I disagree on a minor point with the diagram Palmer lays out on the top of pg. 248. He succinctly says "freedom through" and goes on to say that an educational system or highway system enables us the freedom to learn and travel. I think he should have finished the sentence and said "enables the 'convenience'" Those items do not offer up freedom; rather they offer up convenient ends, for we all know that travel and learning existed long before those items existed. Therefore, my own conclusion is that he may have forgotten to think ahead on that single example. What's everyone else think?
Second topic would be at the end of the ultimate concept of freedom on pg. 249. I maintain the idea that freedom is a vague term, and in that, cannot and should not be defended. Either one has absolute freedom, such as that of the underground man, or no freedom at all. And how can an intangible item such as will (or free will) be guarded so closely by a tangible force such as ourselves? Ex:
Statement A - The military defends freedom.
+
Statement B - Traditional view of freedom is the choice to do what you want, when you want, how you want.
=
Statement C - The military reserves the right to let you run nilly willy and do what you like. (extreme example, i know)
Now, of course the obvious rebuttal to this is 'hogwash'. Well said. ;) There's choices one must make within this freedom while being under duress of law, and therefore that entails a confinement, i.e. not freedom. There are also expectations (or rather, the 'putting' on of desires, the pursuit of happiness as it were) such as going to school and graduating, getting a job, paying taxes, buying cars and houses, etc. Again, this is not freedom to have those sorts of desires or expectations put on oneself by another. Freedom, even in this loose sense, would be to have one create their own desires and wishes, and then go about pursuing them. No obligations; no regrets.
Conclusively, it should be easy to see how an entity such as the military cannot provide and then attempt to defend freedom. What they really defend (imo of course) is the way of life that we have as Americans. A system of Western civilization. Which brings us full circle back to the idea that maybe some people don't think a 'box of freedom' is enough, they want total freedom such as described by the underground man. Unfortunately, I don't know of any terrestrial state that offers such freedom. All cultures provide us with a sense of shoulds, can and cannots, and other assorted phrases dealing with free will. And in that, Doystevsky was right: "We are all condemned to be free".
We have the choice to stick by those conventions or throw them out the window and pick new ones, or pick nothing. Sartre is also correct at this juncture, when he says "all we have is choice". We can abide by law and tradition or choose not to, or choose to to form new tradition. But either way, we choose. The military cannot defend our right to choose, nor can it defend to the freedom to choose. We choose regardless and that freedom is innate, not a hand-me-down from the State.