Peace and Freedom

For the previous century, the term “Individualism” has been under fire. It is viewed as anti-social, anti-love and anti-democratic. In its place, we have been told that the “greatest good for the greatest number” is to be the goal and ideal mindset. The rights of the “group” are what we are to consider. To fully understand these implications, two concepts accurately summarize the notions of such a mindset: “peace” and “freedom.”

In today’s political climate, “peace” and “freedom” seem to be at forefront of the ideals of the liberal and conservative advocates. Surely it would be quite difficult to encounter such a person interested in politics that would argue that these two terms are undesirable. In fact, liberals and conservatives alike justify most of their actions and ideas with the belief that in the end, “peace” or “freedom” will be the result.

The term “peace” is considered a term used by liberals, while “freedom” is reserved primarily for conservatives. What is the reason and cause of such a distinction? In fact, many may assume that these terms are one in the same. One may consider this to be a simple matter of semantics, however when one examines the definitions of both terms, it becomes clear how these terms relate to one another.

The definitions provided by the Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Third Edition, 1997, offers some insight;

“Freedom; the state or quality of being free; a) exemption or liberation from the control of some other person or some arbitrary power, liberty, independence.”

“Peace; freedom from public disturbance or disorder; harmony; concord.”

While at first glance, these terms may still seem quite similar in appearance; one must notice that the definition of freedom specifies, “liberation from the control of some other person,” while peace specifies “freedom from public disturbance.” As such, following the Law of Causality (e.g., cause and effect), there can be no “public” without first accepting the concept of a “person” and consequently there can be no “peace” without first accepting the concept of “freedom.”

An additional definition is given for freedom; “a being able to act, move, use, etc. without hindrance or restraint.” [Again, notice again the emphasis on the individual “a being”]. For those who may still be unconvinced that this distinction can be distinguished as a liberal vs. conservative issue, this definition is nearly identical to the definition given to “laissez faire,” as follows;

“Laissez faire; the policy or practice of letting people act without interference or direction.”

Simply stated, “laissez faire” is the implementation and practice of “freedom” and both terms are centered on the individual. It would now be a contradiction in terms to argue that a liberal viewpoint is consistent with the terms “freedom.”

This is not to say that “peace” is removed from the picture and is therefore not obtainable; quite the opposite is true. “Peace” is the conclusion, the result and the reward of first aspiring toward “freedom.” As such, one cannot claim to be an advocate of “peace” and not of “freedom,” just as one cannot claim to be an advocate of the group without first being an advocate of the individual.