Liberty is Freedom Constrained by Justice

Edward J. Dodson

[An unpublished essay, April, 2005]

The philosopher Mortimer J. Adler, in his book The Common Sense of Politics and in other writings, takes great care in distinguishing between the state of freedom and the condition of liberty. To exercise freedom beyond the bounds of justice is to exercise license. Of license, there are two forms - criminal and economic. Both forms impact the general realization of our equal rights.

As recent events have made clear, even the most beautiful and serene places on our planet can quickly become places of destruction and death. Remarkably, our species has managed to survive over at least several hundred thousands of years (or longer) in the face of the worst nature has had to offer. Always, there have been survivors to rebuild and to carry on. Early and frequent deaths were so common even into the relatively recent past that only the lives of a very few were thought worthy of documenting in story-telling or recorded histories. The destiny of most individuals was, practically speaking, insignificant in comparison to the challenge of group survival. Where actual heroes did not exist, people created mythical ones. Perhaps this has something to do with our lingering need to believe we are capable of remarkable (i.e., super-human) accomplishments and deeds. The potential to achieve the extraordinary someone makes the ordinary more tolerable. And so, over the last four or five hundred years has emerged the philosophical perspective of individualism to champion the importance of each person beyond our membership in the group.

At the same time, we will soon have 10 billion people on the earth, seemingly scattered throughout six of the seven continents, yet concentrated along ocean coasts and major waterways. To paraphrase Dickens: "These are the best of locations some of the time; these are the worst of locations some of the time."

Most of the world's great population centers trace their origins to ancient times and to the needs and conveniences of trade and travel. Water power then fueled the early growth in industrial production. When coal and then oil and natural gas and nuclear energy came along to allow for a virtually unlimited increase in the production of goods, people did not abandon high risk areas; we simply made efforts to mitigate the risks (passing on the costs to others wherever possible) and hope our luck would hold.

We now seem to be drawing deeper into a period of rapid changes in climate, caused (many or most scientific experts argue) by the way our goods producing and consuming activities affect the delicate balance of millions of years of ecological change that allowed us to evolve and survive in the first place. Human activity is clearly heating the atmosphere and changing its chemical composition, releasing enormous amounts of carbon dioxide and other toxic chemicals into the air. Exactly what the long-term consequences will be no one is quite sure. But, then, we exist in the short-term. We have built many of our cities in harms way along the coastlines and at sea level (or even below, as is the City of New Orleans).

When prolonged, heavy rains have caused rivers to rise above their banks and flood low-lying areas for miles in every direction, many individual families have been able to escape and - when they have had the financial ability to make choices - relocate and rebuild on higher, safer ground. A number of entire but small communities have done likewise. But, what are the options for cities of a million or more people? Where the probability for massive destruction is great, land values will be affected by the degree of confidence people have in the prospects for rebuilding without financial loss. Thus, the availability of affordable insurance protection is a key variable in this equation. Where private insurers are unwilling to underwrite risk, government has often stepped in to fill the void - and stepped in with programs that extend huge subsidies to the insured.

In January, California's constant struggle with mother nature was once again in the news, as I am sure readers know. Communities established on hillsides are periodically hit with mudslides whenever rainfall exceeds what the "unstable geological formations" can endure. So, the question is, does the larger community - thru the instrument of law and regulation - have the legitimate power to prevent people from living in harms way? And, when things go wrong, who should absorb the costs? A county supervisor in Ventura County, California put his arms around the issues pretty well:

"It becomes an interesting interaction between public safety and private property laws. …We've left this as a gray area in America. When is the taxpayers' responsibility, and when is it the private citizen's? People say they have the right to live wherever they want, but do they have the right to have the taxpayers fund it?"

Yes. People claim a right to unrestricted freedom. There is a great difference between the freedom we demand and the liberty to which we are entitled.