Liberty for All: A Duty Beyond Belief

Liberty for All: A Duty Beyond Belief Scott M. Monroe October 11, 2023 Abstract This essay explores a foundational belief in American civic life: that liberty is not merely a personal right to be enjoyed but a shared inheritance that must be preserved for all. The moral and constitutional imperative to defend the freedoms of others, especially those with whom we disagree, forms the bedrock of a just republic. This belief is not modern invention but a principle deeply enshrined in the writings of the American Founders. Through their words and through a closer reflection on the duties of citizenship, this essay argues that selective liberty is not liberty at all, but a form of tyranny in disguise. I. Liberty as a Shared Inheritance Liberty is often discussed as an individual right, the freedom to speak, believe, worship, and live according to one’s conscience. This conception lies at the heart of the American tradition, where personal autonomy is seen as essential to human dignity and the pursuit of happiness. But liberty, while deeply personal, is not merely private. It is not a solitary possession we carry within ourselves like property. Liberty, in its truest form, is relational. It emerges, is exercised, and is sustained within a broader civic framework. A man alone in the wilderness may be free from restraint, but he is not truly free in the political sense unless he lives in a society where his rights are mutually recognized, respected, and protected. It follows, then, that liberty cannot exist in isolation from others. The moral and legal infrastructure that defends one person’s freedom must be the same infrastructure that defends another’s, even when that person is our ideological opposite. To claim liberty for ourselves while denying it to others is not to defend liberty, but to distort it into a tool of exclusion and dominance. It turns a universal principle into a partisan weapon. A society that preserves freedom only for the majority, or only for those who conform to a particular worldview, is not a free society at all. It is a managed society, one in which power, rather than principle, determines who may live freely and who may not (Mill, 1859). Such conditional liberty is inherently unstable. The moment we make freedom contingent on agreement, conformity, or cultural alignment, we subject it to the whims of the ruling class, the prevailing party, or the loudest crowd. What is granted conditionally can be revoked arbitrarily. This is the slippery slope from self-government to soft despotism; a condition in which people may vote, speak, and worship only within the narrow lanes approved by social consensus or state decree. In such a society, liberty becomes a privilege rather than a right, and the nation ceases to function as a republic in the classical sense (Tocqueville, 1835/2000). As citizens of the United States, we are not only entitled to enjoy liberty. We are entrusted with its protection. That duty is not passive, it is an active responsibility that requires courage, patience, and moral clarity. And it extends even, and especially, to those whose ideas, beliefs, or ways of life differ from our own. In fact, our commitment to liberty is proven not when we defend the rights of those we agree with, but when we defend the rights of those we profoundly disagree with. That is the crucible in which republican virtue is tested. Liberty cannot survive in a world where its protections are conditional. It thrives only when extended without prejudice, without favoritism, and without fear. It must be held as an indivisible good, if we begin to divide it, we begin to destroy it. II. The Founders and the Universality of Liberty This understanding of liberty as a universal and mutual right was deeply embedded in the political thought of the American Founders. James Madison, in Federalist No. 10, expressed grave concern over what he termed “factions”; groups of citizens united by a common interest or passion adverse to the rights of others or the permanent interests of the community (Madison, 1787/2003). He argued that the proper structure of a republic must prevent any single faction from dominating others. Madison’s emphasis was not only on guarding against tyranny of government but also tyranny of the majority. He believed liberty could only be sustained when diverse voices were allowed to coexist under equal protection of law. Thomas Jefferson similarly warned of the dangers of majority rule unchecked by respect for minority rights. In his First Inaugural Address of 1801, Jefferson affirmed that although the will of the majority must generally prevail in a republic, it must do so reasonably, with full protection of the minority’s equal rights. “To violate those rights,” he said, “would be oppression” (Jefferson, 1801/1984). For Jefferson, the legitimacy of government depended not on its popularity but on its commitment to universal justice. George Washington echoed these sentiments in his 1790 letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island. There, he wrote that the government of the United States “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance” (Washington, 1790/1983). His words underscored that American liberty was not reserved for any one religion or sect. It was a promise made to all people, regardless of creed, so that “everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.” These statements are not merely historical artifacts. They are moral guideposts, affirming that liberty is either shared or it is lost. The Founders did not envision a country where freedom was dispensed according to political fashion. They envisioned a republic built upon mutual respect and legal equality. III. The Duty of Citizenship Liberty, then, is not only a right to be enjoyed. It is a trust to be upheld. As inheritors of the American experiment, we bear a duty, not only to pursue happiness according to our own will, but to protect the conditions that make such a pursuit possible for others. This means resisting the temptation to silence dissent or to use political power to marginalize those whose values diverge from our own. The Founders understood this duty well. In a letter to Edward Carrington in 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter” (Jefferson, 1787/1984). Jefferson’s defense of the free press was not about protecting agreeable ideas, it was about protecting unpopular ones, so that liberty would not become the privilege of the few. James Madison offered a similar insight in his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785), where he argued that religion, like speech and conscience, must be guarded against state control, even if a majority favors such control. “The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man,” Madison wrote (Madison, 1785/2003). He made it clear that duty demands more than tolerance, it requires vigilant protection of the rights of others. George Washington, in his Farewell Address, advised that “the very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government” (Washington, 1796/1983). Yet this duty did not imply blind obedience; it implied a reciprocal obligation, to ensure that the government remained faithful to the principles of liberty and constitutional restraint. When liberty is threatened, silence becomes complicity. Our civic duty, therefore, is not passive. It requires engagement, vigilance, and empathy. It requires that we speak out when any group is denied their rightful freedoms, not because we share their beliefs, but because we share their humanity. IV. Tyranny in the Guise of Liberty The greatest threat to liberty is not always obvious. It can arrive clothed in patriotic language and appeals to tradition. It can seduce with calls to preserve order, protect values, or punish dissent. But when liberty is granted only to those who conform, and denied to those who do not, tyranny has already taken root. To claim liberty for oneself while denying it to another is to misunderstand what liberty is. It is not the comfort of hearing only ideas we agree with. It is the resilience of a society that allows all ideas to be spoken, lived, and debated without fear of repression. The true test of a free society is not how it treats the majority, but how it treats the dissenter. Conclusion Liberty is not a selective gift. It is a universal inheritance. To defend it only for those like ourselves is to betray its meaning. The Founders of the American Republic understood that freedom must be sustained by mutual forbearance and legal equality. They warned us against the tyranny of the majority, the suppression of conscience, and the seductions of power. As citizens, we must answer their call. We must be not only lovers of liberty but its stewards. That means protecting the rights of those whose beliefs diverge from our own. In doing so, we preserve the spirit of the republic, and ensure that liberty remains not the privilege of the powerful, but the birthright of all. References Jefferson, T. (1787/1984). Letter to Edward Carrington. In M. D. Peterson (Ed.), Thomas Jefferson: Writings (pp. 902–903). Library of America. Jefferson, T. (1801/1984). First Inaugural Address. In M. D. Peterson (Ed.), Thomas Jefferson: Writings (pp. 493–494). Library of America. Madison, J. (1785/2003). Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments. In J. Rakove (Ed.), James Madison: Writings (pp. 29–36). Library of America. Madison, J. (1787/2003). Federalist No. 10. I