So, What is "Liberty"?

[NWRatCon]

The Preamble of US Constitution identifies as a purpose to "secure the Blessings of Liberty". So, what does that mean? What is this "liberty" to be secured for ourselves and our posterity? Is it singular or plural? The phrase emphasizes "blessings" - is that different than liberty itself? What are these blessings?

Certainly those "Rights" identified in the so-called "Bill of Rights" must be included, right? Are those all of our blessings"? What about the 9th Amendment's admonition that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Emphasis mine) So, at least there are "Rights" which must be secured, yet remain unnamed. Is that all? Is there more?

The courts have identified some, described as "rights", that are at least implied by the Constitution - to travel, to pursue a vocation, to marry, to procreate - but these don't appear directly in the text. What else? What are the limitations? Are there limitations?

Let's have a discussion. What are these "Blessings of Liberty" we are meant to secure, and how do we secure them?

 

[Ginger Ale]

To peruse your own interests I believe as long as it doesn't harm others.

If your interest is shooting people that would be a no no.

Today we don't really need the "blessings" but back then when you were assigned a job by religious leaders for the good of the land it was a blessing to peruse your own interests and make money off them.

Things have changed so updating the meaning in your mind is required to apply it today.

Quite frankly, I don't dig old documents being sacred when it comes to current laws. These documents were better understood in that time frame. Applying them now is silly.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

To me, liberty means maximizing freedom. When I say that, I mean maximizing positive freedom to the greatest extent possible while minimizing the infringement of negative freedoms. When people think of "freedom" in the government sense they usually only mean negative freedom (freedom from). Positive freedom is the ability to act on your will (freedom to). It's what we mean when we say "free as a bird". Nobody is restricting your ability to try to fly (negative freedom) but if you wanted to fly on your own like a bird can (positive freedom) you can't act out your will.

That's why laws restricting the "freedom" of murders make society more free. Yes, the negative freedoms of the murderer are restricted as they have the will of others imposed on them, but everyone else gets to live in a society with less fear of murder. Cheap public transportation increases freedom. Or owning a car. Or having healthcare.

As to "rights"? I think we should classify "rights" as both things that are the bare minimum to survive (food/shelter/medical) and the bare minimum actions required for the continuation of democracy (free speech/press/elections etc). Obviously there are limits. You can't use your free speech/press to slander/libel. I don't think it should be constitutionally allowed to have a free election to end democracy (i.e. vote to have a monarch or something).

How to secure these? I'll need another post to talk about that.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

To peruse your own interests I believe as long as it doesn't harm others.

If your interest is shooting people that would be a no no.

What if it's in my interest to shoot people who are shooting me/others?

 

[Ginger Ale]

What if it's in my interest to shoot people who are shooting me/others?

That depends on your motivation for the shooting and the jury you get now doesn't it.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

That depends on your motivation for the shooting and the jury you get now doesn't it.

Not when we are talking about abstract concepts like "liberty" and "rights".

 

[Slartibartfast]

At its core the term liberty means the ability to do what you want, when you want, where you want, how you want. People then subdivide that terminology to either mean freedom from (usually some sort of restriction) or freedom to (usually meaning one has the resources to accomplish x desire).

Many of our political debates tend to revolve around questions regarding liberty (the other major debate tends to be around budgets) and whether freedom from or freedom to in some sort of situation or topic will result in people being able to accomplish something, whether this or that approach will result in more net freedom, the morality of either approach, the practicality of either approach, or whether the goal is a good idea in the first place.

Personally, I am of the view that freedom from and freedom to are not as important as the question of whether people prosper or not and that we should try to seek a middle ground to prevent abuses that could stem from the extremes of either approach. Freedom from economic rules is great, for example, until natural economic forces cause too much wealth concentration and housing prices to go nuts, then it makes sense to have a societal approach to control that so that people are able to remain healthy and have shelter (I don't this example describes the housing market right now, its just an example)

There are different ideologies surrounding this terminology as well, such as Lockeian natural rights, various religious points of view, or other approaches.

 

[NWRatCon]

Wow. I love these thoughtful, expansive contributions. Thank you all. Off to cogitate some more.

 

[NWRatCon]

I tend to believe, especially as the document was so thoroughly debated/refined, that the Framers included and excluded language willfully; that the phrase "Blessings of Liberty" had particular meaning to them, especially as it is in the Preamble.

I actually think it includes two concepts. The "liberty" or liberties, is more specific - the particular objects of protection - and that the "blessings" are more attenuated but just as, or more, important. For example, the "freedom to travel" is a "liberty" (positive), specific to a purpose, but that the "blessings" engendered by it are manifold: the ability to move around is integral to finding meaningful work, to establish a homestead, to find locations that are spiritually important, to start over from setbacks, to be "more free". The "freedom of assembly" allows one to gather with like-minded individuals, yes, but opens one to the "blessing" of finding comraderie, of being heard, of being a participant in governance beyond just voting, of learning new ideas and perspectives. The "freedom to vote" is not just about selecting leaders, but also being a participant in our national direction, of belonging, and creating a cohesive and fair community.

Too often, I think, we get bogged down in parochial viewpoints, of specific issues, of legalities even, and lose sight of the bigger picture. The United States stands as a beacon not just because of its prosperity, or its military might, or its freedoms, but because it symbolizes so much more. Our founding documents aspire to so much and inspire so much not just for their words, but for the meaning and the yearning that they tap into. That yearning, I think, and the ability to pursue it, is the true blessing that liberty provides.

 

[Antiwar]

To me, "Secure the blessings of liberty" first and foremost means:

1. We took the liberty to take this land

2. with the blessings of European Christianity

3. and this official document secures it.

 

[CharloTexan]

Blessing(s), as used, means a thing/things conducive to happiness or welfare. Good, favored and welcomed things, surroundings, settings, environments, feelings, prosperity, health, happiness, welfare, security, love, brotherhood, spirituality.

Liberty means freedom to act of one's own desire, in one's own interest, on one's own behalf, for one's own satisfaction, enjoyment and pleasure, both singularly or collectively in sovereign, autonomous groups.

Of course, neither one is limitless, and everything is relative. And generally, in the words of Spock (Star Trek), "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." While chemo therapy is not an enjoyable, sought after pleasure, it is a necessary and desired treatment for some forms of cancer, but not necessary and desired by all with cancer.

And while hunting for any lone surviving thylacine(s) (Tasmanian Tiger) would provide for the hunter's trophy mount of a lifetime, the need of the many (the entire existence of a species of animal, and the wonderment and appreciation derived by humankind by maintaining the existence of that species) outweighs the needs of the one. And though nothing but benefit can come to the hunter who could proudly claim to have bested the last living thylacine, presented as his wall-mounted prized kill, this blessing of liberty is denied him for the greater good, and instead (theoretically) the blessings inure instead to all thylacines, and all humans by denying the hunter his freedom, his liberty.

All things equal, when presented with no conflicts, and to the greatest extent possible, liberties and the blessing derived therefrom should be as free and freely enjoyed without encumbrance.

 

[HikerGuy83]

The Preamble of US Constitution identifies as a purpose to "secure the Blessings of Liberty". So, what does that mean? What is this "liberty" to be secured for ourselves and our posterity? Is it singular or plural? The phrase emphasizes "blessings" - is that different than liberty itself? What are these blessings?

Certainly those "Rights" identified in the so-called "Bill of Rights" must be included, right? Are those all of our blessings"? What about the 9th Amendment's admonition that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Emphasis mine) So, at least there are "Rights" which must be secured, yet remain unnamed. Is that all? Is there more?

The courts have identified some, described as "rights", that are at least implied by the Constitution - to travel, to pursue a vocation, to marry, to procreate - but these don't appear directly in the text. What else? What are the limitations? Are there limitations?

Let's have a discussion. What are these "Blessings of Liberty" we are meant to secure, and how do we secure them?

O.K.

I liked the question of the OP. I recall spending some time about 10 years ago doing some research. What I found was that authors admitted it was difficult to put into words in a way that creates universal agreement.

A discussion of the blessings of liberty is different, but sounds good to me.

 

[d0gbreath]

We have rights that are spelled out in documents. Liberty and freedom are so abstract as to be almost meaningless.

 

[NWRatCon]

We have rights that are spelled out in documents. Liberty and freedom are so abstract as to be almost meaningless.

I disagree, my friend.

I think it's akin to discussions of "the scientific method". It's an approach. A belief system. Any particular study or claim doesn't "prove" the scientific method, but just one aspect of it. Using the method guides one to a legitimate result and to reject illegitimate unsupported ones.

Freedom and Liberty are secured one aspect at a time. Free speech, freedom of religion, and of the press are specific principles and each addresses one of those blessings, and the things that surround them. It's when you put them all together that liberty, broadly, is achieved. Using that methodology, one can judge whether a decision one way or another furthers the expectation of liberty, and reject those that don't.

 

[NWRatCon]

Quite frankly, I don't dig old documents being sacred when it comes to current laws. These documents were better understood in that time frame. Applying them now is silly

I disagree, my friend. When one builds a house, it is important to have a solid foundation. The same is true for a nation. What those "old documents" did was put the nascent nation on solid footing. And those principles still apply, explicitly, in the current environment.

I think your reaction is to a fundamentalist approach to the documents. There are aspects that are concrete, but literality is not expected, but aspiration. A nation without aspirations is not worth living in.

You say,

Today we don't really need the "blessings" but back then when you were assigned a job by religious leaders for the good of the land it was a blessing to pursue your own interests and make money off them.

Things have changed so updating the meaning in your mind is required to apply it today.

So, update the meaning in your mind. What would those blessings be in the modern world? Are those things you mentioned not still important? I think they are. If we don't secure them, if we don't find them sacred, we will lose them.

 

[d0gbreath]

I disagree, my friend.

I think it's akin to discussions of "the scientific method". It's an approach. A belief system. Any particular study or claim doesn't "prove" the scientific method, but just one aspect of it. Using the method guides one to a legitimate result and to reject illegitimate unsupported ones.

Freedom and Liberty are secured one aspect at a time. Free speech, freedom of religion, and of the press are specific principles and each addresses one of those blessings, and the things that surround them. It's when you put them all together that liberty, broadly, is achieved. Using that methodology, one can judge whether a decision one way or another furthers the expectation of liberty, and reject those that don't.

That's good for you. So when your rights (the freedom stuff that you've listed (speech, religion, and press)) get put together, liberty pops up like magic? Is this a great country, or what?

 

[NWRatCon]

That's good for you. So when your rights (the freedom stuff that you've listed (speech, religion, and press)) get put together, liberty pops up like magic? Is this a great country, or what?

Yeah, it is pretty great.

Your comment, though, not so much. Pretty asinine*, actually. Liberty isn't magic. It's very, very hard work and requires sacrifice. And yes, it is cumulative. The more individual rights are secured, the more liberty thrives.

Spoiler

*extremely stupid or foolish.

 

[d0gbreath]

Yeah, it is pretty great.

Your comment, though, not so much. Pretty asinine*, actually. Liberty isn't magic. It's very, very hard work and requires sacrifice. And yes, it is cumulative. The more individual rights are secured, the more liberty thrives.

Spoiler

*extremely stupid or foolish.

Liberty is something that I take. You do the hard work and sacrifice thingy if it makes you feel better.

 

[Ginger Ale]

I disagree, my friend. When one builds a house, it is important to have a solid foundation. The same is true for a nation. What those "old documents" did was put the nascent nation on solid footing. And those principles still apply, explicitly, in the current environment.

I think your reaction is to a fundamentalist approach to the documents. There are aspects that are concrete, but literality is not expected, but aspiration. A nation without aspirations is not worth living in.

You say,


So, update the meaning in your mind. What would those blessings be in the modern world? Are those things you mentioned not still important? I think they are. If we don't secure them, if we don't find them sacred, we will lose them.

They were written when only white men could vote. When we needed arms to defend our property and we feared a religious take over.
Amending them is proving way more difficult than implied because we still have a small amount of very loud people who want this country just the way they "pictured" it when it was written. Gun, Gawd, and the Bible.

The fact that we think it was written in good faith when women couldn't vote, and people of color were treated like animals is ridiculous to most of us.

 

[NWRatCon]

They were written when only white men could vote. When we needed arms to defend our property and we feared a religious take over.
Amending them is proving way more difficult than implied because we still have a small amount of very loud people who want this country just the way they "pictured" it when it was written. Gun, Gawd, and the Bible.

The fact that we think it was written in good faith when women couldn't vote, and people of color were treated like animals is ridiculous to most of us.

So, what exactly is wrong with the principles expressed?

You're really making an ad hominem attack. I criticize them, too, and for the same reasons, but that's not the topic, is it? We would not be where we are today - eliminating slavery, expanding the franchise, legislating equality - if it weren't for those principles upon which the document is based, would we?

 

[OrphanSlug]

The Preamble of US Constitution identifies as a purpose to "secure the Blessings of Liberty". So, what does that mean? What is this "liberty" to be secured for ourselves and our posterity? Is it singular or plural? The phrase emphasizes "blessings" - is that different than liberty itself? What are these blessings?

Certainly those "Rights" identified in the so-called "Bill of Rights" must be included, right? Are those all of our blessings"? What about the 9th Amendment's admonition that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Emphasis mine) So, at least there are "Rights" which must be secured, yet remain unnamed. Is that all? Is there more?

The courts have identified some, described as "rights", that are at least implied by the Constitution - to travel, to pursue a vocation, to marry, to procreate - but these don't appear directly in the text. What else? What are the limitations? Are there limitations?

Let's have a discussion. What are these "Blessings of Liberty" we are meant to secure, and how do we secure them?

My initial response is we need to separate what the framers meant back then against what it means today (which should not be the case but hear me out.)

The entire line is "Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" and in context of the period what that really meant was a conformation of what the purpose of the Constitution is in the context of what was fought for. The entire mindset at the time was liberty from tyranny, at the time a cruel and over the top tyrannical government from a distance. The "blessings of liberty" just means not under anyone else's rule with a Constitution that limits government (again at that moment.)

The Bill of Rights (roughly 2 years later) and everything else that happened since is entirely another matter, it should be noted that the Bill of Rights had as much if not more disagreement than the Constitution in terms of the questions was it needed? And if so what should be in it? Federalists at the time rejected even the idea of a Bill of Rights on the argument of distinction between a Federal Government with one Constitution and various State Constitutions with their own (where they assumed liberty would be secured in a manner the States wanted.) Ultimately Antifederalists argued that without a basis some States may go much further in the ability of government over the individual than others. A core set of rights was needed, so they crafted one and left the rest to the States to sort out (again at the time.)

Today all of this is a very different argument, I would go so far as to say it is bipartisan in our duopoly of a political system that the capability of government to do something via legislation with challengeable survivability means more than respect for "the blessings of liberty."

The term itself, liberty, has a different context as well. It is the difference between fundamental rights (as in freedom of speech for example) against the concept of "healthcare is a right" (as another example but from political context.) Complexity of the modern world, cultural and social evolutions, technology and means of communications, diversity of people, what have you are all influencers as to why some simplistic definition of liberty is painful let alone the concept of securing them.

On paper as a matter of law you have liberty, but does it mean everything to you that you think it should might be the better question.

Answer that then perhaps we can talk about securing them (assuming they are at risk of loss somehow.)

 

[Ginger Ale]

So, what exactly is wrong with the principles expressed?

You're really making an ad hominem attack. I criticize them, too, and for the same reasons, but that's not the topic, is it? We would not be where we are today - eliminating slavery, expanding the franchise, legislating equality - if it weren't for those principles upon which the document is based, would we?

Sure we would, the people who made those changes wouldn't disappear. Other countries have done just fine without our constitution.

 

[NWRatCon]

Sure we would, the people who made those changes wouldn't disappear. Other countries have done just fine without our constitution.

My friend, you're assiduously missing the point. The people who made those changes were motivated by principles. That the Constitution embodies one expression of those principles does not preclude others from expressing them or operating on the same or similar principles. Most other constitutions are modeled on ours - "those principles upon which the document is based". The "golden rule" finds expression in many religious traditions. Any particular formulation isn't "more right" than another.*

So, what do you think motivated those changes? Was it not expansion of liberty? Were they not the same "principles upon which the document is based"?

*https://www.nrm.org/2018/03/golden-rule-common-religions/

 

[code1211]

The Preamble of US Constitution identifies as a purpose to "secure the Blessings of Liberty". So, what does that mean? What is this "liberty" to be secured for ourselves and our posterity? Is it singular or plural? The phrase emphasizes "blessings" - is that different than liberty itself? What are these blessings?

Certainly those "Rights" identified in the so-called "Bill of Rights" must be included, right? Are those all of our blessings"? What about the 9th Amendment's admonition that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Emphasis mine) So, at least there are "Rights" which must be secured, yet remain unnamed. Is that all? Is there more?

The courts have identified some, described as "rights", that are at least implied by the Constitution - to travel, to pursue a vocation, to marry, to procreate - but these don't appear directly in the text. What else? What are the limitations? Are there limitations?

Let's have a discussion. What are these "Blessings of Liberty" we are meant to secure, and how do we secure them?

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are documents that limit the power of government.

ANYTHING not specifically granted as an enumerated power to the Government is denied and reserved to the people or to the various states.

 

[code1211]

To peruse your own interests I believe as long as it doesn't harm others.

If your interest is shooting people that would be a no no.

Today we don't really need the "blessings" but back then when you were assigned a job by religious leaders for the good of the land it was a blessing to peruse your own interests and make money off them.

Things have changed so updating the meaning in your mind is required to apply it today.

Quite frankly, I don't dig old documents being sacred when it comes to current laws. These documents were better understood in that time frame. Applying them now is silly.

Any reference to rights being granted by a creator was only to reinforce the idea that the rights are created and granted by a higher authority than the government.

The function of the government is merely to PRESERVE those rights already endowed by the Creator.

How much intrusion into your life do you feel others should be granted under law?