This is what I've been thinking about for a couple of weeks now. Am I free? What does it mean to be free in the 21st century?
Americans love to claim freedom as something they all inherently possess. Land of free, right? But what IS freedom?
A basic concept and something that cannot leave my mind is that freedom means being able to exist, with basic human needs met, and able to pursue what makes you happy: whether that's something as extravagant as buying a boat, or as isolating as moving to the forest with little contact with others. Google defines freedom as the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
"Without hindrance or restraint"
This brings me back to my question, are we free? Are we free in a country that we depend on our employer for healthcare? Are we free in a society in which young adults and their parents are forced to choose financial debt or forgoing opportunities for educational advancement? Are we a free society in which the poverty divide is so wide that some of our fellow countrymen & women cannot afford food for themselves and their families?
When I ask these questions in my head, I try to imagine the counter argument.
"Should have worked harder in school to get a scholarship." "That's the price you pay for education." "Yeah they just need to work harder, hustle, get a third job." And what about healthcare? Have you ever thought about how you are dependent on your employer for your own health and wellness, that if you were suffering from a disease, chronic illness, or even had an emergency, that you were chained to your employer to gain access to health benefits? Is that being free? Doesn't that qualify as "a hindrance or restraint?"
People often change jobs, but rarely change countries. By now I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at, our basic human needs should be met by the government, not our employers. The private sector should focus on innovation and building up industry, not be tasked with sorting out PPO's and deductibles.
Currently, my conclusion is that a society CAN be pro-business but also PROVIDE basic human needs. It repulses me that so many of my fellow Americans act completely heartless when it comes to the welfare and well-being of others. I find that people taunt this heartless 'survival of the fittest' type of attitude until they or someone they love is met with unfortunate financial or medical circumstances. Why not open up your eyes (and your heart) and realize that taking care of people should be a community investment, giving everyone an equal playing field, and letting them make choices from that starting point?
I don't think telling someone to work three jobs is the answer. I think a government that supports its people, that gives people freedom to make choices based on something other than basic survival is what we need when we talk about government reform. No one should go in debt to afford an education, and no one should die because they can't afford healthcare.
As I said, I'm still working this all out in my head, but right now, the conclusion I'm at is that we've got it backwards. We are not objectively free. Of course, compared to some places, we have things okay, even desirable, but land of the free we are not.
Again, still working this out in my head and I realize this stream of consciousness is a bit unorganized. I prefer to cite sources when I write but this is all coming from the head/heart in one fell swoop, so none of that right now.