The Philosophy of Freedom

by Caleb Nelson

  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

  Intellectual property is a relatively new concept as well, with its first recorded use less than one hundred fifty years ago. It refers to the recognition of certain mental creations which need to be protected by law. Included are musical, literary and artistic works, discoveries, inventions, phrases, symbols, designs, and trade secrets. We must note that intellectual property cannot be protected by law unless it exists in some physical form. A song, book, or piece of art cannot be intellectual property for recognition by objective law until it leaves the brain of its creator and exists in the physical world.

  This type of property must be protected in a moral society. It is property because it is the creation of someone’s mind—the product of their mental work. It is the fruit of their labors. No one who enjoys using cell phones, cars, or computers can argue that mental effort is not work or is somehow inferior to physical labor.

  An inventor’s right to life and his responsibility to provide for that life are the moral principles behind the existence, recognition, and protection of intellectual property.

  PROPERTY AS AN ELEMENT OF PERSONAL FREEDOM

  “[Man] has a right that is founded upon the constitution of the universe to have property that is his own. Ultimately, property rights and personal rights are the same thing.”

  [43] - Calvin Coolidge

  PERSONAL FREEDOM REQUIRES PRIVATE PROPERTY

  [44]

  The phrase “personal freedom” is slightly redundant but is used to clarify and help us remember the important truth that liberty doesn’t exist unless it is attached to a person. Only individuals can be described accurately as being free or not free. The addition of the word “collective” would nullify the principle—“collective freedom” cannot exist unless referring to the freedom held by a group of specific individuals generally. The Declaration of Independence states that all men (individually) are endowed with certain rights. Life is not a collective right. Life cannot be had by a group. (The concept “group” is merely a collection of individual entities; you cannot have a group of something until you first have the somethings. A group does not exist in reality, it is a mental construct—a sorting by similar attributes.) The pursuit of happiness is an individual activity—it is not a group right. A group could not achieve happiness, but only maintain a feeling of unified happiness, and this is only as long as each individual member does so.

  The root of all liberty of action and private property is your own body. This is constantly forgotten by elected officials who try to control your freedom of conscience and freedom to use your body. This is attempted through means as varied as banning new fast food restaurants (or fast food toys!)

  [45] in cities or schools, stealing and retaining genetic samples of newborns, limiting the size of soft drinks, restricting the availability of infant formula in hospitals, and the prohibition of sending cigarettes in the U.S. Mail.

  The answer to the question, “Who does your body belong to?” is always, “You.” That’s one reason why slavery is a huge violation of principle. It violates all rights, beginning with the right to a person’s sovereignty over their body.

  Barry Goldwater noted the necessary relationship between property and liberty, “We see in the sanctity of private property the only durable foundation for constitutional government in a free society.”

  [46]

  If someone is deprived by a person, group, or government the freedom to control the fruits of their labors and is dependent on others for their sustenance, they are essentially a slave to that entity, being subject to their control. The right and control of property is essential to pursue a career, exercise freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and to pursue an education by supporting yourself and paying those who educate you.

  We cherish liberty because it makes our ultimate value possible—the value of our own happy life. But liberty, in turn, is only possible if we respect and protect the right to own and control property. Jefferson knew that “a right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other[s].”

  [47]

  The primary obstacle that prevents many people from living by and advocating principles is the failure to understand and accept that they are responsible for themselves and that this agency implies stewardship.

  [48]

  Agency is a concept referring to an individual’s power to:

  1. Make decisions;

  2. Act on those decisions.

  Every person on earth, once they progress to a mental state able to evaluate choices and consequences, is, by nature, an agent for themselves. Small children and those with certain mental disabilities lack this agency, and their care necessarily falls to others who act as their agents. The United States attempts to recognize this principle politically in setting the voting age at eighteen. Until then, the parents or guardians legally speak for their children.

  Agency is man’s freedom to think, to choose, and to act. Agency means that each man is responsible for himself, his decisions, his actions, and his happiness. This freedom to choose and act necessarily implies stewardship, or responsibility, over his actions and property.

  As a term, “stewardship” was historically a reference to the portion of a monarch’s realm or household that was put into the care of a “steward.” Stewardship is also a common Biblical theme (e.g. Joseph of Egypt, and the Parables of Jesus).

  Individually, a stewardship refers to everything you are responsible for in life. We sometimes use it in place of the word “ownership” to denote concepts beyond physical assets. It includes private, physical property, but also much more. What are you in charge of in life? Your body, first; your thoughts and actions; your responsibilities in a chosen career; your family and children; your home and vehicle; your relationships. All of these things fall within an individual’s stewardship. You don’t own your spouse, or your children, or your friends, but you are responsible for your actions concerning them (as well as your physical assets)—and your actions should result in improvement based upon an objective standard of values. It is with this view in mind that the Bible refers to good stewards as those who improve and increase what is under their care, and bad stewards as those who hide, hoard, misuse, abuse, and don’t put to good use what is entrusted to them.

  If you consider that everything around you is a stewardship, or responsibility, that you are meant to improve upon, does that change your attitude and actions? Ask yourself, do things in your care get better or worse? Is your car, no matter how expensive, well-kept and cared for? Is your home or rental unit, no matter how modest or expansive, improved every day? (There are mansions treated like trash heaps and there are humble homes cared for like cathedrals.) Are people around you uplifted for knowing you? Is your body cared for? Are your children’s needs for development physically, mentally, and spiritually being met? This is what it means to use your agency to improve the stewardship that comes within your power. Let’s take these principles a step deeper and demonstrate how they don’t merely apply politically, but personally as well.

  PRIVATE PROPERTY AT HOME

  Let’s say you give your son a present for his birthday: a bike.

  “It’s yours! Have fun. I love you!”

  All goes well for a week or two until your son misbehaves in some way and obstinately breaks some rules. At the end of your rope, you first threaten and finally proceed to take the bike back as punishment.

  What does your son now know, at least unconsciously? He sees that even though he owned something it was still taken away. What now? Suppose he later sees his sister playing with one of her toys and tries to take it from her. Fighting ensues. Worried you might be raising your daughter to be a spoiled brat, and to try and instill a habit of kindness, you physically force or guilt (a type of mental force since it involves deception) her to “share.”

  Now, your son
grows up to be Mayor or President and a difficult challenge is before him. What is his response? It might be the same way he was raised—to arbitrarily take someone’s house because the city “needs” it or nationalize some company because it’s too big to fail, or pass ordinances forcing certain citizens to “share” for the common good.

  There are ways to raise children to understand and respect private property. In fact, one study reported by sciencenews.org shows that the majority of children have a better intuitive understanding of private property and personal body ownership than do adults. In one part of the experiment, “Participants saw an image of a cartoon boy holding a crayon who appeared above the word “user” and a cartoon girl who appeared above the word “owner.” After hearing from an experimenter that the girl wanted her crayon back, volunteers were asked to rule on which cartoon child should get the prized object.

  “About 75 percent of 4- and 5-year-olds decided in favor of the owner, versus about 20 percent of adults.”

  [49]

  One way to consider giving material things is with strings attached (e.g. “This bike will remain in your control, son, under the following conditions: you take care of it, obey these specific rules of our household, use proper protective equipment, etc.”). Maybe you want to retain ownership of the bike as a parent and only release it for use (a stewardship) at certain times and under certain conditions. Maybe you will truly respect the ownership you said you gave him and find a different, principled way to enforce household rules (e.g. rescinding of another privilege which you, as the parent, control).

  To live by this principle at home it must be known to be taboo to take an item that is the property of another family member. Are we forcing our children to share what is theirs against their will, thereby showing that the person with the power gets to decide who receives what and for how long—showing that “might is right?” Violating this principle teaches that crying about a “need” gets more attention than respect for the possessions of others. If a child wants something, we can demonstrate that Exchange Creates Wealth (a principle we will cover later). If everything in a home has a specific owner, then everyone will know that each item has someone responsible for its upkeep and use.

  Consider the difference between “Your brother is crying, give him your toy or we’ll spank you!” and “No, that belongs to your sister. We can’t force her to give it to you, but you’re welcome to find out what it would take to persuade her to lend it to you.” Not only does this teach clear principles for life (e.g. responsibility, ownership, communication free of emotional manipulation), it gives the positive benefits of living a principle-based life.

  A child will have the self-esteem and self-confidence that comes from the certainty that life is abundant, not scarce. A child will recognize, as we saw in the story at the beginning of this book, that when the things that are theirs are protected and respected, that all their needs are met, and that it is okay to be generous because being generous doesn’t mean you get less. A child will learn that since an item is theirs, if they want to continue to have good enjoyment of it, they will have to care for it properly. A child will learn that communication is their tool, and emotion is not their thug. A child will learn that by sharing, they often gain greater values, opening up avenues of exchange and friendship without hard feelings.

  When possible, a child might be given their own room. If this room is protected, it would serve as a “safe place.” The children from the opening story have been overheard to say things like: “You can’t talk to me like that in my room,” or “Yes, you can play in my room for a while if you pick up after yourself,” or “May I come in your room?” An environment under the child’s stewardship serves as a reassurance, a controllable place, a place where everything is as they want and as good as they can keep it up. Don’t we all want that for ourselves? Children should be taught that it is possible, by word and example.

  These are merely some ideas to get the wheels turning in your head. With any conflict at home, examine the issue carefully, identify the principles at work, and decide accordingly. Throughout this book, as you learn more about principles, we won’t always pause to explain family and personal applications, but you can still pause in your reading and think how you can apply them to family and personal life, as well as professional and political life.

  Review

  Q1: What is the definition a right?

  Q2: What are your individual rights?

  Q3: What is the source of your rights?

  Q4: Why are no other rights possible without property rights?

  Q5: How is ownership of land determined when there is no objective government?

  Q6: How does this change when there is an objective government?

  Q7: What form must intellectual property be in to be protected? Why must intellectual property be protected?

  Q8: What does agency mean?

  Q9: How are agency and stewardship connected?

  Q10: Can you see any ways to better apply some of these principles we’ve discussed so far in your personal life? Discuss how.

  Chapter 4: The Confusion of Rights

  “Ideas end where a gun begins.”

  [50] - Ayn Rand

  THE RIGHT TEST

  In the previous chapter, it was shown that life, liberty, and property are the three rights which belong to every human being, and that to be moral, we must not only respect the rights of others, but act in accordance with our own rational self-interest. It was also shown that the only way to violate these rights is through the use of force, which includes deception. As simple as these concepts are, there is much confusion in the world about what rights are and how they are violated.

  There are many people who claim that other rights exist beyond life, liberty, and property, which is true, but not everything that is called a “right” today really is one. There’s a test we can administer to tell if something might be a true “right.”

  Simply ask if anyone, or anything, must provide us with it.

  If so, then it’s not an actual right. A right to life doesn’t mean that nature will feed us if we lie down with our mouths open, nor does it mean the responsibility to feed us falls on anyone other than ourselves. Recall that rights are injunctions of noninterference. They do not require others to do anything, only to not do something—use force. They are merely what our nature requires in order for us to continue to live.

  When someone says that two rights contradict each other, we can know immediately that one or both of the supposed rights aren’t rights at all. Remember this: a right that infringes on another person is not a right. If someone claims that you have to provide their right to something (education, nutrition, health care, housing, etc.), then that thing, whatever it is, is not a right because it requires that property be taken from someone else.

  WHAT ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS?

  One major factor contributing to today’s confusion involving rights is that the term has broader common usage than its essential meaning. “Individual” rights and “natural” rights should be a redundancy since by definition rights only apply to individuals because of the “nature” of their existence. However, there has also come about a category of rights called legal rights. These are based on a society’s customs, laws, statutes, and legislative actions. These can also be called civil rights or statutory rights—referring to the fact that these are granted via citizenship or statute (e.g. the “right” to vote, marry, or drive a car).

  It is an unfortunate reality that these are often called “rights” rather than a more accurate term such as “privilege” or “license.” Such a practice distorts both concepts—legal rights and individual rights. Legal rights are mistakenly given a sanctified view as being unalienable, and individual rights are lowered to the status of legal rights which can be alienated whenever the government or majority that granted them deems it necessary.

  A person might recognize that rights can only exist in a social context, but then leap to the wrong conclu
sion, that it is the society which grants rights—that rights only exist where there is someone willing to grant or recognize them. A person might even claim that our rights are codified in our Constitution and be exactly wrong.

  Why is that wrong?

  By viewing the Constitution, or the government, as the source of our rights, we implicitly give permission for those rights to be withdrawn, or alienated, any time the law changes.

  The Constitution is not a codified list of natural rights. It is the framework for a republican form of government. Even the Bill of Rights is a misnomer. As some historians put it, “In retrospect, they more accurately should be known as the Bill of Limitations on government to avoid the perception that the rights were granted by government in the first place.”

  [51]

  The confusion largely stems from an unawareness or unwillingness to differentiate between natural rights, which exist whether or not a Constitution says they do, and legal rights (or privileges).

  GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS?

  The same fallacy of attributing the source of our natural rights to government applies to God as well. If God were the grantor of rights, then anyone claiming to speak for God could seek to take away those rights in His behalf. (Think Spanish Inquisition, the crusades, jihad, witch trials, etc.)