I spent 1979-83 in high school in North Carolina. Vaclav Havel spent that time in prison.
I kept thinking about Havel, who lost his liberty fighting for the liberty of others, during February’s Freedom Conservatism conference. At the inaugural gathering of self-described FreeCons, 150 philosophers, economists, pundits, and advocates met at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to discuss policymaking options that voters cannot access through the most vigorous leaders of today’s major parties.
Several of the FreeCons sounded a bit like Havel. In The Power of the Powerless, Havel described his experience with a bureaucracy that used manipulative, mendacious systems to suppress speech, free thought, cultural expression, access to information, and economic mobility. “Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything,” he wrote.
By the time I was in graduate school, when friends and I watched the Soviet Union’s disunion, I’d become aware of Havel in Czechoslovakia, Lech Welesa in Poland, and Nelson Mandela in South Africa – men who failed to conform to the type of state authority Saul Bellow described in Herzog.
“Reality instructors. They want to teach you – to punish you with – the lessons of the Real,” Bellow’s Moses Herzog said.
In the American South of my youth, the work of reality instructors was evident. I had seen the leftover “white’s only” and “colored” restrooms in Chapel Hill’s bus station. I knew about the state sponsored violence of slavery and Jim Crow. Later, I would learn about all sorts of harmful state action – the government’s secret, deadly poisoning of alcohol during Prohibition, coverture legal doctrine that prevented women from owning property and signing contracts, and the government’s use of civil forfeitures to confiscate money and property from individuals never charged with crimes.
Some state rules, however well intended, seemed silly. We accept that the state permits 3.4 ounces of shampoo in our carryon bag but not 3.5 ounces. If that prevents a terrorist from blowing up a plane, good for all. Other state intrusions are harder to rationalize, such as Louisiana’s requirement that new barbershops provide “sufficient hooks” for hats and coats. Rules, of course, require enforcement, so these state actions occupy time, energy, and money, and proprietors of hookless shops risk penalties. It’s a reminder that in 1934 Jacob Maged of Jersey City was arrested and fined for the crime of pressing paints for a nickel below the price the New Deal allowed.
So the sprouting of Freedom Conservatism marks the renewal of a contest of ideas where individual freedoms compete against state coercion. It’s a contest that has captivated humans for as long as humans have been self-governing.
John Hood, president of the John William Pope Foundation, kicked off the program by talking about ideas formulated by John Locke, Edmund Burke, Alexis de Tocqueville, Friedrich Hayek, and Russell Kirk. The grumpy economist, Hoover Institution’s John Cochrane, described the value of a “monastery that keeps the ideas fresh while barbarians are at the gate.”
Freedom Conservatism was born in July 2023, when Hood and Avik Roy, co-founder of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, set out to produce a 21st century version of the Sharon Statement, the set of principles Young Americans for Freedom adopted at a 1960 meeting at William F. Buckley’s home in Sharon, Connecticut. The FreeCon statement has attracted more than 300 signatories.
Freedom Conservatism recognizes that “authoritarianism is on the rise both at home and abroad. More and more people on the left and right reject the distinctive creed that made America great: that individual liberty is essential to the moral and physical strength of the nation.”
FreeCons blend popular ideals (commitments to liberty, the pursuit of happiness) with beliefs that differentiate FreeCons from competitor groups. FreeCons praise immigration as “a principal driver of American prosperity and achievement” and affirm a commitment to repairing harm caused by state oppression, namely slavery and Jim Crow. FreeCons recognize that unpopular speech is protected speech. Private organizations, FreeCons argue, have a moral obligation to protect speech.
Research and practice support philosophers’ arguments for freedom. Templeton Foundation grantee Benjamin Powell, director of the Free Market Institute at Texas Tech, studies the connection between economic freedom and flourishing societies. He finds that when countries expand property rights, women’s economic freedom, and freedom to trade and invest, broad economic prosperity follows. Further, his research affirms that immigration contributes to economic freedoms.
According to research from Salisbury University and George Mason University scholars, barriers to starting a new business or entering a trade heighten income inequality. Whereas regulations that produce safety, health, and fiduciary benefits add to the public good, Mercatus Center economist Patrick McLaughlin argues that undue regulation can contribute to job loss, inflation and poverty. With a current Templeton Foundation grant, Mercatus scholars are studying the connections between freedom and the capacity of communities to confront and overcome challenges. They argue freedom is “the foundation of resilience.” The Center for Indonesia Policy Studies (CIPS) won Atlas Network’s 2020 Templeton Prize for the success of its Affordable Food for the Poor initiative. Supported by a Templeton Foundation grant, CIPS found that reducing government regulation increased access to food for those most in need.
Other researchers question whether benefits of macroeconomic growth are justly distributed, arguing that overall increases in prosperity may mask suffering among those left behind. More than two decades ago, scholars at Fordham’s Institute for Innovation in Social Policy showed that U.S. social health lagged behind GDP. From 1970 to 2001, when GDP rose by 158 percent, the researchers’ index of social health showed a decline of 38 percent.
That these ideas are debatable is exactly the point Freedom Conservatives make – that we should be discussing ideas, not personalities and slogans.
“Right now, voters are not thinking about ideas, and that’s something we need to re-inject into the conversation,” Stephanie Slade, Senior Editor at Reason Magazine, told me.
Back in Chapel Hill after the FreeCon gathering, I found myself in the restroom at Dorrance Field on the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill campus. There, above the urinal, thanks to the NC Administrative Code, are signs explaining how the university uses “reclaimed water” to flush toilets. The signs warn users: “Caution – Do Not Drink this Water – No Tomar,” with a coda explaining “We didn’t really think you would. This sign is required.” The state coercion to require – and enforce – the printing, installation, and maintenance of the many campus placards carry hard costs. Further, the signs represent a state intrusion into what a reasonable person would consider a private moment.
The signs, cleverly worded as they are, represent an assertion of state power motivated by some reason other than what is stated. It is impossible to believe that the need to reduce the drinking of toilet water justifies the funding, production, and staffing of the signs. Thinking of Havel, it is easy to imagine bureaucrats using the signs to remind us that the state holds power over us every minute of the day, even in situations where privacy is expected. It’s a reminder of Havel’s argument that the “system touches people at every step” and only “pretends to respect human rights.”
John Bare is a writer and photographer with more than two decades of experience working in philanthropy. His latest novel, My Biscuit Baby (2024), is the second installment in the Lassie James Mystery Series.
