Remember back when George W. Bush used to say that we were being attacked by terrorists because they hate "our freedom." Terrorists may indeed hate the fact that Americans do have essential freedoms that they want to restrict for their societies. In their case, terrorists want absolute tyranny (which, of course, is good for them and terrible for everyone else). However, the rest of the world (Continental Europe, Asia, Latin America, Africa, even Canada, Australia and the UK) does not hate our freedoms, they greatly respect many of them. But, I think the majority of people outside of the US views freedom very differently than most Americans do. Some of the things that Americans view as sacrosanct (absolute protection of private property and the right to bear arms are good examples) are viewed as promoting tyranny in other countries.
Let's take the absolute right to private property as an example. In the US context, colonists conquered this country of continental size (conquest being a legitimate means of acquiring property at the time) and inhabited it. The vast majority of the country was depopulated due to the death and subjugation of the native people, so land rights were dispensed on a first-come first-serve basis. There was enough and as good for everyone, so if you did not get your piece of the pie, you just were not aggressive enough. We think that the absolute right to private property is sacrosanct because we generally feel that property was acquired justly at the "beginning." Think about that in the context of a different country with a much longer, and different, history of property acquisition than ours. In most of Europe land was seized by force of arms and serfs were forced to work on land they did not own. This is much different than the intrepid free hold farmer in the American West. So property was based on an original theft on the principle of "might makes right." So, how would you feel about supporting inviolable property rights that essentially legally codify an original injustice? This is basically what happened in Russia after the fall of the USSR. Property that was communal was distributed to individuals through corruption, then American advisors said that a legal system must quickly recognize this as legitimate private property. What works great in the American context is just not necessarily regarded as fair in different places.
The right to bear arms is another example. It is pretty obvious, in the US we have a stable civil society that generally does not resort to political violence. That is not the case in most countries. In most countries the government's monopoly on the use of force is seen as freeing the people from the the whims of thugs, as protecting them, not as a violation of a fundamental right.
In all, many countries around the world have a view of freedom that extends beyond negative rights (the rights that protect you from the government). In impoverished countries, these rights are regarded as quite meaningless, since it only gives you the right to live "freely" in grinding poverty. The government can provide the means to a better life through education and health care, so it is not something to be feared unless it resorts to physical violence against its own people or restricts their right to choose their leaders through democratic elections. In short, the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans are great things, we should celebrate them, but we should not be surprised when people in other countries have their own views of what freedom means to them. I also think that there are legitimate concerns in the United States about balancing the freedom of people with property to enjoy the fruits of that property (without any interference from the government) with the legitimate need for the underprivileged for access to the things that allow them to positively affirm their freedom, such as education and health care. In not every part of the country was property acquired legitimately, and many people in this country are also victims of an original injustice.
No comments:
Post a Comment