor was just as corrupt as he is.  It is shortsighted to think Yanukovych is the source of evil and that the problems in Ukraine will disappear when he is replaced.  Those in the streets clamor about democracy and rights, but changing the name on the office door does not fix a system that is inherently broken. 

The opposition parties and other backers who wish to inherit this system are exploiting outrage over police action— and even using violence to instigate backlash from the police, who are already demonstrably heavy-handed.  The protestors are simply pawns in this game, sheep being led to the slaughter.  The cries of freedom serve to recruit protestors, and to gain sympathy from the West, but they are really lies drawing naïve Ukrainians into the crossfire. 

These protests, unlike the previous movement, have far surpassed peaceful assembly and have evolved into foolish, half-hearted, and wasteful violence.  It is primarily the fault of the protestors themselves (although, it must be noted that the government has paid participants, "Titushki," who are inciting violence and carrying out false flag attacks).  It is often said that violence never solves anything but this is untrue.  Half-hearted, irresolute violence never solves anything, but decisive, ruthlessly-applied, total violence has solved many issues throughout history.  In Ukraine, violence has been employed in the former manner.  The result has been a needless loss of life. 

If protestors believe they are fighting for their rights, they are not going about it in a very intelligent way.  The attempted use of violence by protestors has been episodic and reactionary rather than intentioned, comprehensive and purposeful.  As protestors escalated from peaceful activism and civil disobedience to theft, property damage, and violence against police, the natural result was police escalation and legislation banning assembly.  The stupidity of engaging police with force in this way is apparent.  Though brutal beatings have been very prevalent, police largely relied on tear gas and non-lethal rounds up until this past week.  Unless the intention is to shift peaceful protest into outright revolution, then violence will only worsen the situation for the protestors.  If violence is to be used against the government then it should only be done purposefully with the understanding of a deliberate move to legitimate revolution.  If that is not what is occurring, then the protest must remain peaceful.  Anything in between will only result in continued violence and more deaths with no resolution.  The most recent efforts by protestors have included molotov cocktails, pistols being fired, and even medieval-style catapults being launched.  Such lethal actions, defined as hostile acts in military terminology, can only be predicted to lead to an increasingly violent police response, such as firing lethal rounds against protestors.  This is, precisely what has occurred, producing a death toll of six protestors and one policeman, and hundreds of injuries on both sides. Reports of torture and kidnapping are being released as the violence continues to escalate.

In examining this series of events, the natural conclusion is that more death may be exactly what those pulling the strings in the protests really desire – to cause enough mayhem and death to trigger a full-scale revolt, rather than wait for a peaceful and inevitable transition of the already-despised party in 2015.  But this begs the question, are those leaders who are willing to buy their way into power with the blood of their fellow citizens likely to be any different than the current regime?

Ukrainians have a choice to make:  either commit to full-scale revolution to overthrow the current regime and begin again, or return to peaceful methods of protest and use the ballot and public opinion to change leadership.  But either way, all the death and destruction will have been in vain if serious, deep structural changes are not made afterward.  This is the only way that Ukrainians will solve their problems. The protests are not what is important, what comes after them is what truly matters.

It is, however, most likely that regardless of how transition occurs and who is leading it,  it will take the form of some very public, very obvious superficial changes (to feed the illusion that the former regime was tyrannical and the new one is just), but it will be business (corruption) as usual.

The latest reporting shows the protests growing and the government appears unlikely to simply allow itself to be replaced.  Any result arising from the continued violence is likely to be the same that would have occurred regardless, albeit more slowly, but without the tragic deaths that come of children playing with fire.   

The real danger is that the protests may now be beyond the control of those who incited them and evolve into a growing and self-replicating cycle of violence.  Sadly, this is not the story that the idealists waving flags and shouting support for the cause are willing to admit.  


*All pictures taken by me.

The U.S. In Afghanistan - Snatching Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory

Michael Scheuer highlighted that immediately following the attacks of 9/11, Sir John Keegan offered the United States some advice grounded in history when he warned that, 

"Efforts to occupy and rule [Afghanistan] usually ended in disaster. But straightforward punitive expeditions...were successful on more than one occasion. It should be remembered that, in 1878, the British did indeed succeed in bringing the Afghans to heel [with a punitive expedition]. Lord Roberts' march from 'Kabul to Khandahar' was one of Victoria's celebrated wars. The Russians, moreover, foolishly did not try to punish rogue Afghans, as Roberts did, but to rule the country. Since Afghanistan is ungovernable, the failure of their [1979-92] effort was predictable...America should not seek to change the regime, but simply find and kill terrorists. It should do so without pity." 

The U.S. did exactly this, embarking on a punitive expedition, targeting Bin Laden, his Al Qaeda associates and the Taliban regime which provided him sanctuary. These goals had largely been accomplished within three months post- 9/11.  CIA operatives and Special Forces teams supported by U.S. air power linked up with Afghan warlords to conduct a very successful unconventional warfare campaign against the Taliban regime. As Yaniv Barzilai has noted, by December 7, 2001 anti-Taliban forces were in control of every major city in Afghanistan.  The Taliban had surrendered its traditional stronghold of Kandahar and had been pushed into Pakistan.   Those members of Al-Qaeda who had not been killed or captured, or had not fled Afghanistan before the attacks, were cornered in Tora Bora along with Bin Laden himself.  At this critical moment in the campaign, the U.S. had, within striking distance, precisely the tools needed to finish off Bin Laden and the remaining members of Al Qaeda.  Barzilai writes, 

For weeks, Gary Berntsen, the top CIA officer in Afghanistan, pleaded for eight hundred Army Rangers to seal the six-by-six square mile sierra of Tora Bora. Then-colonel John Mulholland, the commander of the Special Forces A-teams in Afghanistan, was “concerned about the inadequacy of the force to the mission at hand.” General James Mattis, who commanded twelve hundred Marines at Camp Rhino near Kandahar, asked to reposition his forces to seal the border at Tora Bora. And, more than one thousand troops from the Tenth Mountain Division lay ready at Bagram Air Base near Kabul and Kharshi Khanabad in Uzbekistan.

Instead of turning the displacement into destruction, GEN Tommy Franks refused requests to put more U.S. troops on the ground and allowed the “battle for the existence of Al-Qaeda to be waged by ninety-three Western commandos and a contingent of generally untrustworthy Afghan rebels without any reliable force to seal the escape routes."  During this time Bin Laden, along with the core of Al Qaeda, was able to slip across the border into Pakistan undetected.  The U.S. would not know his exact location again for 12 years.  Decisive victory in Afghanistan was lost in that moment.

Despite this, victory, albeit a less satisfying one, was still within the nation’s grasp.  The U.S. had accomplished many of its goals by having displaced the regime that supported Al-Qaeda, forcing the organization out of Afghanistan and severely damaging it. The U.S. could have simply left Afghanistan to the opposition forces that defeated the Taliban and returned home, demonstrating to its enemies that terror sponsors will be removed from power.  It could then have continued to pursue Bin Laden in Pakistan through more smaller, less costly and maintainable clandestine actions until his final elimination.  Though not decisive, this would have classified as a victory.  It certainly would have been in keeping with the advice of  Lord Roberts, the very British General of whom Sir John Keegan spoke in his advice to the U.S.:

     It may not be very flattering to our amour propre...but I feel sure that I am right when I say that the less the Afghans see of us he less they will dislike us. Should Russia in future years attempt to conquer Afghanistan, or invade India through it, we should have a better chance of attaching the Afghans to our interests if we avoid all interference with them in the meantime.

Instead, however, the U.S. policy in Afghanistan shifted to one that has never been one of its strengths - nation-building, and its consequent condition of long-term occupation.  As Alicia Wittmeyer has noted,

The West was trying to do something it couldn't do, and it was trying to do something it didn't need to do. Its basic assumptions were wrong. Afghanistan did not pose an existential threat to international security; the problem was not that it was a "failed state." The truth is that the West always lacked the knowledge, power, or legitimacy to fundamentally transform Afghanistan. But policymakers were too afraid, too hypnotized by fashionable theories, too isolated from Afghan reality, and too laden with guilt to notice that the more ambitious Afghanistan mission was impossible and unnecessary.

In a 2008 interview, COL Gian Gentile asked a question about U.S. policy that has deep implications:  

With regard to Afghanistan the president's political objectives are to disable, disrupt, dismantle al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, to prevent it from using Afghanistan and Pakistan as a base to attack the United States. Then why, as a matter of strategy, do we have to embrace such a maximalist approach of nation-building to achieve those rather limited objectives?

Presumably it was to prevent the kind of instability it was thought might create another opportunity for terrorist safe-haven.  But this approach ignored a critical reality: that the desired outcome was not possible given the political conditions in the United States and on the conditions on ground in Afghanistan as they existed then.  


The shift from punishing the Taliban and targeting our enemies to nation building resulted in an enemy response: insurgency.  Thus the mission became counterinsurgency.  A new doctrine was codified to help win the war and its framework imposed on a situation for which it was ill-suited.  

Twelve years later, at a cost of almost $1.5 trillion, more than 6,700 dead, and over 50,000 wounded.  Bin Laden is dead but Al Qaeda remains intact and has an undeniably larger global footprint.  U.S. power, and its ability to to deter, has been irrevocably tarnished.  Meanwhile, observers, and even the U.S. government, have noted that Afghanistan is still no less likely, and possibly more likely, to devolve into the same instability feared a decade prior.  This is, in any view, a defeat rather than victory, and a costly one at that.  It is precisely when U.S. policymakers decided to alter the U.S. role in Afghanistan from punitive action to nation-building, whether in ignorance or denial of the conditions that would preclude the desired outcome, that they sealed the nation’s defeat.   

This is a vital lesson for future interventions.