Bob Herbert of the New York Times refers in a recent column to "that most fundamental of freedoms – freedom of thought." I doubt this assertion will elicit many objections from Times readers, but it is specious and reflects a representative alienation from what is the fundamental freedom.
Now, freedom of thought shouldn't be belittled. Whether inflicted by campus commissars or imperious politicians, foreclosure of particular viewpoints guts the marketplace of ideas and is anti-capitalistic. (There is thus a horrible logic to communist regimes' absence of philosophic pluralism. Andrei Sakharov noted in the context of Soviet tyranny, "[W]hat hits you in the eye is the state's extreme concentration – economic, political, and ideological – that is, extreme monopolization of these fields.")
Freedom of thought, however, is derivative from and subsidiary to the paramount right of self-ownership. A couple of examples will suffice:
- The War on Drugs criminalizes the consumption of particular chemicals. Citizens can condemn the drug war, assemble in protest against the drug war, petition legislators to abolish the drug war; and if they smoke a joint they may be dispossessed of their livelihood, imprisoned, and consigned to a de facto caste upon release.
- A law is passed in Florida that requires residents to obtain permission from a Bureau of Travel if they wish to leave the state. Floridians can send mass mailings in opposition to the wretched policy; they may establish websites to hasten the bureau's abolition; and in the interim they are enslaved.
Freedom of thought is unmolested in each instance (the first one an actuality), and fundamental freedom is subverted.
Freedom without self-ownership is like a Whopper without meat, and speaking as one carnivore, I don't like a meatless Whopper. Two buns does not a Whopper make, and freedom of speech does not freedom make.
Insufficient sensitivity to self-ownership produces pronouncements such as Herbert's. These bromides are not made in bad faith, but they are nonetheless perilous. Disconnect self-ownership from freedom, and the consequence is a rootless, fuzzy conception of human rights. Where the stakes are one's spiritual and material quality, fuzziness isn't desirable.
Of course censorship should arouse the indignation of freedom's defenders, but it's not the ultimate tyranny. Yes, freedom of thought is important, indeed precious; but physical autonomy is even more precious.
In The Black Book of Communism, Pascal Fontaine quotes a Cuban dissident: "A prison where you eat well is still a prison." Likewise, a prison where you think freely is still a prison.
Consider this dialogue:
CITIZEN: Mr. Autocrat, I've read Vladimir Nabokov's Bend Sinister and want to visit Russia.
MR. AUTOCRAT: You're much too important where you are. Thumbs down, Russophile.
CITIZEN: Mr. Autocrat, I think your decision's deplorable!
MR. AUTOCRAT: It's certainly your right to think so. Your request remains denied.
I doubt Mr. Herbert would enjoy such an imprisoned existence with expressive freedom. Upon reflection, I'm confident he would modify his original assertion.
July 27, 2001
