LIVE AND LET LIVE AS THE FOUNDATION OF FREEDOM

Perhaps the simplest definition of freedom is contained in the familiar adage “Live and let live.” We want to live as we wish, therefore we let our neighbor live as he wishes, and as long as our wishes do not collide, we are OK. We understand, of course, that if my music is too loud, the neighbor will object, just as I will object if his music is blasting just as I am trying to fall sleep. But both of us are perfectly willing to compromise by restraining our respective freedoms through goodwill and common sense, and everything is fine. In case of a serious disagreement, God forbid, we shall go to arbitration, of course, but let us hope that this would not be necessary.


Live and let live applies to countries just as much. If they don’t mess with us, we shouldn’t be messing with them. Let other nations have their own governments, as long as they do not try to teach us what government we must accept for ourselves. Our freedom is our freedom, and theirs is theirs. That’s freedom.

In cases of serious disagreements, there can be only one organization legitimately authorized to address and redress them. It is none other than the United Nations. If it is not very effective, let’s make it more effective, but it is still better than taking the matter into our own hands, expending blood and treasure on unnecessary wars.
I was told on more than a few occasions by the detractors of the United Nations that the UN cannot be seen as a legitimate organization, because it ostensibly legitimizes illegitimate governments which persecute their citizens and deprive them of their human rights. Well, the world is not a perfect place, and in most countries majorities do oppress minorities, or rich and powerful minorities oppress poor and powerless minorities, just as Marx observed, offering a communist revolution as a remedy… But, seriously, what can be done about it, or about the scourge of poverty, etc. A regime change? One oppressor exchanged for another at the price of countless lives, knowing full well that oppression as such and poverty as such aren’t going away anywhere? Come on!
Rogue nations? Let the international community deal with them through the United Nations. Whenever their behavior is truly egregious, we shall hopefully get a consensus and something effective might be worked out after all. (This is of course a prescription, and, alas, not the actual practice in some cases.)
Now, should one of them commit a crime against us, and we must act fast, all right, then. Forget the United Nations! Let us hit them back fast and hard, but then, let us call it “punishment,” or “retribution,” but please not “freedom”! Let us not make a mockery of a good word.

Unfortunately, there is only one way to deal with countries we just don’t like. Leave them alone! Unless, of course, we are prepared to invite them and the whole world to join us as the “United States of the World,” to share our wealth with them, under our Constitution, our legal code, and, yes, our definition of freedom.

Otherwise, we may talk as much as we like about some kind of generic freedom, but there is only one kind of such generic freedom, “one-freedom-fits-all,” and that is---
“Live and let live.”