There is no latin translation for the word freedom.  The word freedom is an old English word.  As a verb, the word means:  extricate, release, set free, release from captivity or confinement.  Someone who has been freed (verb)  has their freedom (noun).  Freedom is something that you possess after you have been freed.  If someone holds you captive and frees you, you have been granted freedom; you have been released from captivity or confinement.  But the word free can be used as an adverb as well, meaning without cost or payment:  The students were admitted free of tuition based upon there demonstrated need.  Has the  “free” in the noun freedom been mistaken for the adverb use of the word free?

My wife is a pre-school teacher assistant.  She is capable and qualified to pursue a higher paying position but she loves her job because she feels she can interact with young children and make a measurable positive difference in their lives.  I am very proud of what she does and feel it is something important.  I am the primary earner in our family and because of my level of income we are in a higher tax bracket and have utilized all of our deductions and exemptions such that her income added to our taxable base is taxed at the highest marginal federal and state tax rates.  Because of this, we really net (after all taxes)  a relatively small amount, at the margin by adding her gross  income to our family.  This means that there is diminishing financial incentive for her to work in this job.   The area where she teaches includes many low-income families.  The reference to the state pre-school program by many who work in the program and those who have children in the program is that it is “free.”  Much to the surprise of many of the participants my wife cannot stop herself from often correcting them by saying, “this program is not free; while it may be free of charge to you, it is not free of charge to society:  someone is paying for it.”  Some will actually argue with her and say, “no it is free, the government provides it.”   My wife continues to work despite the true after-tax reward because of how she is enriched through touching the lives of young children.  But this mentality of it being “free” is frustrating to her.  Can you see the irony?

There is an apparent permanent culture of entitlement and belief that “we” are a wealthy country and that our government has endless resources to provide “free” resources for it’s people.  But what happens if more citizens, by getting “free” resources, take more than they give than citizens who give more than they take?  The source of government in a democratic society is supposed to be the people.  The source of funds or resources that the government receives (or confiscates) and re-allocates comes from the people.  The government, as an entity, is not wealthy and the government does not have any money.  The government is a trustee of the people’s money.  It is incumbent upon each citizen to work and struggle to contribute what they can to that pool of resources entrusted to the government, and to work and struggle to avoid being one who takes more from that pool than he contributes to that pool.  This is a basic tenet of socialization and the survival of a society.  Oddly we take more and more from those who produce more and less and less from those who produce less and less.  We talk about people with earnings and assets as “fortunate” and with “privilege” and “wealth” but we do not talk about the sacrifice and struggle involved in creating earnings and assets.  We talk about and assume that people with lower wages or earnings are people who are less fortunate and who are “struggling” but we do not talk about the oft behavior of dependence and the avoidance of certain struggle.  But my experience tells me that most of the people with income and assets are the ones getting up each day and facing a struggle and frankly many (not all, if not most) of the citizens with little or no earned income and assets have in the past or are avoiding the struggle and risks of pursuing production in favor of complacency and dependence on those who do.  This may be politically incorrect to say, but it is an unfortunate and growing truth about many in our current society.

The origin of the “free” in American freedom was the verb which became the noun “freedom”; the people in America possessed freedom.  People came to America seeking freedom to practice their chosen faith and to be free to live their lives as they chose without persecution knowing that they were also free to fail with the freedom to seek success.  The freedom to pursue good fortune exposed them to the possibility of failure.  Early American’s knew this and accepted this gladly.  There was no “free lunch” in the freedom that early American’s sought.  While the two concepts were cousins (having freedom or getting something for free) they were very distant cousins.  Slowly, since the great society programs were enacted, the cousins are being introduced and are interbreeding.  I think it is important for citizens to be reminded, that there is a cost for everything.  Someone is paying through effort, trade of stored resources, time, etc. for anything you consume or hold.  Nothing is truly free to society even if it has been offered to you without cost to you.  If you are a capable citizen and do not participate in the struggle of human existence to produce resources and continue to take resources produced by others, you are participating in the demise of the very structure that has fed you and are limiting it’s availability to others who may be in need.  Every citizen of our country needs to be reminded:  freedom means freedom to fail; NOTHING IS FREE and for the world to keep spinning we need to strive to give more than we take, one person at a time!