There seems to be a prevailing attitude that we are all innately free and that by being human we are endowed with freewill. Furthermore, there seems to be a belief that freedom and freewill are synonymous with personal desire: if we are unable to get something, the inability to quench our desire is a direct attack on our personal freedoms and freewill. But, there is a difference between freedom and freewill, one that many people do not realize. Also, freewill is not something that we are endowed with. Rather it is an intentional decision on our part as individuals. Finally, our desires are emotionally based. Being based in emotion, desire has no relation to freedom or freewill other than the fact that most of us desire to be free. Because most of us do not have a clear definition of freedom and we have the ubiquitous belief that freewill is an innate human trait, most of us are not even aware when we lose it and give it away freely.
Freedom here is defined as the ability to act with the least amount of limitation. In the USA, President George W. Bush has continued to break down barriers built to give legal protection to law-abiding citizens to act with the least amount of limitation. His administration warrants this attack on personal freedom by pointing out that not all acts are good. With continued legal jargon, Bush and his administration re-define the law in order to redefine freedom in such a way that it can be manipulated and used in their favor in order to further their desires. With the patriot acts I and II, the continued legal parody of GITMO, secret orders and military tribunals the Bush administration takes away from American society what most of us consider to be freedom, and does so with (albeit dwindling) public support. Bush claims to protect freedom by taking freedoms away, which seems contradictory. This contradiction is not problematic and only possible if the public is ignorant as to what freedom is in the first place. The Bush administration interprets freedom in such a way as to allow for non-disclosed limitations on freedom. This sort of “interpretation” of freedom by the Bush administration is no different than the sorts of “interpretations” of religious texts that allow religions to justify their existence. In other words, if freedom is defined by law: change the law and one changes what freedom is. An example of this can be given with an analogy. We are free to travel, but if done in a vehicle we are not free to travel at any speed that we desire: our freedoms are limited by a law. Take the speed limit away, and we are “free” to travel at any speed that we desire. Most of us, if we took the time to think about it, really do not want unlimited ability to travel at any speed we want on the nation’s roadways because of the consequences of doing so. Here, the limitation of our freedoms is a good thing because such limitation circumvents probable chaos and danger to all of us. But in order to retain the most freedom for all individuals, the limitations on our freedoms must be clearly defined, in this case through posted speed limits. In this way freedom is defined not by limitations, but with limitations.
George Bush argues that by allowing the federal government to take away individual freedoms, his administration is simply circumventing probable danger. In essence, he is equating laws such as the patriot act to laws against speeding, claiming that doing so is protecting the majority of Americans from danger. But there is an important difference. If we allow the analogy of laws against speeding to the federal governments legalized spying programs, this difference becomes apparent. Let’s say that there are laws against speeding and we all know that these laws exist, but nowhere on any road are there signs that post the speed limit. I get pulled over by a police officer. The police officer tells me that I was speeding, and I point out that I have no way of knowing if I was or not since there are no posted speed limits. The officer then points out that if the speed limits were posted, then he would not be able to do his job because those that would speed would simply slow down to the posted speed limits when they saw the officer, and continue to speed when they didn’t. Most of us, knowingly or not, define freedom by the limitations that we put upon it. This is why most of our freedoms are defined by law. However, it becomes impossible to define “freedom” if those limitations are vaguely, or not defined at all.
Freewill is not the same as freedom. Freewill is our ability to make decisions for ourselves, without unwarranted or unknown influence from outside sources. To use the analogy, freewill can be defined as the freedom to drive faster or slower than the posted speed limit and our choice to do so or not. While “freedom” can be defined by law, freewill is defined by the relationship between such things as the law, and our understanding of it. Freewill has to do with our thoughts, actions and why we think and act a certain way rather than a law. For freewill to be present, one must have a choice to act freely in one way or another and the ability to understand why one ought to act in one way or another. This difference allows me to break laws or to follow them and it also creates the necessity of personal responsibility. Freewill is often mistakenly equated with desire. It is easily defined as desire, except that it has the added dimension of rational decision making. In fact, because desire is the consequent of emotion, desire can actually hinder freewill. I can desire to drive over the speed limit, but understand that to do so may result in a speeding ticket. I then intentionally take the responsibility of speeding (because of understanding) or decide not to: this is freewill. Freewill stems from personal and rational decision-making, and hence is necessarily linked to personal-responsibility. George Bush argues that he is (in his own words) the “decider”. This is no different than the officer in the analogy. The officer (George Bush) informs us that if the speed limits were posted, then he would not be able to do his job because those that would speed would simply slow down to the posted speed limits when they saw the officer. In other words, because individuals have freewill they can break the law so in order to keep laws from being broken, individual freewill must be controlled. By making laws vague and ambiguous, individuals are not able to choose between speeding or not: that choice is then made for them by the officer. The officer is claiming to be the “decider”. Freewill is limited by limiting the ability to consider alternatives.
The Bush administration does not offer rational explanations for its actions, but rather appeals to emotions. But, emotions do not justify any act. If someone is angry at another person, that anger does not justify murder in any legal or moral way. This is because emotion relates only to the person that is experiencing that emotion. Emotional pleas do not work as evidence in any logical sense nor do they have the strength to give warrant to any reasoning simply because they are based in personal experience and belief rather than on any real need or testable evidence. To allow emotion the strength of evidence and warrant is irrational and contrary to any reasonable definition of intelligent understanding. Let’s say our speeder goes to court and is asked “Why did you decide to speed?” He can simply answer “Because I felt like it…” The judge then would have to instantly acquit him of all charges and set him free. While freewill can easily be swayed by emotion, when we act on emotion we are not acting completely freely. The justification behind governmental actions concerning legalized spying, secret prisons, and places such GITMO is that without such provisions we are all in danger of being attacked by terrorists at will. It must be understood that the evidence used to back up this argument is not the terrorist acts against the USA on September 1, but the memory of those acts: in essence the evidence isthe fear of any terrorist act happening again. The president argues that if he is not able to be the “decider” then terrible things will happen. His argument ends up being nothing more than an emotional plea.
Not only are the individual freedoms being more and more limited by the current administration, but the ability for individuals to act in accordance with their own freewill is being limited as well. The administration is taking both responsibility away from individuals and instilling fear in society. In doing so it is indirectly taking social freedoms away from individuals while at the same time limiting the ability of individuals to analyze any political decisions rationally. While most conversation concerning the Bush administration and its actions and motivations are considered to be firmly planted in political soil, there would seem to be a deeper underlying motivation behind its actions as well. It is no secret that Bush and most if not all his administration is deeply religious. Their biblical literary allusions and Bush’s own allusions to biblical prophecy are most of the time not hidden at all. That being the case, it is not a long stretch to assume that political and legal decision-making is primarily motivated by religious belief rather than the hope for certain political consequences alone. Religious belief makes secondary the importance of individual freedom and freewill. Rather, religious belief is based on the unquestioned support and belief in the authority of that religion’s godhead. In the same way, the American public is being asked to support the Federal government unconditionally while at the same time being told that the gradual degradation of personal freedoms are nothing more than the protection of those same freedoms. Religious rhetoric is no different: in order to be “free”, one must give up the idea that individual freedom is important. Rather, it is God that is all-important, and any authorities that represent God are not to be questioned. Also, freewill is problematic for all religions. In order to “truly” believe, on must somehow decide to believe, but to decide not to believe is punishable by utter dissolution and separation (“You are for us, or for the terrorists.”): there is no real choice.
Many people who question the morality and the legality of certain actions pertaining to the Bush administration also question how it is possible for people to freely give up their freedoms and freewill so readily. The answer to that is more easily recognized if one takes into account that the great majority of this nation is religion, primarily Christian. This overriding belief and acceptance of religion creates the ability of administrations such as the Bush administration to call upon faith rather than fact when warranting their actions and decisions, which is exactly what this administration is asking of the American public. Religion does not require its followers to demand evidence and warrant for its actions and laws, but rather it requires them to accept on faith alone its creeds and dogmas. To question religious doctrine is, by most religion’s definitions, a sin. This is no different than the attitude that George Bush has towards those who disagree with him. Just as religious belief offers no compromises and accepts no doubt, George Bush offers no compromises to those who disagree with him and calls doubt unpatriotic.
Without understanding there is no freewill, and without freewill there is no freedom. Because of vague and ambiguous definitions of “freedom” offered and the disinterest in such things by the public, our freedom has become a patriotic commodity to be bought and sold on the legal market. Because of the readiness of most of the American public to accept on faith, the actions and decisions of the Bush administration as being morally and politically justified, “freewill” has become defined by nationalistic fervor. And, because of the religious fervor of both the Bush administration and the general public, the great political idea that is the United States is being redefined into another failed state, divided by religious differences and crumbling under ignorance. Just as most religious people hold other religions and atheists in particular with a measured disdain, the Bush administration holds any opposition to its ideologies (both religious and political) as being detrimental to what has become the religion of American politics, not recognizing that such a lack of skepticism and ability for public discourse destroys the very thing that could make this country great. Such attitudes do not lend possibility to freedom and nor do they bolster the ability to create freewill. Rather, freedom becomes defined not as action, but as limitation and freewill becomes limited to the ability to have faith rather than think rationally.