Every time the usual suspects start ginning up regime change, be it propaganda, street protesters, arming rebels, or insane bombing campaigns such as the current one in Iran, we always hear about the poor oppressed masses yearning to breathe free. The truth, however, is that as Montesquieu wrote, “There is no word that admits of more various significations and has made more varied impressions on the human mind than that of liberty.”
In most instances, to the public “liberty” either means, “The privilege of being governed by a native of their own country, or by their own laws.” It is perhaps the easiest to think of this as “being allowed to live as you are accustomed to.” Outside of those who have been in various ways sold on some American think tank conception of freedom, the idea that any great mass of people in foreign countries—much less an electoral majority—want “freedom” in the way that we understand it is sheer fantasy. And yet, that fantasy that people across the world want our form of “free government,” which is not working so well for us, by the way, is a warmonger’s myth that simply will not die.
Even in America, where we have a common culture and intellectual traditions, the understanding of freedom varies wildly and is often little more than “what I like.” The word has been endlessly studied and discussed by libertarians, and even there, its meaning is not universally agreed on, though Matt Kibbe’s preschool ethics version of, “Don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff” is preferred by many. Both John Locke and Montesquieu argue in different ways that liberty is the right to manage your own affairs in keeping with the laws of your country, for if you could violate those laws than your liberty would never be secure from others. This understanding, firmly within our tradition, shows that across the world freedom would mean different things.
What differentiates America from most countries is in our origin. As Montesquieu wrote, England was the only country “in the world that has for the direct end of its constitution political liberty.”
Despite the abysmal state of freedom in modern Britain, Americans did come from a background of this English liberty. In his “Speech on Conciliation with America,” Edmund Burke argued, “The Colonists emigrated from you…They are therefore not only devoted to Liberty, but to Liberty according to English ideas, and on English principles.” However, even so, the issues which led to conflict were less liberty per se and more the fact that Parliament was interfering in the way that Americans were accustomed to living, which had always been self-government. A common historical misunderstanding is that Americans were somehow “freeloading” by not paying taxes, but the reality was that colonial legislatures consistently produced whatever amount of money Parliament asked for via internal taxation. The Stamp Acts were not to raise revenue; it was one of history’s great follies done merely to prove the authority to implement direct taxes. Burke continues, “Their love of liberty, as with you, fixed and attached on this specific point of taxing. Liberty might be safe, or might be endangered in twenty other particulars, without their being much pleased or alarmed.”
This fixation on tax policy as an important component of liberty is specifically Anglo. Contrast this with France, one of the other countries which has given the most thought to human liberty. In France, while a man may grumble about paying taxes, a core part of the modern French conception of liberty is to have economic security and to not work oneself to death. There is relatively less public prosperity, but the French work much less over the course of a lifetime and many find it crazy what Americans will put themselves through to live in a society with relatively lower involvement in public welfare. Of course, modern American taxes are very high, and the government spends enormous amounts on public welfare, but much of the public hates this in a way that is very uncommon in France, where few connect tax rates to liberty.
Others view liberty primarily as not being under the domination of upper classes, again a sentiment uncommon in the United States. When the American journalist John Gunther toured the Soviet satellite states in 1947 to write his book Behind the Curtain, he found that much of the public felt that they had freedom and democracy under these new regimes. (It should be noted these people were recently liberated from Nazis or Nazi-allied regimes, and that the Communists were solidifying their power as the only credible political force remaining.) Gunther writes, “Civil liberties are not much of a preoccupation among people who never have had them. The word ‘freedom’ doesn’t mean to Eastern Europe what it means to us; it may mean freedom from being a serf…What he is interested in is freedom to eat and get education and a job.”
This last conception is similar in most countries which decolonized, as well as the Russian Empire. Those are also the things which Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans wanted in the twentieth century’s great struggles. In Anna Karenina, Leo Tolstoy has the character Levin argue that he doesn’t see the good in educating the former serfs unless the entire system changes, because it will just make them discontented, which is exactly what happened. Foreign domination was seen as degrading, so no matter how much you provide food, jobs, and education, people under foreign domination generally become discontented and feel unfree, whether or not there are local elections.
It’s probably the case that even in North Korea—where the public are indoctrinated their entire lives and we lack good opinion polling—there are many men who believe themselves free because the country is independent and not under the sway of foreign powers even though they have little or no liberty as we understand it. However, even this premise of independence being a requirement for liberty is not universal. For example, as Livy tells the story of Titus Quincitius’s Proclamation of the Freedom of Greece in 196 BC, following the defeat of Macedonia and thus the Roman conquest of Greece, he said that they would be “free, exempt from taxes, and living under their own laws.” Though it was largely for propaganda at the time, as in Livy’s telling around two-hundred years later, they sold the public on this. What Rome was actually doing was asserting its powers over war and peace. Greece was merely given a privileged position in the empire and would be under various levels of Roman control until 1453. Nevertheless, to the Greeks who would live under Rome in the better times of the Roman Empire, it was considered that Rome had saved them from hundreds of years of devastating internecine conflict that had left Greece devastated. Most later Greek writers found the determined independence of their forefathers to have been dangerous and unwise, and that it was only under Rome they were able to enjoy the fruits of liberty.
Another conception of freedom which has gained prominence is electing your own government. However, among all of the political theorists worth anything, democracy is a means to an end. The idea is that it allows you to select leaders who will prioritize the liberty and well-being of the subject. Democracy’s record of providing this is, to understate it, questionable. Just as likely, the public wants to punish their enemies, give handouts, or simply ensure that their tribe or faction is in power. This is why any good system has mixed government with a variety of safeguards of liberty, but to many it is the act of elections and the ceremonial turnover of power which is democracy, and thus freedom, even if the demos face constant abuse and it produces no positive results.
Of people around the world who have been convinced to accept some sort of bland Western definition of “democracy” it generally just means government by secular managers where there is some press freedom, an allegedly fair justice system and elections are honestly counted though may otherwise be interfered in a number of ways. This is the most malicious in the former Eastern Bloc states where there was a level of education and political development that NGOs were able to reach their tentacles deep into weak states starting in the 1990s. In other cases, malcontent exiles have lived in Western countries long enough to wish to apply the system to their homelands, pretending that it is not obvious that they are the ones who could profit from doing such a thing. To such people, “freedom” is merely Western alignment and opening up their countries to Western capital. It’s true that the free movement of capital is more free than unfree, but few men would rank it high on the list of concerns.
In a situation like the current attack on Iran, the invasion of Iraq, the war in Vietnam, or even World War II, the idea that people want to be “free” in the way we understand it is, at best, overly simplistic. They may want some sort of liberation from a foreign power and then to be left to their own devices, but the government they choose is unlikely to have much of what we would consider “freedom.” I don’t doubt that many people in Iran don’t want to be ruled by elderly clerics who impose antagonizing religious laws, but I am confident that the general public does not want to be bombed into the “freedom” of alliance with Israel and an economy of OnlyFans and sports betting. If libertarians themselves cannot internally agree on what “liberty” means, nor can Americans at large (much less our NATO allies), it is obviously the case that those demanding “freedom” for Iran have no idea what the average Iranian factory worker or street vendor would consider “liberty” to be. Most likely, beyond not wanting to get killed by airstrikes, he cares the most about his paycheck covering his family’s expenses and his nation’s independence.
