Freedom In America Research Paper

Countless generations of men have lived in unfree societies, but many men dreamed of freedom and hoped for the day when their children would be free. Gradually the West developed a philosophy of freedom, a rationale for individual immunity against governmental power. This intellectual movement gathered strength in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; Liberalism, as it was called, became the major social force in country after country. As the twentieth century dawned it appeared that the ideals of the free society were safely installed in the thinking of the West and progressively realized in practice in the major countries. But then something happened. In country after country, the highway of Liberalism turned into the road to serfdom.
We made an about face in this country, but those who led off in a new direction didn't even bother to change the labels. They still call themselves Liberals, but the program of Liberalism in 1993 is radically opposed to the ideals of a free society. It is merely a pragmatist version of old-line socialism.
Given a choice, most people today will choose liberty-other things being equal. People don't give up their liberties except under some delusion, such as the delusion that the surrender of a little liberty will strengthen the guarantee of economic security. There never has been a serious anti-liberty philosophy and platform as such, whose principles people have examined, accepted, and then put into practice. Things haven't happened this way. But although we haven't chosen statism, statism is what we are getting: Speaking now not of conquered countries where liberty has been suppressed but of nations like our own where the old legal forms have been preserved, we may say that the steady attrition of liberty in the modern world is not the consequence of a direct assault by open and avowed anti-libertarians. No, the steady decline of liberty among people who sincerely prefer liberty if given a choice is the unforeseen and unwanted by-product of something else.
Free societies are focused on protecting the rights of individuals, and have no obligation to the rights of markets. Markets don't have rights, only people do. Moreover, markets have impacts on lives and property (and liberty, too, when slavery is allowed to exist). While it is clear that a free society embraces notions of protecting property and thus must have some sense that a person can decide what to do with his or her property, it is by no means clear and self-evident that freedom means minimal government regulation of markets.
Americans have always defined true freedom as an environment in which one may resist evil and do what is right, noble, and good without fear of reprisal.
It is the presence of justice tempered with mercy. It is a rule of law based on fundamental moral truths that are easily understood and fairly and effectively administered. It offers individuals and families equal opportunity to better their lives morally, spiritually, intellectually, and economically.
Freedom, in other words, is neither a commodity for dictators to distribute and deny at will nor a moral, spiritual, or political vacuum in which anything goes. Freedom is a priceless treasure that the state is supposed to safeguard. Why? Because human beings have an intrinsic right to be free, a right that comes not from the state but from God. To the Founding Fathers, this was a "self-evident" truth. It is the essence of the American experiment in self-government.
So yes, I agree with the statement above said by ploitician Aldai Stevenson in 1952, "My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopluar." In a society you should be able to feel safe and unjudged by your surrounding peers. Yes, everyone has different opinions on life and the way things are done and said about in our country
today.