Dakota Beacon

Once again Independence Day brought picnics, parades, and fun for all. After the soda and beer and hot-dogs were consumed and the last fireworks crackled in the night, what remained? The Dog Days of summer stretch before us as the history books close on another Independence Day. Even so, the question nags, “Is that all there is?” The answer to that question has been offered before.

Two hundred forty-eight years following the signing of the Declaration of Independence folks still think about our nation’s ostensible quest for freedom and liberty. A contradiction has arisen in the minds of the citizenry. If the ideas of freedom and liberty are so dear to us, then how do we account for an ever-expanding federal government extending more and more authority and control over our lives and property?

Our Founders were not stupid. They certainly understood the difference between freedom and liberty. “Don’t they mean the same thing,” one might ask? In a general sense, yes. They could be used as synonyms. Today the terms are used interchangeably. But the Founders were struck with a special respect for the concept of liberty. They understood the decisive and delicate distinction between freedom and liberty and were not ignorant of the history of the terms.

Narrowly defined, freedom is the license or permission granted to a person. It means that a person has been authorized to do something or engage in certain speech, action, or behavior.

Here is where the distinction between freedom and liberty comes into play. Notice, we don’t have a “Freedom Bell” or a “Freedom Tree.” The colonists did not call their secret society advancing the rights of colonists and opposing Britain’s taxes “Sons of Freedom.” Nor do we have a “Statue of Freedom.” The term “liberty” in Liberty Bell, Liberty Tree, Sons of Liberty, and Statue of Liberty represent something quite different than mere authorizing or granting of permission.

The distinction between the two terms lies in the SOURCE of the authority granting permission. The colonists were in many ways the product of Reformation thinking and their worldview was greatly shaped by that Christian movement. Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence described liberty second only to life as granted by the Creator. Liberty is an inalienable right, an unchallengeable right, and an immutable right granted by God. No one, especially the government, can legitimately take it away. Only God can do that.

Freedom, on the other hand, is granted by the government. As such, a government granting freedom can just as easily limit it – or even take it away – in part or in total. Under the guise of freedom-bestowed-as-a-right, government can add or subtract rights.

Contemporaneously, think of those who held that healthcare is a right. Think also of those who carried adequate health insurance before implementation of Obamacare and then lost coverage after Obamacare was imposed. Government ruled as an arbiter of rights. What happened with healthcare could happen with any government-granted freedom. And does.

Think also of pure democracy versus a constitutional republic. In a pure democracy, 51% of the voters decide how the other 49% must live. A slim majority can negate the rights of others. As Benjamin Franklin put it, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” Fortunately, we don’t live in a pure democracy. We live in liberty under a constitutional republic subject to the rule of law -- at least for now.

The paradigm of yesterday has shifted. Given our contemporary culture and state of education, a legitimate question remains. Can we match the character and wisdom of our forefathers and act decisively to preserve the legacy of liberty they have passed to us? David Hackett Fischer offers an excellent historical reference on liberty versus freedom. Consult his 850-page book, “Liberty and Freedom: A visual History of America’s Founding Ideas.” His introduction alone has forty-six references.

In the end, we do get the government we deserve whether it be modeled after King George’s England or George Orwell’s “1984.” When we behave as if our rights and freedoms come from the government, then those rights and freedoms can just as easily be taken back by the same government. Alternatively, the concept of God-given inalienable rights might be a better way to go. As such, Independence Day takes on more meaning than just a celebration with Chinese fireworks.

In the afterglow of our July celebration think on these things -- and cherish liberty!

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).