Ambled on in to a Denny’s for breakfast a while back and, while I much prefer a table, the wait was going to be beyond worth it so I decided to just sit at the counter. Cuts down on the space for a newspaper but I needed that toast and coffee. I asked the fellow sitting next to the last seat in the row if he minded if I took that last seat – like maybe he was to be joined by someone. He replied in what is one of those usual off hand replies – it’s a free country !  I was going to reply to his response with the question, “Is it really ?” but my gut said that would just not be a good idea. So, I just let it go. That phrase, though, got me to thinking.

Some time ago, a close associate of mine was house hunting. He came across a marvelous set up in a recently opened planned community. The property included a 1950 square foot house with a split open floor plan and a casita across the walkway. The casita was one large room  with a kitchenette – probably about 500 square feet, give or take. The price was equally enticing. So, off to the sales agent. After some of the usual small talk, the agent asked my associate how old he was. Taken back by that, he asked her why the question. Her response floored him. She said unless you were over fifty-five years old, you were not permitted to purchase a house in that community. His response was – REALLY, since when ?? Things got a bit testy after that and,as she was explaining that the  Fair Housing Act had been amended to allow for basic age discrimination, he was escorted from the office. BTW – the proverbial “rest of the story ” – that the FHA was amended was  indeed true however, it’s effect date was not until the following year so the sales agent was not exactly correct. Too bad my associate didn’t check the fine print on the amendment. Anyhow, this episode is a prime example of the question I was going to raise in the diner – is this indeed a free country and just what does a “free country” really mean.

Freedom has been defined in a variety of ways from the rather strict, limited generalist edition to the more philosophical posture and, while I don’t purport to be a philosopher, I believe that John Locke’s is closer to reality.  Miriam-Webster defines “freedom” as the absence of constraint in choice or action. While I figure the local chapter of anarchy international might like this one, it has little bearing on everyday life and living.  Decarte defines it as liberty of choice, choosing to do and not to do. Kristofferson calls it ” nothing left to lose ..”. Aristotle sees it as a voluntary choice in relation to moral responsibility. I think now we are getting somewhere. And John Locke, who considers freedom in terms of government,  refers to it as government based on a social contract among people of a society who exchange natural rights for civil rights with the purpose of protecting the well being of all members of that society. Here is where I sense the real thinkers and the village idiots we call the radical right vastly differ.  If you, as I do, see this position as viable, take it out of the realm of philosophical discourse and apply it to every day living. One can see the depth of this meaning and also see how, in many ways, it figured in to the founding of this nation.

We all expect a certain level of “freedom” as we move through our respective worlds. However, there is a caveat, as there always is. Freedom is not about, as Miram Webster would hold, totally unrestrained  living. It is more about the ability to interact in an orderly fashion. We have rules and laws  which come in to play and there is good reason for them. Take something simple as the significant reduction in speed limits in a school zone. There is a reason for this – it is  for the protection of school children as they meander  out of school, these days preoccupied with smart phones and iPods. Many many tragedies have been avoided because of this simple rule. And the breach of that rule has caused some horrible tragedies,evidencing its necessity. By law, we cannot do many things and ignoring those rules has consequences, hence law enforcement, courts, etc. But  the issue here is not law but rather freedom and, as members of the  society we call America, we do enjoy the freedom to change laws, add new ones, repeal those out of date or out of sync and this is where a free society differs from those not. We accept, to one degree or another depending one’s political posturing, government  and our system of government.  Every four years we can make changes in who runs it or choose not to. It is a system to which we ascribe – or at least most of us and those who work tirelessly to destroy it – the extreme Libertarian factions and this Tea Party movement as examples- are generally out of touch with reality – but that’s for another time.

The basic element of freedom and being free remains – it being the ability to choose within reason and to change, likewise within reason. As Locke put it, freedom is all about the protection of the well being of our society – all of our society. There is order to a free society and that freedom revolves around the ability to make changes in an orderly fashion. Without some level or order, real freedom fails and anarchy prevails. It would be the concept of individualism carried to the absurd and, in my opinion,to the insane. And so, while we may not like many of the rules, remember there is the freedom to change and while that process may not be perfect, the alternatives are frightening at best. So, when one hears that phrase ..” the land of the free ..”, take stock of its real meaning and understand that it is not about the one but about the all, not a selected few but ALL.