What do we make of the following sentence?
Freedom is about the willingness of every single human
being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion
about what you do.
Does this mean that freedom is about the willingness to not be free? Does it suggest that if one chooses to exercise freedom, then perhaps one has demonstrated that they are not worthy of freedom? Is authority an end in itself that precedes freedom? That has it's own merit apart from what it provides for the governed?
Perhaps Mr. Giuliani would deny that. He might suggest that freedom, properly considered, includes the willingness to curb one's behavior in certain ways that may be damaging to others, or to the permanent interests of the community. But though some of these restraints may be obvious (not raping, murdering or stealing), others may not (criticizing government, using intoxicants, getting a divorce or being homosexual, or Mormon). A key dilemma of government is determining what restraints are properly imposed by government, and where it needs to mind its own business. And since governmental decisions are sanctioned by majorities, this is akin to determining what a majority cannot do to a minority.
Madison seems prescient. It always comes down to the violence of majority coalitions and what can be done to protect the weaker party.
And what about this lawful authority? In a democracy, lawful authority rests with the people. The law enforcement apparatus, the bureaucratic organization that is the police department or any other entity given the ability to use physical force, is an expression of the consent of the people--the governed.
We should always be concerned when the interests of those organizations take a life of their own and their interests diverge from those of the people. This is what separates the authoritarian regime from the democratic. I trust that Mr. Giuliana understands the difference.
