Freedom
by Jorge Vargas
Realism teaches us that nations, organizations, individuals, and entities of all varieties act, not out of passion or love or ideals, but rather, out of self-interest. We are logical creatures and even the most irrational of our brothers and sisters are, actually, rational if rationality is defined by the individual and not as a generality. Yes, Hitler was rational, realism argues. And so was Roosevelt. So were De Gaulle, Churchill, Napoleon, Peron, Bolivar, Don San Martin, Washington, King Henry VIII, Columbus, Caesar and Alexander. Even Alexander, the boy-emperor who ruled one of the greatest empires in human history and who never knew when to back down, because he rationally believed that he was invincible. He reasoned that he could not lose and that he did not need to turn back, and he burned out and died for it. Rationality.
I have not always lived with liberty - and I will not even swear that I live with liberty now when my colleagues are afraid to express their views for fear of repercussions - and yet, even when I was not free, I never wanted freedom, though I have always loved it. Yes, to not want freedom in this day and age is a horrible thing. Call me whatever you want. Fascist, communist, anarchist, and Satan himself I may be. Fine. But I ask you: Have you ever wanted freedom? Would you even know what to desire if you lacked it? Would you fight for it?
Or would you fight for yourself? Would you fight for a decent living? For a happy life? After all, how good is freedom of the press if you are starving?
No, I will not make the trite argument that people need food, clothing, and shelter before they are given freedom. If you don't know that, and are not willing to accept it, at least temporarily, or if you are one of the fools who believes that the idealistic dream of freedom is worth more than the reality of life, then I ask that you stop reading this.
Freedom and liberty are both wonderful things, but whose freedom? Whose liberty? As previously noted - and you really can't argue it - without food, there is no practical purpose for freedom. The fanatics might be willing to sacrifice their whole lives for a moment of freedom, but would you? Most of the people in our world have lived under dictatorships. They did not all sacrifice their lives for freedom. Would you? Be honest.
But then, what sort of freedom are we speaking of? The bureaucrats have now developed a science to measure democracy. Countries can attain democracy ratings on a scale of one to ten, all based on the erroneous belief that democracies can be compared qualitatively. They'll admit that the belief is erroneous, naturally, but they take the implications of their comparison seriously enough.
The data misses the point. Numbers cannot express what freedom really is. What liberty really is. What it is that I love and have loved since I first encountered her. Numbers can never contain passion.
Passion, unlike freedom, is not a result. Passion is a modus operandi. Passion is a driving force. One can be passionate for freedom, just as one can be passionate for tyranny, just as one can be passionate for wealth. The results hardly matter. What matters is the passion itself. Human beings are born as passionate creatures. We are born yearning for things, wanting things, throwing tantrums and trying as best we can for what we want. Even the cynical ones have that passion - they just hide it in their mediocrity.
And passion - spirit, if you prefer - is even a greater force than food, clothing, and shelter. Passion is the thing that drives our desires - rational and irrational, because not all things can be reasoned out. Without that spirit, we are nothing. We become automatons. Parts of a machine called society. A machine that is composed of billions of parts but which amounts to, essentially, nothing more than an idea. And we have enough ideas.
Governments launch wars claiming to protect freedom. Schoolchildren pledge to a land of the free. We rile at even the suggestion of an end to liberty.
But by doing these things, we betray freedom, because if freedom is about anything at all, it is about individuality. And I write this without adhering to any Protestant ethic because, let's face it, the Protestants never invented originality. Originality is not a Protestant trait. It is a human trait.
So when I say that I do not want freedom, I really mean that I do not want their statistical freedom. I am a liberal. I support freedom of ideas and of speech. I support freedom of choice and freedom of religion, and freedom to choose a government. I am a responsible liberal. My freedom does not mean freedom without duty - nor does it mean anarchism. Duty must never be forgotten, but it cannot be dictated from above. Duty must be agreed upon.
But I will not defend that freedom. Not their freedom, nor even my freedom.
I will defend passion though. I will defend spirit. Without those two things, we stand no chance of having anyone's freedom. Without those two things, we become the individuals who claim to be able to calculate everything rationally.
Alexander - and every world leader before him and after him - was rational, but rationality did not define him. He wanted to conquer the whole world, and though thousands of individuals died because of his imbecile dreams, he lived with a passion that made him free. He died with spirit. And we will never forget him.
