Category: freedom

Freedom and Captivity

Leave a comment

December 14, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

In 1847, abolitionist supporters in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania invited William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass to speak at the Dauphin County Court House. Forty miles to the south was Gettysburg, a small rural town of 2,400 people. In 16 years, it would become the site of the bloodiest battle in the Civil War as the Union Army turned away the advance of the Confederate Army into the north (Source).

Garrison (1805-1879) was the publisher of The Liberator, the foremost journal championing the banishment of slavery in the United States. Douglass (1818 – 1895) had been born into slavery and did not learn to read until he was a teenager. After escaping to freedom at the age of 20, he became a gifted speaker for the abolitionist cause (Source). Several anti-abolitionists were in the audience and gathered outside the court house. Garrison spoke for an hour, urging the assembly to honor the freedom and rights of all men promised by the Declaration of Independence. As soon as Douglass rose to speak, agitators pelted him with rotten eggs and yelled racial slurs. A security detail escorted both men from the court house. The Harrisburg police stood idly by as an angry mob threatened both men (Source).

This week I want to explore the axis of freedom and captivity. Douglass was one of perhaps 100,000 slaves that fled to northern states and Canada before the Civil War. In the same year as the Harrisburg event, more than 300,000 Irish emigrants crossed the Irish Channel to Liverpool in search of food. They were taking advantage of England’s poor laws which guaranteed them a couple of rice meals a day. The record breaking cold of the 1846-47 winter and the potato blight had killed the potato crop which served as both their primary food source and their money in an agrarian barter economy. A million more Irish emigrants fled to Canada, New York City and Boston. Cecil Woodham-Smith’s The Great Hunger is a good account of the famine.

Between those two poles of freedom and captivity are constraints and liberties. There are constraints of money, food and shelter, the basic needs of our survival. Sometimes those constraints reach extreme levels like the Irish experienced during the Great Famine. There are lesser constraints which make us feel as though we are trapped. We may feel captive to the indifference or incompetence of others, or frustrated by circumstances and rules that rob us of our capacity or autonomy.

We are accustomed to the temporary incapacity that an illness can bring. Some of us must endure autoimmune or degenerative diseases which permanently diminish our capacities. Alcoholics and drug addicts have inadvertently conditioned their bodies to crave a substance that keeps them trapped. They are both prisoner and warden, trapped in the walls of their physical need but holding the key of sobriety that will free them from their cell.

President Roosevelt cited four natural freedoms. Two of them are freedoms to do something, to speak freely and worship as we choose. The other two are freedoms from something, from want and fear. Liberties are freedoms of various degrees. To a teenager, freedom might be a car or some spending money. We may not be aware of a freedom until we lose it. There is a saying that good health is wasted on the young. Later in life, people realize that good health is a freedom that they took for granted.

In an ideal world, liberty and constraint should not be a zero sum game. Yet we often gain greater liberty at someone else’s constraint and sometimes without us being aware of it. Redlining was a euphemism for an official government policy adopted by the Federal Housing Authority in the 1930s. The agency drew up maps of urban areas which classified neighborhoods into four groups and was designed to keep racial groups separate. Areas where blacks and immigrants lived were marked as red, leading banks to deny mortgages or offer undesirable loan terms. People who lived in the more desirable green and blue neighborhoods did not want to be downgraded to yellow, indicating a declining area, because it affected their property values (Source). A constraint on some folks helped enhance the property values for other folks.

Another avenue I want to explore is trust. I think we tend to trust those who promise a freedom either from something or to something. We trust religious leaders who promise eternal salvation. For many of us, that is a freedom to and a freedom from. A journey to eternity and a relief from the burdens of this world. We trust healers of every sort because they promise us a freedom, a new capability or knowledge. They may promise a relief from the captivity of some emotional or physical pain. Now some of us may be very distrustful of most healers, but they proliferate because a sufficient number of people trust their message, their promise.

In the 1980s, First Lady Nancy Reagan launched a Just Say No campaign, a companion to her husband President Reagan’s War on Drugs. Many Just Say No clubs opened but the overly simplistic message evoked scorn in some of the young people the campaign targeted. Today, organizations like the Center for Humane Technology expose the public to the manipulative design of social media algorithms (Source). The American Psychological Association has issued more caution than warning (Source). This month, Australia banned social media use by teenagers under the age of 16 (Source). The social media company Reddit quickly sued, claiming that the ban is an infringement on free speech (Source).

Do teens trust these warnings? Do their parents? If a 20-year old working at a coffee shop cannot remember my order for more than five seconds, is that because the consumption of social media from an early age has destroyed their ability to focus? Or is it just a boring job? Whose interpretation should I trust?

Each of walks around with our own custom designed measuring stick, our own scales that we build over a lifetime. We use those unique tools to evaluate what we see, what we read, what we experience. Many times we want to reach conclusions that are simple and definitive, but anything we measure is only distinct because of the scale we use. When 12 jurors try to reach a consensus in a murder trial using their different yardsticks of evidence and ethics, innocence and guilt, we understand the complexity of our different evaluation systems. Events occur within a context and each of us pays attention to different aspects of any context.

Some people are free of any doubts in their own judgment while others are trapped by their self-doubt, their lack of trust in their own judgment. For some, that distrust can be debilitating. Should I do that, we ask? Am I being too hasty? What if I am wrong? Am I not fully considering the repercussions of my preference? On and on, we weave a busy web of questions and doubts that keep us trapped. We may tell ourselves that those doubts keep us safe and perhaps they do sometimes.

Do we trust our judgment as we get older? The founders who wrote the Constitution believed so, that others could trust our judgment as we grew older. Article I stipulates a minimum age of 25 to represent a district in the House and 33 to represent a state in the Senate (Source). When it was drafted, James Madison, a primary architect of the Constitution, was only 36, barely old enough to run for President.

Politicians are particularly blind to their misjudgments. To run for office, they must overcome self-doubt. Some become masters of that ability. They work and live in circles of consensus nested within each other like Russian dolls and far removed from the common realities of the very people they represent. The party system preserves incumbency. Most members of Congress are re-elected and that gives representatives the false impression that they are in touch with their constituency.

In the decades since the 1950s, public trust in government has declined. In a 1958 National Elections Survey, 73% of Americans thought government did the right thing all or most of the time. Recent polls indicate only 17% of Americans feel the same way (Source). Election funding now relies less on public trust and more on donations from wealthy donors. In 2024, political action committees (PACs) accounted for 65% of election spending (Source). Some are of the traditional type, subject to donation and spending limits. Others are Super PACs, independent organizations that can spend unlimited amounts on advertising and election activities as long as they don’t coordinate those activities with a political candidate.

Since Johnson’s Great Society began in the mid-1960s, federal programs have benefitted millions of Americans but have created a society dependent on these programs. The programs and the politicians who promote them overpromise and underdeliver, leading many to question the sincerity of those in government. Because many American families are dependent on those programs they are susceptible to the promises of a political huckster.

The founders built checks and balances into the Constitution to restrain the representatives of the people. Instead, it is the public who is restrained by a political system that does not hold representatives accountable to their constituents. As the public loses trust in their political system, that creates an opening for a political group to assume power after campaigning on a promise of change. Their gain in power may come at a cost of more constraints on voters.

/////////////////

Photo by Christopher Windus on Unsplash

Ingredients of a Good Society

Leave a comment

November 30, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

Seated around the table this Thanksgiving week were several generations, Boomers, GenX, Millennials and Zoomers. Here is a list of generational cohorts and the span of their birth years (Source). Some Boomers reminisced about rock groups and concerts they had been to in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. The names might have been vaguely familiar to the late Millennials and Zoomers. The younger folks talked about video games and music groups that were barely familiar to the old timers there. One younger person had repetitive motion syndrome, like an arthritis in their thumb from overuse of a game controller. The Boomers at the table had the arthritis of old age, unable to bend a thumb into a 90 degree angle.

The multi-generational gathering prompted me to look at the world through the lens of age, from the young to the old. As we grow up, we borrow money for a car, a vacation, higher education or a house. The source of those funds is the savings of older workers and retired people. As we reach middle age, we become keenly aware of our future financial security. Our social contract is an intergenerational compact, a churning of money between the generations. Money helps support our sense of security and I thought security would be a good second avenue of exploration.

We don’t get to choose our birth parents, our country or time of birth. All of us are fragile at birth, but some of us are born into fragile circumstances. Our country may be at war or suffering  political instability. Our community or home may be violent. Perhaps our parents are poor or homeless. One or both parents may have a mental illness or a drug addiction. We grow up in an environment of fear and anger, then absorb that into our personality, our soul. Or we may be born into a stable home and community where fear and anxiety is not the background music to our daily lives.

Professional athletes test the boundaries of their sense of security. They develop strength, stamina and skills by extending their comfort zone. By repeatedly taking chances, they learn to use their fear as a preparation for competition. When a top athlete starts fighting the fear instead of using it, they can’t compete at the highest levels. They are competing with their own fear instead of another athlete.

In his book Leviathan, the 17th century philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679) wrote that the instinct for survival was an essential characteristic of human temperament. Government was an artificial creature created by society as a means of security in an “every man for himself” world. For that security, we traded away some of our individual freedom, reaching a delicate compromise between security and freedom. In ancient Mesopotamian lore, the Leviathan was a sea serpent that attacked sailing ships (Source). I like to think that Hobbes chose that mythical creature to symbolize the danger inherent in a sovereign government. It is not a benign force in our lives, but the lesser evil.

This is in stark contrast to another 17th century philosopher John Locke (1632 – 1704), who saw government as the instantiation of a social contract. Government was a protector, a guarantor of natural rights. These two different perspectives of government shape the policy choices we favor. Libertarians think government should be a peacekeeper, a security broker between all the elements in society. It should be a keeper of the commons, the public institutions that connect us and guard both our internal and external security. It should facilitate the economic exchange between local regions, between people and companies as we provide for our daily needs. It should protect and enforce the sanctity of contract that supports that economic exchange.

Liberals favor a far more expansive role for government as the embodiment of the social contract. Even the word security has a broad meaning that encompasses far more than physical protection from harm. On his annual State of the Union speech on January 6, 1941, President Roosevelt articulated four freedoms, one of which was a freedom from want. As Roosevelt saw it, government had a responsibility to provide some economic and health security to its citizens. These two visions of the boundaries of a government’s responsibility underlie much of the Congressional combat we read about each day.

Hobbes was alive in 1648 when the Treaty of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War and established state sovereignty within the Holy Roman Empire. To maintain its sovereignty, or self-governance within its territory, a state must manage the flow of people and goods across the borders of it territory. We do not choose our country of birth but we can choose to flee that country if political and economic circumstances threaten the security of ourselves or our family. Do immigrants have a natural right to live in a safe and flourishing environment wherever they choose? Immigrants can challenge a country’s management of its borders and in doing so, challenge its sovereignty and security.

A state cannot live by the same principles as people. In the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1785) wrote that people were autonomous individuals with an intrinsic worth and in pursuit of their own purposes. Even though we interact with people in limited roles during the course of our daily exchange, we should respect their autonomy and dignity and not regard people merely as tools. In international relations, a liberal perspective wants states to abide by that Kantian principle.

States are not people, living in a society where a government provides some security. States live in the dog eat dog world that Hobbes imagined, a state of anarchy where each state must be on guard against threats from other states. That is the realist perspective in international relations. To protect their autonomy, sovereignty and capacity, they must occasionally act in a ruthless manner. During war, states draft men in their late teens and twenties, taking disproportionately from some families and not others. Is that fair? The key to survival is surviving, not fairness.

If their parents cannot bring them enough food, then eagle chicks will kill their siblings to increase their share of food. Is that fair? No. Is it moral? No. Without morality, there can be no dignity. Kant simply posited an inherent dignity to each individual, a fait accompli. Even though they lived at different times, I imagine that Hobbes would have been dubious of such a claim. Dignity is not inherent but ensured by a government that makes and enforces rules. I imagine that Locke would have countered Hobbes by arguing that governing by cooperation works better than intimidation. That requires a consensus among the individuals of society who recognize the benefits of the tradeoff between security and freedom. The debate is a constant tug of war between different visions and principles.

Young states are vulnerable to threats from more established states. Their political, military and bureaucratic systems are not fully developed and tested. The newborn United States was mindful of the threats posed by older European powers like England, France and Spain as well as the native Indians. In a major revision to the 1776 Articles of Confederation that bound the 13 colonies into a United States, the Constitution, drafted in 1787, gave the office of the President a lot of power to counter those threats. Many Presidents, including President Trump, have tested the boundaries of that power. Rarely have the other two branches of government offered so little resistance. All of the generations sitting at the Thanksgiving dinner table were worried about that.

Compromise is at the heart of the Chinese notion of the interaction between yin and yang. Freedom and security are like that, ever searching for a balance. Too much of one results in too little of the other. Each lifetime contains about four generations with different priorities. They must reach a political compromise but can never reach a satisfactory compromise that satisfies those different priorities. I hope everyone had a good holiday and I will see you next week.

/////////////////////

Photo by Jed Owen on Unsplash

Freedom and Tolerance

Leave a comment

November 2, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

In 1776, the 13 American colonies declared independence from Britain. The entire first half of that Declaration was very much a proclamation of freedom. The second half was a declaration of grievances against the King of England. Many colonists had grown intolerant of the king’s ‘usurpations,’ an unlawful taking under the cloak of authority (Source). The word is unfamiliar to modern readers, but the protection against the taking of private property is enshrined in the Fifth’s Amendment’s final clause, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” (Source). The 56 signers to the Declaration of Independence argued most over this second half of the declaration, for it was their justification for rebellion. They hoped to win the sympathies of European countries, particularly the French in the long feud between England and France.

This week I want to focus on two ideas as axes of analysis, freedom and tolerance. The two seem to have an inverse relationship. As the colonists felt more empowered to claim their freedom, they became less tolerant of the crown’s impositions. It’s not clear to me which is the more powerful force, the intolerance or the thirst for more freedom. The colonists had to pay taxes to support the soldiers and administration that kept them in line. Only in Connecticut and Rhode Island did the colonists elect their governors (Source). Colonial governors appointed by the king often overruled the wishes of popularly elected assemblies. The colonists wanted more autonomy.

In his book Leviathan, the 17th century philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679) wrote that we exchange some freedom for security in what would otherwise be a raw state of nature, an “every man for himself” kind of world. The book, published in 1651, justified a monarchy to preserve the peace between members of a civil society. More than a century later, the colonists asked themselves how much freedom they had to give up for that security. They had reached the end of their tolerance.

We speak of the colonists as they shared a single sentiment but that was not the case. Americans have always been divided about important issues. Writing almost 40 years after the Declaration, John Adams (1856), our second President after George Washington, recalled that a third of the people favored independence, a third were more favorable to England and a third were neutral. Robert Calhoon (2000), a scholar of American Loyalists, estimated a smaller percentage, perhaps 15 – 20%, favored the crown.

We are less tolerant of encroachments on our own freedoms than on the freedoms of others. The generation that wrote and ratified the Constitution exemplified that principle. In 1787, thirty-nine delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed the Constitution. As many as half of them had owned slaves during their lifetime, including Washington and Madison. Jefferson praised the sanctity of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration but owned almost 200 slaves which he listed in his Farm Book (Source). A case of ‘liberty for me, not for thee’?

People are less free when they are poor or in a minority with less opportunity. They may sometimes act with an air of intolerance, but their income constrains their freedom. They must navigate many social and economic obstacles that stretch their tolerance capacity. Joanna Burke (2014) recalls the thinking among 18th and 19th century physicians that laborers and colonized people felt less pain than those of more refined socio-economic status. Their bodies were hardened by deprivation and needed less care so that they were able to withstand the harsh working conditions of 19th century industrialization.

People with lots of money can afford to be less tolerant of inconveniences. They enjoy a lot of freedom; some test the tolerance of those around them. Leona Helmsley (1920 – 2007) was a rich real estate and hotel owner who was known as the “Queen of Mean” for her harsh treatment of employees. In 1987, she was convicted of tax fraud but served only 18 months of a four-year sentence (Source). In testimony, she was quoted as saying, “Only the little people pay taxes.” Others with enormous wealth and freedom cannot tolerate the misery that afflicts the less fortunate. Through his foundation, Bill Gates has donated many billions to improve the health of those living in poor countries.

In its 2008 decision District of Columbia v Heller, a divided Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment was an individual right to bear arms. The decision overruled more than a century of jurisprudence that the right to bear arms was circumscribed by an individual’s service in a state militia (Source). In extending a wider range of freedom to some individuals, the court ruled that the burden of tolerance is on the majority of individuals that do not own guns (Source).

Why do we tolerate some actions from one person but not from another person? We tolerate lies from a political candidate we favor but not from a candidate of the other party. Trump is a practiced liar, a smooth operator with little loyalty to any facts. Supporters are accustomed to his exaggerations and fabrications. They tolerate his lies. He has an army of lawyers who protect him from legal responsibility for his actions. His lawyers include the conservatives on the Supreme Court who gave him immunity for “official acts” in the 2024 opinion in Trump v United States (Source).

Donald Trump acknowledges few boundaries to his behavior. His entire goal may be to test the tolerance of the American people and the world. He is truly free. His supporters, many of them bent by the burden of uncomfortable socio-economic truths, cheer Donald Trump on because he has escaped. In Ken Kesey’s novel and movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, we cheer on Chief Bromden, who tosses a piece of equipment through the window of a mental institution and escapes. To some, Trump is the hero who has escaped the bounds of convention. Unlike Icarus of Greek mythology, he has flown close to the sun and not fallen.

In the past sixty years, we have grown to tolerate a 70-fold increase in presidential campaign funding (Badarasan, 2024, p. 114). Why? Over several decades the Supreme Court has curtailed the freedom of the people and the state legislatures to institute guard rails around corporate spending on elections. The court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission ended the last restraints on campaign spending (Source). The Supreme Court has ruled that artificial persons like corporations enjoy the same freedom of speech as natural persons like ordinary people. Now, corporations and wealthy donors enjoy a greater degree of freedom while the broad public must tolerate the power and influence that comes with those freedoms.

The Boston Tea Party was a demonstration against the powerful East India Tea Company that was granted a monopoly on tea imports by the British crown (Source). 250 years later, we have come to tolerate what the Boston colonists could not abide. We have given up some of our freedoms to a new Leviathan, the few unelected elite on the Supreme Court.

//////////////////

Photo by alexandre alex on Unsplash

Adams, J. (1856). Letter to James Lloyd, January 1815. In C. F. Adams (Ed.), The works of John Adams, second president of the United States (Vol. 10, pp. 172–173). Little, Brown and Company.

Baradaran, M. (2024). The quiet coup: Neoliberalism and the looting of America. W. W. Norton & Company.

Bourke, J. (2014). The Story of Pain: From Prayer to Painkillers. Oxford University Press.

Calhoon, R. (2000). “Loyalism and Neutrality,” in A Companion to the American Revolution, ed. Jack P. Greene & J.R. Pole. Blackwell, p. 235.