I was trying to remember that one
For a while now I've been looking for a succint way to express the profound difference in the way that Conservatives and Progressives/Liberals define "freedom", and that quote's been tickling the back of my mind. Nice surgical crucifixion of the RightWing view of freedom.
While looking up who said it (Anatole France), I came across a clear RightWing definition of freedom:
Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from government coercion. It does not mean freedom from the landlord, or freedom from the employer, or freedom from the laws of nature which do not provide men with automatic prosperity. It means freedom from the coercive power of the state--and nothing else.
From "Conservatism: an Obituary", as quoted at Capitalism Magazine
That's a pretty extreme statement, when you try to analyze it. It seems to assume that only governments are capable of coercion, which is utter nonsense. In particular, in the modern day, it ignores the power of corporations which have resources dwarfing those of many national governments. When one of those megacorps happens to be your employer, or your landlord (or mortgage-holder), might their coercion be just as evil as government coercion? Ya think?
Editing that statement for consistency reveals the deep logical (and moral) flaws:
Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from government coercion. It does not mean freedom from coercion by the landlord, or freedom from coercion by the employer, or freedom from the laws of nature which do not provide men with automatic prosperity. It means freedom from the coercive power of the state--and nothing else.
Isn't it simple common sense to say that the definition of freedom includes freedom from coercion? If the only type of coercion that's wrong is government coercion, why do we have laws against myriad forms of coercion, from armed-robbery to extortion to murder?
It isn't armed-robbery when ExxonMobil does it?