The McDonald's Freedom Test
I’m confused. In the last few years thousands have died in the defense of ‘Freedom and Democracy’. America has decided that it is right to impose freedom on other people, whether they want it or not. Freedom is the defining principle of American civilization.
But now I’m confused by what the word ‘Freedom’ means. Other rather, what do the American People mean by ‘Freedom’.
So I’ve devised the McDonald’s Freedom Test. I’ve tried it out on all my friends, but I’m still confused.
Here is the test:
Three people walk in a McDonalds and study the menu. Two of the people decide that they want hamburgers. The third decides he wants a fish sandwich. What should they order?
Everyone thinks this is a silly question. Ignoring variations involving Biggie fries, thick milkshakes and various McThings, it’s obvious they should order two hamburgers and one fish sandwich.
The test is: Why isn’t the right answer to order three hamburgers? After all, the majority vote was for hamburgers, and we live in a democratic country. But nobody seems comfortable with the idea that the majority should rule for this decision. It’s obvious they should order what they want. No reason is proffered for why this is the right answer.
How much does the situation have to be changed to change the answer? When does the majority have a right to impose its opinion on the minority?
What if the meat-lovers are also fish-haters. They don’t like fish. They don’t like the taste. Should the fish-lover … the minority … by prevented from ordering fish because the majority not only want meat, but also actively dislike fish?
What if the meat-lovers believe that meat is necessary to meet their body building goals. They know that eating fish will not achieve their goals.
Perhaps the meat-lovers believe that meat is nutritionally better than fish. They know that the fish-lover should not eat fish because it’s not good for him.
Suppose the meat-lovers feel that fish are sacred and that idea of anyone eating fish offends them. Do they now have a right to prevent the fish-lover eating fish?
Suppose the meat-eaters consider that hamburgers are a fundamental part of their way for live. After all, aren’t hamburgers as American as Apple Pie?
What if the meat-eaters are the parents of the fish-eater, and the parents wish their child to be brought up to be like themselves. Not in that the child will have freedom of choice, like the parents do, but that the child will have what the parents choose. What if they are the parents of a different child, and the parents of the would-be fish-eater are themselves fish-eaters. Do the meat-eating parents get to impose their choice not only on their own child, but also on other parents’ children?
At what point does it become right for the majority to imposes is decision on the minority? For that matter, is there a point where it is right for the minority to impose its will on the majority? After all we have a president elected by a minority of the people; a president that chose to ignore the majority vote of the UN. Obviously democracy is more complicated than just the rule of the majority. I’m sure lots of dictators ruling pseudo-democracies will be glad to know that.
Nutrition experts tend to side with fish over meat. Does that empower fish-eaters to ban hamburgers and change the American Way Of Life?
What if the fish-lover feels that cows are sacred and finds offensive anyone eating part of a cow? Does the fish-lover now have the right to prevent the meat-lovers eating hamburgers? Or is desecration acceptable if the majority does it?
I have failed to shift anyone’s decision. Invariably they continue to feel that the three eaters should eat what they want to eat, giving no better reason than “they want to and they can”.
What about bigger decisions? Does Freedom mean a free choice of lunch but not a free choice of Life?
The majority of Americans prefer to pledge allegiance ‘under God’. The majority of Americans prefer heterosexual marriage partners to homosexual ones. I don’t have problem with that. But, apparently, they wish to impose their preferences on those that hold the opposite view. I don’t understand why.
The reasons proffered are the same as I tried in the McDonalds Freedom Test. It shall be so because the majority says so. The minority should be forced to do what the majority thinks is good for them. It’s my Way of Life. Heterosexual relations are better at producing children – which is undeniable – and their children should be raised to my choices.
Let’s apply the McDonalds Freedom test to a currently hot topic about how we live our lives: Gay marriages. The opinion poll sound bites tell us that the majority of Americans are against Gay marriages. That doesn’t really tell us everything. It seems that a significant majority chose heterosexual lifestyles and therefore would not create homosexual partnerships, and certainly not a gay marriage. I doubt they would recommend homosexual relations and I presume many actively dislike the idea. Some know that homosexual activity is bad for you. It is, most certainly, not very effective way of producing children, particularly children raised to believe that their purpose in life includes the production of yet more children.
So it is quite reasonable to expect the majority of Americans to vote “against” Gay Marriages. But that’s not the right question. The critical question is whether the fish-lovers should be prevented from eating fish and forced to eat meat.
Do the majority of Americans feel that they should exercise their freedom and power to grant freedom only to those that do what we would do; only to those that do we choose from them to do; only to those that do what we feel furthers our objectives; only to those that do as we tell them? “Freedom to do as you are told” is not freedom.
Are we no better than the tyrants of old? If the role of Democratic power is to impose a tyranny of the majority, is it any less of a tyranny? Do we actually mean to swear allegiance to “Liberty and Justice for all” or are we the World’s most powerful (and most dangerous) collection of hypocrites?
“Sacred” is a wonderful justification for Tyranny in the name of Freedom. A gay couple should not be allowed to use my sacred word “marriage”. Women should not be allowed into my sacred all-male college. And black people should not be allowed into my sacred lunch-counter or sit in my sacred bus. Indeed, I feel offended having to share my sacred country with “them”. (“Them” being any group I disagree with.)
“Sacred” is the road to irreconcilable conflict because it is insists that my freedom must overwhelm everyone else’s; I can only be free if everyone who disagrees with me is not.
The exercise of any freedom can impinge on others exercising their freedom. I cannot be free to breath clean air where you are free to smoke. I cannot be free to do anything with my gun, if you are to be free to live without fear of sudden random death. There are enough real conflicts between freedoms and enough work for a democratic government to arbitrate between them without global extension through claims through consecration.
So I appeal to everyone to apply the McDonalds Freedom Test to all issues of importance. Put aside your preference for meat or fish. Ask if it is possible for meat-lovers to eat meat while fish-lovers to eat fish. Seek ways to make it possible. Surrender your small freedoms so that everyone can enjoy large freedoms. Your freedom to exclusive ownership of a word that you choose to hold sacred is a small freedom to surrender in return for the freedom to choose your own lifestyle, sexual orientation, or partner, and what words you hold sacred. Rejoice in your freedom to do what you choose to do, and use what power you have to enable others to do the same – which means others also enjoy the freedom to do what they choose to do not to do what you choose for them.