This, for me, was the most powerful image depicting the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.
The Ziggy-like figure drawn here is der Deutsche Michel, a national self-portrait much like Uncle Sam is to the US. With no words, the cartoonist successfully foreshadows the central problem to the unification of Germany. Namely, there are two Deutsche Michel. And the suitcase to the right of the pair signifies that the Michel from the East plans on moving in with the Michel from the West. The day was triumphant, but problems lay ahead. It, however, was carried by a force stronger than any reason or doubts about what the future would bring.
Otto Graf Lambsdorff, FDP chairman, said of the fall (my translation),
The force of freedom is stronger than concrete and iron.
The German word freiheit and the English word freedom are closely related, sharing a common root in indoeuropean frijaz* and sharing cognates across the Germanic languages of Europe. Freedom (Freiheit) has strong roots in Germany, and these concepts stayed with the Angles and the Saxons as they settled England. It is, in fact, a very unique concept, completely unrelated and in some ways opposed to Latin and Greek notions of liberty and eleutheros which I will talk about later.
According to David Hackett Fischer in his book, Liberty and Freedom, (p. 5),
Free meant someone who was joined to a tribe of free people by ties of kinship and rights of belonging.
These tribes were ruled not by kings or chiefs, but by law. Freedom was viewed as a birthright, and with it came rights and responsibilities within the clan. The laws were recited before the highly critical clan members and disputes over points would be settled by calling in five legal experts to judge the matter. One 11th century historian wrote of Iceland, “there is no king but only law.” (Fisher, p. 6) Regardless of station, all were viewed as equal before this law. Most important in their conception, however, was the connectedness. The ultimate punishment for not adhering to the law of the clan was banishment.
A person was free because he belonged to the group. Freedom was closely associated with kinship ties and responsibility to fellow members as well as personal rights.
This is very much the sense of freedom meant in Otto Graf Lambsdorff’s statement above. There was a force behind the two nations coming together. Part of that strength originated from notions of rights and a desire to be free of the oppression of the GDR. Just as strong, however, were the kinship ties and and feelings of connectedness between the two Germanies. As the wall came down, a nation rejoiced and complete strangers embraced and shared toasts.
In this sense of the word, our freedom is an inherent birthright which cannot be taken away by men. It, however, stems from our belonging to a group of free people governed by law. Our connection to one another is as important as our rights. I think these concepts are also very applicable as we raise our children. As they grow and mature and desire more freedom, it is time to let them begin to experience what true freedom is: a combination of rights and responsibilities.
* an asterik following a word in linguistics signifies that the word is reconstructed from its “descendants.”
The cartoon is from a publication put out by the Federal Republic of Germany, and to my knowledge is in the public domain. The publication is Die Wende in der DDR from the Kontrovers series and is published by the Bundeszentrale fuer politische Bildung (July 1990).
Wes’ Corner shares some insights about rights and responsibilities in a more modern sense. (If you follow this link, some of the comments are aggressive.)
Principled Discovery is a place to stop and discuss news and information related to faith, family and particularly education. Pour yourself a cup of tea and join the conversation! 
You have chosen a hot topic, haven’t you, Dana. I will watch with interest and since I have your email address may make some comments off blog, as time permits. I do agree with what you say about the individual and the tribe. I think that is key. The individual is placed within a community. There can be tensions between the rights and responsibilities of the individual and the rights and responsibilities of the community - but that is the paradox. We have to hold the tensions while understanding the whole. You have said “It, however, stems from our belonging to a group of free people governed by law” and I think this is what we have found in the Tanakh (the Old Testament)and it is reflected, in some readings, in the New. God deals not only with the individual but within the extended family and within the community. This is why, when Christians fall into a personal piety type of religion which has happened time and again through the centuries and happens to-day, they go astray and their faith does not mature and does not reach out to others in a meaningful way. Christianity is a robust faith not a holy club and we live it as individuals in the context of community under the rules of the Kingdom.
Thank you, Miss Eagle. You eloquently touch on many issues I hope to delve into deeper as I continue. I found it interesting that most cultures had no words for the concept of liberty/freedom until they met the West…except for the Jews. Their notions of liberty, while slightly different, extend well into the past.
Dana: Quite a thought-provoking article. Even though our country was founded on the basis of “Rights and Responsibilities,” modern Americans seem to have drifted away from the “Responsibility” part.
We’ll scream like banshees if someone dares to infringe in the smallest way upon our rights, don’t we?
BUT:
Do we live our lives faithfully according to the law of the land, or do we take every opportunity to “slide by” on things, as long as no one is watching?
Do we pay our share of the taxes which enable our governments to provide for the common good, or would we rather pay a tax lawyer to get us out of as much of our assessment as he can?
And - here’s the biggie, in my opinion - Are the best among us willing to take on part of the RESPONSIBILITY of governing by running for public office, or do those with intelligence and faith and honor and integrity and a high moral code choose to stay in the private sector (which is their indisputable RIGHT), working only to improve conditions for themselves and their families and letting others less capable, less honest, less qualified, take on those jobs for personal gain and enrichment?
“Freedom,” like the Word of God, is a double-edged sword, and we tend to forget that.
I am looking forward to your next installment, Sister.
Diane!!!!! (Note the excitement that you took the time to stop by!)
This summarized perfectly for me some of the modern disparity:
“…Here was a New England vision of “publick liberty,” combined with “personal security, personal liberty and private property.” It was a combination of collective rights and individual responsibilities, very different from our modern ideas of collective responsibility and individual entitlement.” (Fisher, p. 22)
I agree with your assessment of our responsibilities in leadership…even in just the simple act of voting and conversing with friends and neighbors. It amazed me how much respect these Germanic peoples had for law (as violent and raucous as their meetings may have been) and how much each citizen knew of it. Most here could not recite 1/3 of the Constitution from memory (I certainly couldn’t) or even give an overview of its basic principles.
That is why it is so easily discarded in the dealings of our nation. We are not knowledgeable about our own law.
(an anonymous commentor left this on my other blog in reference to this, but it is very relavent so I thought I’d share it here, as well)
“I enjoyed your discussion.
My understanding of the word outlaw is that initially it meant someone who was outside the protection of the law. It didn’t mean someone who was a criminal. It meant that for what ever reason a person was no longer part of the group and entittled to the protection of the group.”
***
My thoughts:
Good observation and that does bring a good point to the discussion.
From the online etymological dictionary:
outlaw (n.)
O.E. utlaga “one put outside the law” (and thereby deprived of its benefits and protections), from O.N. utlagi (n.) “outlaw,” from utlagr (adj.) “outlawed, banished,” from ut “out” + *lagu, pl. of lag “law” (see law).
I believe one was put out of the protection of the law due to one’s disregard for it, but the law was viewed as a protection and part of being free. It was not viewed as something that inhibited.
Dana,
I find this interesting because just a few minutes ago I posted a column in my blog about Rights and Responsibilities (from a different angle than how you’ve written here) and I’ve just now come across your blog for the first time. I agree with your views on the sense of Rights and Responsibilities in an individualistic and a collective sense. Please feel free to visit my blog (http://wesmoses.blogspot.com/ ) when you can and post your comments.
Thanks,
Wes
Wes, thank you for adding this to the discussion. I’ll add your link to the entry.
Re; Ladygilligan and her quote;
“Do we pay our share of the taxes which enable our governments to provide for the common good, or would we rather pay a tax lawyer to get us out of as much of our assessment as he can?”
It is to protect our freedom and liberty that I would hire a tax lawyer and avoid paying taxes as much as possible.
Freedom and liberty does not come from supporting government in order for government to support it’s population. It is the tendency of government to gain, increase and then abuse that power against it’s populace. This is why George Bush’s Faith Based initative is a entry point for government into the church to bring about complete enslavement, a connection of chruch and state everyone is so concerned about.
Disagree? Take a look at the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto, with a short counterpoint of how this system has crept into our nation destroying any idea of freedom and liberty. Notice the abundance of taxation:
1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.
The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State “income” taxes. We call it “paying your fair share”.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance
We call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels
We call in government seizures, tax liens, Public “law” 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of “terrorists” and those who speak out or write against the “government” (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
We call it the Federal Reserve which is a credit/debt system nationally organized by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). This private bank has an exclusive monopoly in money creation which in reality has ended the need for revenue from taxes. So why do they tax? To FOOL YOU into thinking they need them.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State
We call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) madated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver’s licenses and Department of Transportation regulations. There is also the postal monopoly, AMTRACK and CONRAIL
7. Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
We call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.
8. Equal liablity of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two “income” family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920’s, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000. And I almost forgot…The Equal Rights Amendment means that women should do all work that men do including the military and since passage it would make women subject to the draft.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
We call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public “law” 89-136.
10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.
People are being taxed to support what we call ‘public’ schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based “Education” .
Remember, it is not the government who should look out for the common good of man. I’ll let you search the scriptures to find who is resposible for the caring of the widow, orphan and the stranger in your land.
Well, “Anonymous,” I don’t have the time to read your communist manifesto, but I can say this:
If a burglar breaks into your home, do you want to be able to look to the police department for help?
If your house catches fire, will you be calling the fire department to put it out?
Would you like your garbage picked up from time to time, or would you rather it just built up at the curb?
When the police catch your burglar, do you want them to put him in jail or would you be content for him to roam the streets looking for someone else to rob?
If you yourself should be wrongly accused of a crime, would you like there to be a courthouse, a judge, and a jury to rely on to find the truth? Or would it be better to just let the mob string you up?
Taxes are no fun, I’ll agree to that. And taxes are not supposed to be for lining the pockets of unprincipled politicians (see my other post regarding honorable people running for office instead of letting the crooks and scoundrels take control) - their purpose in a DEMOCRACY is to provide for the common good: Services like police, firefighters, courts, and on and on and on — services you yourself rely on every day of your life and take for granted are provided for out of tax revenue.
It doesn’t all go to those lazy, worthless welfare mothers who get themselves pregnant every nine months in order to get more money out of the system.
Before anyone jumps on me here, I’m being facetious and sarcastic. Dana, you must be laughing, because you and I both understand about facetiousness and sarcasm!
ladygilligan; you should take the time to read the communist manifesto for it rightly depicts the situation this country is in.
Such idealistic items as you then mentioned play to the emotions / feelings of a situation to bypass the intellectual agruement.
1. If a burglar breaks into your home, do you want to be able to look to the police department for help?
*No I do not want to look at the police for help. I want the government to stop using my taxes for their gun control (removing weapons from citizens). Then I could use my gun control and hit my target as they step into my house. I believe I hear the sound of crime going down.
2. If your house catches fire, will you be calling the fire department to put it out?
*No, a volunteer fire deaprtment is good enough. In a nation independent of government I’ld expect the community to assist since we are talking of group responsibility.
Freedom was viewed as a birthright, and with it came rights and responsibilities within the clan.
3. Would you like your garbage picked up from time to time, or would you rather it just built up at the curb?
*No actually I don’t want the government picking up my trash. The private firm that bid and won the contract to haul my garbage is sufficient.
4. When the police catch your burglar, do you want them to put him in jail or would you be content for him to roam the streets looking for someone else to rob?
*These tribes were ruled not by kings or chiefs, but by law. Freedom was viewed as a birthright, and with it came rights and responsibilities within the clan. The laws were recited before the highly critical clan members and disputes over points would be settled by calling in five legal experts to judge the matter.
5. If you yourself should be wrongly accused of a crime, would you like there to be a courthouse, a judge, and a jury to rely on to find the truth? Or would it be better to just let the mob string you up?
*These tribes were ruled not by kings or chiefs, but by law. Freedom was viewed as a birthright, and with it came rights and responsibilities within the clan. The laws were recited before the highly critical clan members and disputes over points would be settled by calling in five legal experts to judge the matter.
6. Taxes are no fun, I’ll agree to that. And taxes are not supposed to be for lining the pockets of unprincipled politicians (see my other post regarding honorable people running for office instead of letting the crooks and scoundrels take control) - their purpose in a DEMOCRACY is to provide for the common good: Services like police, firefighters, courts, and on and on and on — services you yourself rely on every day of your life and take for granted are provided for out of tax revenue.
*And finally here’s the squexxe. You do not live in a DEMOCRACY. You live in a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. Read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and then reply to this:
In the early 1800’s Congress was considering
a bill to appropriate tax dollars for the widow
of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful
speeches had been made in support of this
bill. It seemed that everyone in the House
favored it. The Speaker of the House was just
about to put the question to a vote, when
Davy Crockett, famous frontiersman and then
Congressman from Tennessee, rose to his feet.
“Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the
memory of the deceased and as much sympathy
for the suffering of the living as any man in
this House, but we must not permit our respect
for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the
living to lead us into an act of injustice to the
balance of the living. I will not go into an
argument to prove that Congress has no power
to appropriate this money as an act of charity.
Every member upon this floor knows it. We
have the right, as individuals to give away as
much of our own money as we please in
charity, but as members of Congress we have
no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public
money. Some eloquent appeals have been made
to us upon the ground that it is a debt due
the deceased. Sir, this is no debt. We cannot
without the grossest corruption, appropriate
this money as the payment of a debt. We have
not the semblance of authority to appropriate
it as a charity. I cannot vote for this bill, but
I will give one week’s pay, and if every member
of Congress will do the same, it will amount
to more than the bill asks.”
There was silence on the floor of the House
as Crockett took his seat. When the bill was put
to a vote, instead of passing unanimously as
had been expected, it received only a few votes.
The next day a friend approached Crockett
and asked why he spoken against a bill for
such a worthy cause. In reply, Crockett related
the following story:
Just a few years before, he had voted to spend
$20,000.00 of public money to help the victims
of a terrible fire in Georgetown. When the
legislative session was over, Crockett made a
trip back home to do some campaigning for his
re-election. In his travels he encountered one of
his constituents, a man by the name of Horatio
Bunce. Mr. Bunce bluntly informed Crockett,
“I voted for you the last time. I shall not vote
for you again.”
Crockett, feeling he had served his constituents
well, was stunned. He inquired as to what he
had done to so offend Mr. Bunce.
Bunce replied, “You gave a vote last winter
which shows that either you have not capacity
to understand the Constitution, or that you are
wanting in the honesty and firmness to be
guided by it. The Constitution, to be worth
anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly
observed in all its provisions.”
“I take the papers from Washington and read
very carefully all the proceedings of Congress.
My papers say that last winter you voted for a
bill to appropriate $20,000.00 to some sufferers
by a fire. Well, Colonel, where do you find in
the Constitution any authority to give away public
money in charity? No Colonel, Congress has no
right to give charity. Individual members may
give as much of their own money as they
please, but they have no right to touch a dollar
of the public money for that purpose.”
“The people have delegated to Congress, by
the Constitution, the power to do certain things.
To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay
moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond
this is usurpation, and a violation of the
Constitution. You have violated the Constitution
in what I consider to be a vital point. It is a
precedent fraught with danger to the country, for
when Congress once begins to stretch its power
beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is
no limit to it, and no security for the People.”
“I could not answer him,” said Crockett. “I was so
fully convinced that he was right.” I said to him,
“Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head
when you said I had not sense enough to understand
the Constitution. If you will forgive me
and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another
unconstitutional law, I wish I may be shot.”
After finishing the story, Crockett said, “Now sir,
you know why I made that speech yesterday.
There is one thing now to which I will call your
attention. You remember that I proposed to give
a weeks pay? There are in that House many very
wealthy men, men who think nothing of spending
a weeks pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner
or a wine party when they have something to
accomplish by it. Some of these same men made
beautiful speeches upon the debt of gratitude
which the country owed the deceased, yet not
one of them responded to my proposition.
Money with them is nothing but trash when it
is to come out of the people. But it is the one
great thing for which most of them are striving,
and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity,
and justice to obtain it.”
Um, Anonymous, I think you need a blog of your own : )
Excellent points from both of you. Tapping into my personal philosophy of government. When do we need external government? When self-government breaks down. That is why I chose the quote I did for my profile…the greatness of America is in the character of its people and we must first seek to restore that or external government will only increase.
For the life of me I cannot understand why anyone with as much valuable input as the person who left the informatiotn regarding Davy Crockett’s understanding of Public Monies and the abuse of Congress in how it is spent; why would they remain annonymous? In any event, my thanks for the information; it should be mandatory reading for members of any elected position.