independence and freedom

Merriam-Webster online defines independence as “the quality or state of being independent.”

Rolls eyes loudly.

I hate it when the dictionary uses the word itself to define the word. Like that helps.

(Also, ignore the fact that rolling eyes make no noise.)

(Also, note Merriam-Webster.com says “Since 1828.” I don’t think the internet has been around that long.)

Moving on…

One definition of independence is “showing a desire for freedom.”

Freedom, per the same source, has some interesting definitions, including:

1: the quality or state of being free: such as

a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action

b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : INDEPENDENCE

c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous

freedom from care

d : unrestricted use

gave him the freedom of their home

e : EASE, FACILITY

spoke the language with freedom

f : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken

answered with freedom

g : improper familiarity

h : boldness of conception or execution

(Let’s ignore the fact that Merriam-Webster defined freedom as “being free.” FFS!)

My point:

I normally think of (a) to (e) when I think about freedom. I think of being unrestricted, being able to move or act with ease and without any constraints, of not having restraints. These all feel like basically the same thing and defining the term by using the term, but freedom has such a strong feeling associated with it that I think we can get away with it.

But today I’m thinking about the definitions in (f), (g), and (h), because those aren’t ones I usually associate with the word freedom.

I watched Hamilton last night and realized (or remembered or connected in my brain anew) how the US is founded on a bunch of outspoken individuals with opinions. Individuals with a common quality of being frank, bold, and outspoken. Who probably acted with improper familiarity—the 18th Century version of the Fonz. Individuals who had ideas that were bold in conception and execution. Hamilton focuses on a few individuals who didn’t do what they were supposed to and who didn’t listen to the fabulously sassy king of England. Individuals who created a country with a new constitution.

Sure, there are real-life historical problems with how, oh, anyone who wasn’t a white male didn’t get all the same rights and how we’re still dealing with that fallout.

But setting that very important detail aside, the constitution is a pretty good document, premised on being able to do the first five definitions, but still have cohesion and some basic government.

The best class I ever took was a year-long constitutional law class. We spent a week discussing why we even have a constitution to begin with.

I normally think that we have a basic governing document in part to ensure our ability to do (a) through (e).

Today, I’m thinking about it differently.

I want to focus on being bold and outspoken. About being improperly familiar. About conceiving bold ideas and executing them.

About exploring all the facets of freedom.