In the USA, who defines freedom, and has this freedom changed since it was first defined?
In the USA, who defines freedom, and has this freedom changed since it was first defined?
ANSWER: (1) The mind. (2) Freedom, as defined by the mind, varies, but it is limited in action, in an ideal world, by the people themselves. The more people, sadly, the more limitations.
But hopefully no limitations for free thought.
IDEALLY —
Foundationally, freedom is an individual’s thoughts without hindrance or restraint. It is potentially anything and everything. True reality is explored and eventually defined in the mind this way. We need free minds to pursue and discover truth.
Free citizens (not rulers/leaders) however, are required to make laws to limit the actions arising out of their free thought, since some thoughts, converted into action, unjustly infringe on the free-actions, rights, or thoughts of others. US citizens thus elect representatives to establish these limits through their representative government. Representation is key.
The US Constitution defines and protects the tools for pursuing freedom (free speech, religion, assembly, etc.), including the specific form and limited power of the federal government.
When collisions of freedoms occur, the justice system (laws, case law, structure, process) offer all citizens the means to make right injustices and/or eliminate laws that infringe on American’s Constitutional free thought protections/tools.
Freedom has declined since the founding. However, in this ideal way, freedom is fairly limited by the people, BUT only to prevent one citizen from infringing on the rights of another.
THREATS —
As American’s capacity to reason degrades, their ability to self govern also degrades. Correspondingly, the people become less able to bring value to others (thus a degradation in the meritocracy). In time, the people need and seek the protection of the government through expanded services and “protections”. The financial demands on the government thus grow. Eventually, the government begins to circumvent the protections of the Constitution in order to respond to dependent demand. A dependent people likely do not fight to retain their freedom, because, as dependents, they are not free, and thus no longer understand or value it.
Freedom declines here because the people are to weak and enfeebled to be responsible for their freedom.
