Free ... to Choose

Today's post will focus on three intertwined concepts: logic, freedom, and choice. But first, let me explain why I'm writing this.

I recently posted an article to a social media group page about the resumption of cruising by Royal Caribbean. The cruise line is bypassing the CDC's restrictions by sailing out of non-U.S. ports in Bermuda and the Bahamas for Caribbean itineraries. However, RCL is requiring that all adult passengers be vaccinated against covid.

Judging from the reactions and comments, the fact that RCL is raising its middle finger at the CDC was well-received by most members of the group, which was formed in opposition to government mandates imposed in response to the pandemic. However, some members took umbrage at RCL's vaccine requirement. (IMHO, all cruise lines will be requiring vaccinations for adult passengers when they resume cruising, because if they don't, there's not a port in the world that will accept their ships. So blame those governments, not the cruise lines, who have to meet government requirements to remain in business.) One commenter, in defense of her ire, made this statement:

"Freedom with conditions isn't freedom."

That statement sounds good and right and noble and patriotic. I support fully the idealism on which it is based. But unfortunately, it falls flat as a logical statement. Which is why I want to begin with a discussion of logic, before we delve into freedom and choice.

I'm not talking about logic in terms of, "Hey, that seems logical." That is most people's understanding of logic. One of my friends - at least, I hope he's still my friend - was upset by my assertion that masks are ineffective in controlling the transmission of the virus. He sent me an angry message in which he said, "It makes sense to me that if I cover two-thirds of the holes in my face, I'm less likely to get it or give it."

He got covid. I haven't.

But that's not the point of the example. The point of the example is that he believed that because his assertion made sense to him, was logical. It is not.

Logic is an academic discipline. Courses in logic are part of the philosophy curriculum. Logic is deeply rooted in math. One of the smartest guys I ever worked with was a logic professor at a major university, and now runs a very successful hedge fund that invests in complex and esoteric mortgage derivatives. To model the performance of those derivatives requires stochastic calculus.

Here's an example of a fairly simple logic puzzle (feel free to try to answer it in the comments when I post this link on Facebook):

You are at an unmarked intersection. In one direction lies the City of Lies, and in the opposite direction, the City of Truth. Citizens of the City of Lies always lie. Citizens of the City of Truth always tell the truth. A citizen of one of those cities - you don't know which - stands at the intersection. What question could you ask him to find your way to the City of Truth?

(Logic puzzles often relate to truth vs. lies, because those are binary opposites, hence the mathematical roots of logic. Also, since we'll be talking about freedom, choice, and government restrictions, lies vs. the truth seems apropos.)

Logic is the most appropriate discipline to apply to arguments like "freedom with conditions isn't freedom." Let's examine a world where we have freedom without conditions.

In that world, I am free to break into your house and steal your possessions. In response, you are free to break into my house and shoot me dead. Freedom of speech without conditions means that you can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater without repercussions. Freedom of religion without conditions means that, if your chosen religion requires human sacrifice, you may freely practice it using your neighbors to appease your gods. You know the old saying: your right to punch me in the face ends at my nose. At a minimum, all of our rights are constrained by the equally valid rights of others.

It is clear, then, that true freedom without conditions would lead to chaos, lawlessness and anarchy. (We've seen examples of this in Portland, Seattle and Minneapolis.) We are a nation of laws - we have to be, in order to be civilized. But what are laws?

Laws are conditions upon freedom unfettered.

Now, a cruise line requiring proof of vaccination before embarking is not a law. A governor or unelected health official issuing a mask mandate is not a law, in spite of what that governor or health official thinks (whether such mandates are truly enforceable is a matter for the courts). They are, however, conditions upon our freedoms - to take a cruise, to walk into a store or restaurant or other business unmasked, to gather in large groups, etc.

There are countless examples of conditions upon our freedom that go far beyond this pandemic, and were in place well before it, one of which will be explored in examples below.

My response to the group member who made the assertion about freedom was this: "We all choose our freedoms. Don't be blind to that." I'm not convinced that she understood my meaning, and another group member asked me to explain, so I did. Then I decided to explore that statement further by writing this blog post.

Conditions on our freedoms present us with choices. Let's take Bob, a hypothetical person who adamantly opposes wearing a mask, and refuses to do so under any circumstances. Bob feels that going anywhere that requires him to wear one is a condition on his freedom, and that is unacceptable to him. He believes that by refusing to wear a mask, he is exercising full freedom, without conditions.

Is he?

Bob is not free to fly on an airplane, or go on a cruise. Bob is not free to shop in most grocery stores or big box stores, at least in the Kansas City metro where he lives. Bob is not free to enter many restaurants. He is not free to get a massage, or a haircut, or an annual physical, at least in most places. These are all freedoms that Bob has chosen to give up, in order to exercise his freedom to remain maskless. If he wants to travel, he must drive. If he wants to go to a store, or eat at a restaurant, or obtain other services, he has to find establishments that either don't require masks, or won't enforce their requirements. That's all well and good - but Bob may no longer have the freedom to shop, dine, or otherwise patronize the establishments he prefers. He has chosen to compromise on where he can go and what he can do in order to preserve his freedom to not wear a mask. He has accepted those conditions on his freedom, which is a key point.

By contrast, Brian also hates wearing a mask. Like Bob, he believes that masks are ineffective in preventing the spread of viruses. He bases this on credible medical opinion and on statistically valid studies. Brian wears a mask as little as he can get away with, so unlike Bob, he does occasionally wear a mask. Why, if he hates doing so and believes they are ineffective? Because he chooses other freedoms that he will not sacrifice - freedoms that Bob has chosen to sacrifice.

Brian has a client in Jacksonville that he still visits at least once a quarter. It is a full two days' drive from Brian's home to Jacksonville. Besides the fact that Brian hates long drives, that would add four days of unproductive travel time to each trip Brian makes to see that client. His schedule does not allow him to waste a couple of weeks a year driving unnecessarily, so he flies. This requires him to wear a mask on each flight and in the airport. (Only for a minimal amount of time; he does not wear one while the flight attendants are seated during taxi, takeoff, approach and landing, as they cannot see him, nor does he wear one during the flight as he is sipping water and nibbling almonds throughout. In the airport, he sits well away from other people and does not wear a mask. He has never been hassled.) He chooses to wear a mask for very brief periods of time to afford him the freedom to fly.

Brian also enjoys leisure travel. He recently flew to Cabo with his wife, to celebrate their 25th anniversary. They chose to celebrate this once-in-a-lifetime milestone the way they wanted, because they would never get that day back. And in order to have the freedom to do that, they accepted the condition of wearing a mask during travel, again for only minimal amounts of time. During an 11-day trip involving four flights, Brian wore a mask for about four hours total.

He and his wife also have the freedom to shop and dine wherever they choose, and they accept the condition of having to very briefly don a mask in some of those businesses, rather than losing that freedom of choice and being limited in where they can dine and shop, and potentially having to drive well out of their way to do so.

So you see, we choose our freedoms. Bob exercises his freedom to never wear a mask. In doing so, he chooses to give up other freedoms: flying, cruising, patronizing his favorite businesses, even taking care of his health by going to his regular doctor, who requires masks be worn.

Brian, on the other hand, chooses those other freedoms over the freedom to always be maskless. There is no judgment here regarding whether one freedom or set of freedoms is more important than the other. That is a decision that only the individual can make, for his or her own self. It's a matter of which freedoms you're willing to sacrifice, and which ones you're not, and that is different for each person.

But make no mistake, you are going to sacrifice some freedoms. You are going to accept conditions on the freedoms you ultimately choose to retain. You can't have it both ways. Don't kid yourself into believing that you're not choosing to give up one set of freedoms for another. There is no freedom without conditions in this covid world we've been forced to live in.

In fact, the same holds true irrespective of the virus. Brian lives in a nice house, in a nice neighborhood. It is convenient to his family's work, schools, doctors, dentist, vets, and a variety of dining, shopping and other places they frequent. Brian's neighborhood has an HOA. The HOA has restrictive covenants, which are conditions on Brian's freedoms as a homeowner. He cannot paint his house pink with orange polka-dots. He cannot build a massive shed in his back yard. He cannot buy a boat and an RV and park them on the street for the 50 weeks a year he's not using them.

Why would Brian accept those restrictions? Well, he chooses the freedom to live in a nice house, in a nice neighborhood, near all his chosen amenities. One of the benefits is that his property value is always appreciating. Part of the reason for that is that all of his neighbors are subject to the same covenants. So they can't paint their houses pink with orange polka-dots either, or park their RVs and boats on the street all the time (thank God).

Bob, however, will not accept restrictive covenants. As a homeowner, nobody is going to tell him what he can and can't do with his own property (other than restrictions applied by the city and county in which he lives - conditions he has chosen to accept). And that is Bob's right. Unfortunately, it means that he has to sacrifice the freedom to live wherever he chooses. He cannot live in a neighborhood with an HOA. He may have to live in a run-down older neighborhood, where the property values are in decline, and it may not be safe. Or, he may have to buy a rural property, and drive long distances to his chosen amenities.

Look, I am as passionate about freedom as anyone. My Dad was a WWII vet whose unit liberated Dachau and ended the war by winning the Battle of Munich. I'm descended from the same Scottish clan that produced William Wallace of Braveheart fame, for crying out loud. But I also understand freedom in the context of logic, and I recognize that I must inevitably make choices regarding what freedoms I choose, and which ones I'll sacrifice in return.

Friends, we all make choices when it comes to our freedoms, because freedom without conditions is but a noble myth. And there should be no judgment in that, no right or wrong. What's the most important freedom or set of freedoms to you may not be the most important to me, and that's okay. We make our own choices - but there is no mistaking the undisputable truth that we do choose our freedoms. And thus our most important freedom may be the freedom to make those choices as we prefer.