losing freedom essay

• Student Opportunities

About Hoover

Located on the campus of Stanford University and in Washington, DC, the Hoover Institution is the nation’s preeminent research center dedicated to generating policy ideas that promote economic prosperity, national security, and democratic governance. 

• The Hoover Story
• Hoover Timeline & History
• Mission Statement
• Vision of the Institution Today
• Key Focus Areas
• About our Fellows
• Research Programs
• Annual Reports
• Hoover in DC
• Fellowship Opportunities
• Visit Hoover
• David and Joan Traitel Building & Rental Information
• Newsletter Subscriptions
• Connect With Us

Hoover scholars form the Institution’s core and create breakthrough ideas aligned with our mission and ideals. What sets Hoover apart from all other policy organizations is its status as a center of scholarly excellence, its locus as a forum of scholarly discussion of public policy, and its ability to bring the conclusions of this scholarship to a public audience.

• Scott Atlas
• Thomas Sargent
• Stephen Kotkin
• Michael McConnell
• Morris P. Fiorina
• John F. Cogan
• China's Global Sharp Power Project
• Economic Policy Group
• History Working Group
• Hoover Education Success Initiative
• National Security Task Force
• National Security, Technology & Law Working Group
• Middle East and the Islamic World Working Group
• Military History/Contemporary Conflict Working Group
• Renewing Indigenous Economies Project
• State & Local Governance
• Strengthening US-India Relations
• Technology, Economics, and Governance Working Group
• Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region

Books by Hoover Fellows

Economics Working Papers

Hoover Education Success Initiative | The Papers

• Hoover Fellows Program
• National Fellows Program
• Student Fellowship Program
• Veteran Fellowship Program
• Congressional Fellowship Program
• Media Fellowship Program
• Silas Palmer Fellowship
• Economic Fellowship Program

Throughout our over one-hundred-year history, our work has directly led to policies that have produced greater freedom, democracy, and opportunity in the United States and the world.

• Determining America’s Role in the World
• Answering Challenges to Advanced Economies
• Empowering State and Local Governance
• Revitalizing History
• Confronting and Competing with China
• Revitalizing American Institutions
• Reforming K-12 Education
• Understanding Public Opinion
• Understanding the Effects of Technology on Economics and Governance
• Energy & Environment
• Health Care
• Immigration
• International Affairs
• Key Countries / Regions
• Law & Policy
• Politics & Public Opinion
• Science & Technology
• Security & Defense
• State & Local
• Books by Fellows
• Published Works by Fellows
• Working Papers
• Congressional Testimony
• Hoover Press
• PERIODICALS
• The Caravan
• China's Global Sharp Power
• Economic Policy
• History Lab
• Hoover Education
• Global Policy & Strategy
• National Security, Technology & Law
• Middle East and the Islamic World
• Military History & Contemporary Conflict
• Renewing Indigenous Economies
• State and Local Governance
• Technology, Economics, and Governance

Hoover scholars offer analysis of current policy challenges and provide solutions on how America can advance freedom, peace, and prosperity.

• China Global Sharp Power Weekly Alert
• Email newsletters
• Hoover Daily Report
• Subscription to Email Alerts
• Periodicals
• California on Your Mind
• Defining Ideas
• Hoover Digest
• Video Series
• Uncommon Knowledge
• Battlegrounds
• GoodFellows
• Hoover Events
• Capital Conversations
• Hoover Book Club
• AUDIO PODCASTS
• Matters of Policy & Politics
• Economics, Applied
• Free Speech Unmuted
• Secrets of Statecraft
• Pacific Century
• Libertarian
• Library & Archives

Support Hoover

Learn more about joining the community of supporters and scholars working together to advance Hoover’s mission and values.

What is MyHoover?

MyHoover delivers a personalized experience at  Hoover.org . In a few easy steps, create an account and receive the most recent analysis from Hoover fellows tailored to your specific policy interests.

Watch this video for an overview of MyHoover.

Log In to MyHoover

Forgot Password

Don't have an account? Sign up

Have questions? Contact us

• Support the Mission of the Hoover Institution
• Subscribe to the Hoover Daily Report
• Follow Hoover on Social Media

Make a Gift

Your gift helps advance ideas that promote a free society.

• About Hoover Institution
• Meet Our Fellows
• Focus Areas
• Research Teams
• Library & Archives

Library & archives

Events, news & press.

The Fragility Of Freedom

The periods and places in which there has been something approaching a free society have been few and far between.

Editor’s note: This essay is an excerpt of the new Hoover Press book  Milton Friedman on Freedom , edited by Robert Leeson and Charles G. Palm. This essay by Friedman originally appeared in Encounter magazine in 1976.

Those of us who have been fortunate enough to be born in the United States in the twentieth century naturally take freedom for granted: it seems to us that a relatively free society is the natural state of mankind. But that is a great misconception. Freedom is very far from being the natural state of mankind; on the contrary, it is an extraordinarily unusual situation. If one looks back through history, in any place on the globe, one finds that the natural state of mankind in most periods in history has been tyranny and misery. If one looks over the globe geographically at any point in time, one finds that most of the people in the world were living in a state of tyranny and misery.

The periods and places in which there has been something approaching a free society have been few and far between. There was a small example in the 5th century, B.C., on the Peloponnesian peninsula, in Athens; but that was only a partly free society. It was a society that was free for the citizens of Athens, but not for the slaves who also inhabited the city. There is a brief spurt of freedom during the Renaissance in the Middle Ages. The most extended period of freedom has been the period in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries in Western Europe and the United States. Yet look at how fragile that freedom has been. The countries in the world that have been able to maintain during that period something roughly approaching a free society are few in number. They consist almost entirely of the English-speaking and Scandinavian countries.

This fragility of freedom was brought home to me dramatically last year when I spent a week in a small South American country. I was in Chile as part of a group that was examining and considering the economic problems which Chile was then -facing—problems that we are likely to have in our future (I hope in a very distant future). They were problems that were epitomized by the fact that they had managed after great effort to bring the rate of inflation down from 900 percent a year to 400 percent a year.

Chile, of course, is very different; it is, for one thing, a very much poorer country than the United States. Yet the history of Chile is highly relevant to our present situation and our future problems. Of all the South American countries, Chile had about the longest history of a reasonable degree of democratic government and a reasonably free society, a history which dates back to the nineteenth century.

The present problems in Chile, which has lost its freedom and which today is governed by an authoritarian regime, had their origin in my opinion, some fifty or sixty years ago. Chile was not only one of the countries in South America that had the longest history of liberty and political democracy, but it was also one of the earliest countries in South America to institute a welfare state and welfare state measures. I was surprised to find in reading about Chile that, like Great Britain, the class of measures that we today associate with welfare statism, the New Deal, and the Fair Deal got their start in Chile about 1906, 1907, or 1908, at about the same time that they started in Westminster.

The present state of Chile, in my opinion, is the end result of an expansion in the role of government over the lives of people. The important thing about that development—and the main lesson I am going to try to elaborate in this article—is that the measures that led to that result were introduced by good people for good objectives. The measures that led to Chile’s crisis were not bad measures that were taken by bad people with the aim of grinding the poor under their heels. On the contrary, the problems of Chile derived from the attempt to use the state and the political mechanism to achieve high-minded objectives. That development led to an increasing expansion in the role of the state in the society, and it led to an increasing accumulation of legislation in which the government controlled what people could and could not do. The obvious numerical counterpart of this was an increase in government spending until, by the time Salvadore Allende came to power in Chile, government spending had reached something like 40 percent of the national income.

Since Chile was a poor country, it was difficult to impose explicit taxes to generate revenues of 40 percent of national income. As a result, taxes were imposed indirectly in the form of inflation. There is a great misconception about what happened. Allende, who produced the great confrontation and was clearly seeking to turn Chile into a communist state, was only carrying out the laws that had already been enacted by his predecessors. He introduced very little that was radically different. He just continued in the same direction that policy had been proceeding, ever more rapidly, during the past thirty to forty years. However, the end result was the tipping point at which the willingness of the public to put up with increasing involvement in their lives was exceeded. There was first, the Allende régime with its threat of a left-wing dictatorship, and then a counterrevolution with the military taking over and a military junta being established, which also is very far indeed from a free society. It, too, is an authoritarian society that denies the liberties and freedoms of the people in the sense in which Anglo-Saxon democrats conceive of them.

Lest you think that this tale of the history of Chile need not concern us, let me ask you to consider a case much closer. Cast your eyes across the Atlantic to the home of most of the ideas of freedom that we cherish—to the United Kingdom (UK). Britain is a much richer country than Chile. It has a far stronger tradition of a belief in freedom and in democratic rights. Yet the UK is going down the same path as Chile and, I fear, is headed for the same end. It is almost impossible for any one of us brought up in the great traditions emanating from Great Britain—the noble tradition of freedom and of democratic rights starting with the Magna Carta and coming down through the whole list of famous Englishmen who have written and taught us about free -institutions—it is almost impossible for anyone brought up in that tradition to utter the words that Britain is in danger of losing freedom and democracy; and yet it is a fact! I was lecturing in England a year or so ago, and it was precisely because I had spent some time in the British Isles and had seen what was happening there that I was so much reminded in Chile this spring that I was seeing the same scene over again. It was like a continuous movie, and this was where I came in. Or maybe I should say this was where I went out.

About the same time as Chile, Great Britain started on the welfare state line. In 1913, a great English constitutional lawyer, A. V. Dicey, added a new preface to a second edition of a series of lectures he had given in America at the turn of the century under the title Relation between Law and Public Opinion in the Nineteenth Century. In this preface, referring to the measures that Britain had already taken by 1913, particularly in the area of old-age benefits and of the treatment of people in institutions, he said, “This is a road on which no reasonable man can refuse to enter, but once entered nobody can tell where it is going to lead.”

That was an extraordinarily prescient prediction of what was in store for Britain because the role of the government has, from that point to this, expanded until today (again by that simple numerical measure that I used) total government spending in Great Britain (central and local) amounts to some 60 percent of the national income.

And yet there is enormous pressure for still more government spending. Nobody is satisfied; everybody is dissatisfied. Society is being polarized. It is hard to see how Britain can avoid the fate that Chile experienced. Lest I seem singularly alarmist, I can also cite Eric Sevareid, who in one of his broadcast commentaries over the network after a visit to Britain, made exactly this analogy (“Britain is on the verge of the Allende period of Chile”). I fear very much that the odds are at least 50–50 that within the next five years British freedom and democracy, as we have seen it, will be destroyed.

But, again, I need not go that far away. Let me come closer to home. Consider at the moment New York City.

New York City displays precisely the same trends as Chile and the United Kingdom. New York City has the dubious distinction of having the most welfare-state-oriented electorate in the country. It has been following the same policy of ever-growing governmental involvement in the affairs of its citizens, and the result has been exactly the same. Wherever this path has been followed, whether in Chile or in the UK or in New York, it has two consequences. The first is financial crisis. That clearly characterized the situation in Chile. That clearly characterizes the situation in the UK where the rate of inflation reached something over 25 percent; where the government budget is enormously in deficit; where Britain is able to survive primarily by borrowing from overseas. Similarly in New York, the first effect—financial crisis—is obvious.

The second effect is less obvious. This path leads not only to financial crisis but also to a loss of liberty and freedom, and New York City has lost its liberty and freedom. New York City is no longer being governed by the citizens of New York City or by people elected by the citizens of New York City. It is now being governed by a committee of overseers appointed by the State of New York with power to overrule the elected officials of the City of New York. This loss of self-government and freedom has been concealed by the shift of power from one democratic institution, the City of New York, to another democratic institution, the State of New York. But the principle is the same: financial crisis leads to a loss of self-government. There is only one important difference between New York City, on the one hand, and Chile or the United Kingdom on the other, and that is that New York City does not have one of those printing presses on which you can turn out green pieces of paper that people call money. It cannot issue its own money. Chile and Britain could issue their own money, and therefore the financial crisis took the form of inflation, whereas in New York it degenerated more promptly to bankruptcy.

Let me come still closer to home. For the period from the founding of this country to 1929, leaving aside periods of major wars such as the Civil War and the First World War and the Revolution, total government spending in the United States (federal, state, and local) never exceeded 10 percent of the income of the people. State and local expenditure (more immediately subject to the control of the citizenry) was twice as large during that period as federal government expenditure. Total federal government expenditure in 1929 was 3 percent of the national income. In the forty-five years since, total governmental expenditures have risen to 40 percent of the national income in the United States, and federal government spending is twice as much as state and local spending. Federal spending today is something like 25 percent of the national income, or roughly ten times as large as it was in 1929.

I submit that we have been moving in the same direction as Chile and Britain and New York and that we have been experiencing signs of financial crisis: the emergence of inflation at a higher and higher rate. We have also been experiencing the second effect: the loss of freedom.

People always talk as if the problem is in the future, as if the problem is that individual freedom is threatened by the encroaching control of our lives by the state. It is not merely the future, however, it is the present; for freedom has already been greatly reduced in many dimensions. After all, the spending of 40 percent of our income for us by government is a restriction on our freedom. We have nothing to say about that 40 percent except through the political process (to which I will come in a moment). But put aside the question of income. Go to those more fundamental freedoms of speech, of belief, of personal behavior, for they, too, have been severely restricted. Consider for a moment the simple question of freedom of speech. Let me ask this: How often does one read in the papers any statement on public issues by a major businessman or industrialist except where it immediately concerns his own enterprise?

A little over a year ago, President Ford constructed a program, hastily buried shortly thereafter, the WIN Program (for Whip Inflation Now). Now it was a program that had some good things and some bad things, but taken as a whole it was a pretty silly program. Yet one can search every newspaper in the United States without finding a single major businessman who made a public statement against that program. Why? Was it because they agreed with it? It is inconceivable; at least it is inconceivable that they unanimously agreed with it. Surely there was some businessman who didn’t.

However, a businessman at the head of a great corporation thinks three times before he speaks out on a major public issue. He looks over his left shoulder and sees the Internal Revenue Service getting ready to come and audit his accounts, and he looks over his right shoulder and sees the Department of Justice standing only too ready to launch an antitrust suit against him. And then, if he has more shoulders than two, he asks what the Federal Trade Commission is going to do about his advertising; and what the Food and Drug Administration is going to do about the products he produces; and what is the Safety Council going to do about this, that, and the other thing? You are not free to speak if you are in that position.

Let me get even closer to home. Let me get to my own area: the academy. Is the scholar free to speak? I ask myself whether the professors who teach medicine at any American medical school in this country, most of whose research is being financed by the National Institutes of Health, whether they really feel free to speak out against socialized medicine and against further involvement of the government in medicine. Some of them obviously will. But is there the slightest doubt, to use those famous words of the Supreme Court, that their dependence for the major source of their financing on the federal government has a “chilling effect” on the freedom of speech? About the only people who now have full freedom of speech are people in the fortunate position that I am in: a tenured professor at a major private academic institution on the verge of retirement.

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in Washington seeks to impose on educational institution requirements that, in my opinion, would interfere severely and seriously with scholarly performance. Every academic institution in the United States is threatened in exactly the same way. If it were not so serious, it would be humorous because there is no group in this country that has done more to bring this upon themselves than the academic community. We have been in the forefront in persuading the public at large that the doctrine of individual responsibility is a false doctrine; that the source of all good things is Big Brother in Washington. We only complain when it comes home and hits us.

Let me move from description to analysis. What is the explanation? Why does the attempt to use the political market to achieve noble objectives go awry and destroy our freedom? Why does it happen? In the simplest form, the fundamental fallacy of the welfare state that leads to both financial crisis and the destruction of freedom is the attempt to do good at somebody else’s expense. That is the fundament fallacy. First, nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. That is why trying to do good at someone else’s expense leads to financial crisis.

Second, if you are going to do good at somebody else’s expense, you have to take the money away from him. So force, coercion, destruction of freedom is at the very bottom, at the very source, of the attempts to do good at somebody else’s expense. Some years ago, in an article published in the New York Times Magazine, John Kenneth Galbraith said that there was no problem in New York City that would not be solved if the city government’s budget was doubled. In the interim the city government’s budget has been quadrupled and so have the problems. And the reason is straightforward. While the city government had more to spend, the citizens had less to spend because the government can only get the money by taking it away from somebody else.

More fundamentally, what is at the base of our problem is the failure to recognize the distinction between the political market, on the one hand, and the economic market, on the other. This distinction, which I would like to develop, is one that can be expressed in various terms—my professional background leads me to put it in economic terms. The political system is a marketplace; the economic system is a marketplace. These are two different kinds of market mechanisms, and they have very different consequences. Though it may seem a paradox, the economic market is a freer, more democratic market than the political marketplace.

Let me at the outset put to one side a false distinction between the two markets. We tend to be misled by words. Because we speak of a person in the economic market as having a private enterprise, we think of him as serving his private interest. Because we speak of a government bureaucrat as being a public servant, we speak of him as serving the public interest. But that is an utterly false distinction. Almost every individual serves his own private interest: that interest need not be pecuniary; it need not be narrowly physical or material. The great saints of history have served their private interest just as the most money--grubbing miser has served his private interest. The private interest is whatever it is that drives an individual. A government bureaucrat is seeking to serve his private interest just as much as you or I or the ordinary businessman. To make this point in an extreme form, compare the manager of a Russian factory who is a public servant and the manager of an American factory who is supposedly a private employee. They both are serving their self-interest; the only difference is that the actions that will serve their self--interest are different. The American manager has to worry about getting fired; the Soviet manager has to worry about getting fired at! And that makes a big difference in what is actually in each man’s self-interest.

In exactly the same way, the bureaucrats at Health, Education, and Welfare in Washington who are trying to extend their control and impose regulations on universities and colleges throughout the land are serving their private interest. They may believe thoroughly in what they are doing, but they are nonetheless serving their private interest in seeking to extend the scope of their power, importance, and influence. It is a myth that there is a difference between the motives of the people who are employed in government and the people who are employed in the private sector. That is equally true of those who are competing for votes; for the legislators are competing one with another, competing for votes, and it is in their private interest to do those things that will get them enough votes to get elected.

A second myth about the political market is that, as opposed to the economic market in which individuals vote with dollars, in the political market there is one-person/one-vote. That is true on a formal level, but it is obviously false on a realistic level. It is a system in which there is highly weighted voting, in which some people have an enormously greater influence on the political outcome than others. This is obvious in all sorts of ways; one need only take the most dramatic example at the moment. We have a great dispute in this country about “forced busing.” Whatever may be said for or against it, there is not the slightest doubt that 80–90 percent of both whites and blacks in this country are opposed to forced busing. Yet we have it, and we are going to continue to have it. How can one explain that on the basis of one-person/one-vote?

There is a highly weighted voting system, and an analysis of the political market must investigate why it exists. Is the problem with the political market that there are “wicked people”? No, the individuals who operate in the political market are just as wicked or just as noble as the individuals who operate in the economic market. They are the same people. The difference is the structure of the market. It is that the political market is a system under which all decisions have to be yes or no.

The fundamental difference between the political market and the economic market is that in the political market there is very little relation between what you vote for and what you get. In the economic market you get what you vote for. Let me give you a very trivial example of the kind of thing that I have in mind.

Let us suppose the question at issue is whether neckties should be red or green. If that is going to be decided by a political mechanism, everybody votes. If 51 percent of the people vote that ties shall be red, 100 percent of the people get red neckties. In the economic market each one of us goes to the shopping center separately. If 51 percent of the people vote that ties shall be red, 51 percent get red neckties and 49 percent get green neckties. Everybody gets what he votes for—and this is a fundamental difference between the two markets.

There are some things for which the vote has to be yes or no:  things that are the appropriate function and role of government. There is no way in which 51 percent of the people in the United States can be at war in Vietnam and 49 percent of the people can be not at war—that is precisely the kind of a decision that has to be decided through a mechanism which permits a yes/no vote. The problem is that we have extended the political market beyond things of that kind and to the kind of things where it is possible for each person to get what he votes for, where we do not have to have a yes or no decision. If you have a yes or no decision, then there is almost always a very loose or no relation between your vote and the result. As a consequence, you do not in general have any incentive to examine thoroughly the issue you vote on, that is, to vote intelligently. In the political market this phenomenon leads to weighted voting in favor of special interests and opposed to the general interest. If I have some piece of legislation that is going to benefit a small group a great deal, the members of that small group have a real incentive to learn about the issue, to bring pressure on their legislators to lobby for it in Washington. The rest of us? Here is something which is going to mean millions of dollars separately to each of a small number of people, but to you and me it means fifty cents extra on our tax bill. What incentive do we have to find out about it or to spend any time voting intelligently? or to bring pressure on our legislators?

A few very simple examples. About three or four years ago the then President Nixon tried to eliminate a program under which the federal government had for many years been subsidizing people who tasted tea. This is literally true. This is a program under which the government graded tea for the benefit of importers, and we paid taxes to hire people to taste the tea and decide what grade it should get. It is very hard to see any general public interest in that—after all, the tea industry can provide those people. Nixon made the simple, obvious proposal that we should eliminate it. We still have that program because the people in the tea industry were up in arms about it; they didn’t want to have that little item taken away from them. Is there anybody in the vast American electorate who would take his vote away from a representative because that representative voted to keep the tea-tasting arrangement?

Let me offer a more important case. We have a US postal system that I would hardly suppose is distinguished for its efficiency. For many years I have been urging the elimination of the monopoly privileges of the Post Office: opening it up to competition. About a dozen years ago, I talked to a good friend of mine who was then in Congress to urge him to introduce a one-sentence bill eliminating the monopoly privileges of the Post Office. He said to me: “You know I agree with you completely, but can you name me an organized group that will come and testify in favor of that bill? I know about the organized groups that will be there to testify against it. There will be the postal employees union; there will be the organization of newspapers and of magazines who will testify against that bill.” And he went down the list. All of those organized groups would testify against it. The people who are benefited don’t even know that they would be benefited. If you eliminated the monopoly of the Post Office, there would develop a viable active private industry carrying mail. Some of my young students and friends might at some time be employed in such an industry, but do they know it? Are they going to go down to Washington to campaign in favor of that bill? Not a chance of it. “So,” he said, “there is not a chance in the world of getting that bill through. It’s just a waste of my energy and time to move in that direction.”

Many years ago an ex-president of General Motors testified before Congress and was so injudicious as to make the statement that “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country.” My colleagues at the university hooted and scorned him for such a self-serving statement. But then the next day they were taking airplanes to Washington to testify before Congress that what was good for higher education was good for the country. Was there one among them who saw the irony and the inconsistency?

Each of us separately will try to use the government mechanism to get special benefits for ourselves.

Again, going back to that episode last year before the WIN Program came into force, President Ford had a summit meeting at which people from around the country came together on the subject of inflation. I heard one representative of special interests after another get on the platform and say, “What this country needs to stop inflation is to cut down government spending . . . and the way to cut down government spending is to spend more on me.” That was a universal refrain from the farmers, the trade unions, the business delegates, the representatives of the universities.

Here is the fundamental defect of the political mechanism: it is a system of highly weighted voting under which the special interests have great incentive to promote their own interests at the expense of the general public. The benefits are concentrated; the costs are diffused; and you have therefore a bias in the marketplace which leads to ever greater expansion in the scope of the government and ultimately to control over the individual. The way to get elected to Congress or to the presidency is not really to appeal to the general interest. A majority decides, but it is a special kind of majority. The way to get elected is by putting together a coalition of special interests. You go to a group that has 5 percent of the vote and say, “I will vote for what you want if you don’t care what else I do.” And they say, “Oh, I don’t care what else you do.” You go on to another 5 percent, and in this way you are well on your way to assembling 51 percent.

The characteristics of the economic market are very different. The fundamental point is the one I mentioned before. In the economic market—the market in which individuals buy and sell from one another—each person gets what he pays for. There is a dollar-for-dollar relationship. Therefore, you have an incentive proportionate to the cost to examine what you are getting. If you are paying out of your own pocket for something and not out of somebody else’s pocket, then you have a very strong incentive to see whether you are getting your money’s worth. In addition, nobody can get money from you in the economic market unless you agree. There is nobody who can put his hand in your pocket without your permission. In the political market that is the standard way of financing everything. As a consequence, you have in the economic market true individual freedom and a true individual incentive to get what you vote for and, more important, the incentive to find out whether what you are getting is what you voted for and is proportional to the cost to you.

The fundamental problem of Western society, of a society like ours, is that millions and millions of people must cooperate with one another for their daily bread. Fundamentally, there are only two ways in which large groups of people can be induced to cooperate with one another. One way is the method of the army, through force and coercion and direct order. The general tells the colonel, the colonel tells the major, who tells the lieutenant, and so on down to the private. The other way is through voluntary cooperation among people, each of whom is separately pursuing his own interest. In fact, the first method cannot work. The world is simply too complicated: there are too many facts of special time and place for it to be possible to run any complicated system on the basis of direct order. So that, in fact, all systems of cooperation among large groups of people involve a mixture of these two. But it makes an enormous difference what the mixture is. You know, it is like the old German restaurant joke about Hasenfeffer —“half horse, half rabbit” (i.e., one horse, one rabbit). The character of our society is fundamentally determined by whether the horse is the political market and the rabbit the economic market or the other way around. Paradoxically, therefore, the situation is that the economic market is a more effective means for achieving political democracy than is a political market.

Let me add one more word on that. When we think of the economic market and the political market we tend to think in narrow terms. We tend to think of the economic market as concerned with the mundane, material things: producing bread or cheese or automobiles or houses. But the principles I have described apply much more broadly. The private market, the economic market, is also the most effective means for doing good. If one goes back to the period in the United States when we had the most unrestricted operation of the free private market, the nineteenth century, it was also the period of the greatest burst of eleemosynary and charitable activity in the history of our country. My own University of Chicago and many of the other colleges and universities of this country were established at that time by the private market arrangement, namely, by voluntary cooperation among people spending their own money for something they themselves believed in: to establish a university or a college. The great system of public libraries (the Carnegie Libraries) was established during that period. That was a period that saw the birth of the private eleemosynary hospital, of the foreign medical missions, of the societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, and so on. Name a charitable activity, and in almost every case its origins go back to that time. So the private market—what I described as the economic market of voluntary cooperation—is, in my opinion, the most efficient and effective way of doing good as well as the most effective way of organizing economic activity.

America, not unlike other Western societies, is coming to a crossroads. We cannot continue along the road we have been going. In going from 10 percent of the national income being spent by government to 40 percent it was possible to maintain a large element of freedom and individual liberty because it was possible to give large benefits to small groups at small costs spread over many people. But one thing we can be sure of: in the next forty years we cannot go from 40 percent to 60 percent.

At that crossroads is the problem that faced Chile that as a poor country tipped over at 40 percent. Britain is wealthier but appears on the verge of tipping over at 60 percent. We still have some ruin left in us, but pretty soon we are going to be forced to face up to the issue. Where we go from here depends on the new generation that is going to determine the future, on whether in time it comes to recognize that this is a false road which leads to tyranny and misery, not to freedom. Let me propose that as we contemplate that future, we take as our major motto what I would like to see as an eleventh commandment—that everyone shall be free to do good at his own expense.

View the discussion thread.

Join the Hoover Institution’s community of supporters in ideas advancing freedom.

267 Freedom Essay Topics & Examples

Need freedom topics for an essay or research paper? Don’t know how to start writing your essay? The concept of freedom is very exciting and worth studying!

📃 Freedom Essay: How to Start Writing

📝 how to write a freedom essay: useful tips, 🏆 freedom essay examples & topic ideas, 🥇 most interesting freedom topics to write about, 🎓 simple topics about freedom, 📌 writing prompts on freedom, 🔎 good research topics about freedom, ❓ research questions about freedom.

The field of study includes personal freedom, freedom of the press, speech, expression, and much more. In this article, we’ve collected a list of great writing ideas and topics about freedom, as well as freedom essay examples and writing tips.

Freedom essays are common essay assignments that discuss acute topics of today’s global society. However, many students find it difficult to choose the right topic for their essay on freedom or do not know how to write the paper.

We have developed some useful tips for writing an excellent paper. But first, you need to choose a good essay topic. Below are some examples of freedom essay topics.

Freedom Essay Topics

• American (Indian, Taiwanese, Scottish) independence
• Freedom and homelessness essay
• The true value of freedom in modern society
• How slavery affects personal freedom
• The problem of human rights and freedoms
• American citizens’ rights and freedoms
• The benefits and disadvantages of unlimited freedom
• The changing definition of freedom

Once you have selected the issue you want to discuss (feel free to get inspiration from the ones we have suggested!), you can start working on your essay. Here are 10 useful tips for writing an outstanding paper:

• Remember that freedom essay titles should state the question you want to discuss clearly. Do not choose a vague and non-descriptive title for your paper.
• Work on the outline of your paper before writing it. Think of what sections you should include and what arguments you want to present. Remember that the essay should be well organized to keep the reader interested. For a short essay, you can include an introduction, three body paragraphs, and a conclusion.
• Do preliminary research. Ask your professor about the sources you can use (for example, course books, peer-reviewed articles, and governmental websites). Avoid using Wikipedia and other similar sources, as they often have unverified information.
• A freedom essay introduction is a significant part of your paper. It outlines the questions you want to discuss in the essay and helps the reader understand your work’s purpose. Remember to state the thesis of your essay at the end of this section.
• A paper on freedom allows you to be personal. It should not focus on the definition of this concept. Make your essay unique by including your perspective on the issue, discussing your experience, and finding examples from your life.
• At the same time, help your reader to understand what freedom is from the perspective of your essay. Include a clear explanation or a definition with examples.
• Check out freedom essay examples online to develop a structure for your paper, analyze the relevance of the topics you want to discuss and find possible freedom essay ideas. Avoid copying the works you will find online.
• Support your claims with evidence. For instance, you can cite the Bill of Rights or the United States Constitution. Make sure that the sources you use are reliable.
• To make your essay outstanding, make sure that you use correct grammar. Grammatical mistakes may make your paper look unprofessional or unreliable. Restructure a sentence if you think that it does not sound right. Check your paper several times before sending it to your professor.
• A short concluding paragraph is a must. Include the summary of all arguments presented in the paper and rephrase the main findings.

Do not forget to find a free sample in our collection and get the best ideas for your essay!

• Freedom of Expression Essay For one to be in a position to gauge the eventuality of a gain or a loss, then there should be absolute freedom of expression on all matters irrespective of the nature of the sentiments […]
• Freedom of Speech in Social Media Essay Gelber tries to say that the history of the freedom of speech in Australia consists of the periods of the increasing public debates on the issue of human rights and their protection.
• Freedom Writers: Promoting Good Moral Values The movie portrays a strong and civilized view of the world; it encourages development and use of positive moral values by people in making the world a better place.
• Philosophy and Relationship between Freedom and Responsibility Essay As a human being, it is hard to make a decision because of the uncertainty of the outcome, but it is definitely essential for human being to understand clearly the concept and connection between freedom […]
• Freedom and equality According to Liliuokalani of Hawaii, the conquest contravened the basic rights and freedoms of the natives and their constitution by undermining the power of their local leaders.
• Rio (2011) and the Issue of Freedom As a matter of fact, this is the only scene where Blu, Jewel, Linda, Tulio, and the smugglers are present at the same time without being aware of each other’s presence.
• Human Freedom in Relation to Society Human freedom has to do with the freedom of one’s will, which is the freedom of man to choose and act by following his path through life freely by exercising his ‘freedom’).
• Human Will & Freedom and Moral Responsibility Their understanding of the definition of human will is based on the debate as to whether the will free or determined.
• Freedom and Determinism On the other hand, determinism theory explains that there is an order that leads to occurrences of events in the world and in the universe.
• The Efforts and Activities of the Paparazzi are Protected by the Freedom of the Press Clause of the Constitution The First Amendment of the American constitution protects the paparazzi individually as American citizens through the protection of their freedom of speech and expression and professionally through the freedom of the press clause.
• Four Freedoms by President Roosevelt Throughout the discussion we shall elaborate the four freedoms in a broader way for better understating; we shall also describe the several measures that were put in place in order to ensure the four freedoms […]
• “Long Walk to Freedom” by Nelson Mandela In the fast developing world, advances and progress move countries and nations forward but at the same time, some things are left behind and become a burden for the people and evolution to better life […]
• Fighting for the Right to Choose: Students Should Have the Freedom to Pick the Courses They Want Consequently, students should be allowed to pick the subjects which they are going to study together with the main one. Thus, students should be allowed to choose the subjects they need in accordance with their […]
• Chapters 4-6 of ”From Slavery to Freedom” by Franklin & Higginbotham At the same time, the portion of American-born slaves was on the increase and contributed to the multiracial nature of the population.
• Mandela’s Leadership: Long Walk to Freedom The current paper analyses the effectiveness of leadership with reference to Nelson Mandela, the late former president of South Africa, as depicted in the movie, Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom.
• Jean-Paul Sartre’s Views on Freedom For example, to Sartre, a prisoner of war is free, existentially, but this freedom does not exist in the physical realm.
• Rousseau and Kant on their respective accounts of freedom and right The difference in the approaches assumed by Kant and Rousseau regarding the norms of liberty and moral autonomy determine the perspective of their theories of justice.
• “Gladiator” by Ridley Scott: Freedom and Affection This desire to be free becomes the main motive of the film, as the plot follows Maximus, now enslaved, who tries to avenge his family and the emperor and regain his liberty.
• 70’s Fashion as a Freedom of Choice However, with the end of the Vietnam War, the public and the media lost interest in the hippie style in the middle of the decade, and began to lean toward the mod subculture. The 70’s […]
• Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus An annotated version of “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” by Derek Bok in The Boston Globe.*and these stars are where I have a question or opinion on a statement* For several years, universities […]
• Voices of Freedom The history of the country is made up of debates, disagreements and struggles for freedom that have seen the Civil War, and the Cold War which have changed the idea of freedom in the US.
• Social Values: Freedom and Justice It is evident that freedom and justice are mutually exclusive, as “the theory of justice signifies its implications in regards to freedom as a key ingredient to happiness”.
• Women in Early America: Struggle, Survival, and Freedom in a New World The writer shows that women had the same capacities as those of men but were not allowed to contribute their ideas in developing the country.
• Pettit’s Conception of Freedom as Anti-Power According to Savery and Haugaard, the main idea that Pettit highlights in this theory is the notion that the contrary to freedom is never interference as many people claim, but it is slavery and the […]
• Freedom in Henrik Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House” Literature Analysis In Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, the main character, Nora is not an intellectual, and spends no time scouring books or libraries or trying to make sense of her situation.
• Freedom in Antebellum America: Civil War and Abolishment of Slavery The American Civil War, which led to the abolishment of slavery, was one of the most important events in the history of the United States.
• Freedom and the Role of Civilization The achievements demonstrated by Marx and Freud play a significant role in the field of sociology and philosophy indeed; Marx believed in the power of labor and recognized the individual as an integral part of […]
• Balance of Media Censorship and Press Freedom Government censorship means the prevention of the circulation of information already produced by the official government There are justifications for the suppression of communication such as fear that it will harm individuals in the society […]
• “Human Freedom and the Self” by Roderick Chisholm According to the author, human actions do not depend on determinism or “free will”. I will use this idea in order to promote the best actions.
• “Freedom Riders”: A Documentary Revealing Personal Stories That Reflect Individual Ideology The ideal of egalitarianism was one of the attractive features of the left wing for many inquiring minds in the early decades of the 20th century.
• Art and Freedom. History and Relationship The implication of this term is that genus art is composed of two species, the fine arts, and the useful arts. This, according to Cavell, is the beauty of art.
• Power and Freedom in America Although it is already a given that freedom just like the concept love is not easy to define and the quest to define it can be exhaustive but at the end of the day what […]
• Concept of Individual Freedom Rousseau and Mill were political philosophers with interest in understanding what entailed individual freedom. This paper compares Rousseau’s idea of individual freedom with Mill’s idea.
• Predetermination and Freedom of Choice We assume that every happens because of a specific reason and that the effects of that event can be traced back to the cause.
• Freedom and Social Justice Through Technology These two remarkable minds have made significant contributions to the debates on technology and how it relates to liberty and social justice.
• Personal Understanding of Freedom Freedom is essential for individual growth and development, and it helps individuals to make informed decisions that are in alignment with their values and beliefs.
• Balancing Freedom of Speech and Responsibility in Online Commenting The article made me perceive the position of absolute freedom of speech in the Internet media from a dual perspective. This desire for quick attention is the creation of information noise, distracting from the user […]
• The Effect of Emotional Freedom Techniques on Nurses’ Stress The objectives for each of the three criteria are clearly stated, with the author explaining the aims to the reader well throughout the content in the article’s title, abstract, and introduction.
• The Freedom Summer Project and Black Studies The purpose of this essay is to discuss to which degree the story of the Freedom Summer project illustrates the concepts of politics outlined in Karenga’s book Introduction to black studies.
• Democracy: The Influence of Freedom Democracy is the basis of the political systems of the modern civilized world. Accordingly, the democracy of Athens was direct that is, without the choice of representatives, in contrast to how it is generated nowadays.
• Freedom of Speech as a Basic Human Right Restricting or penalizing freedom of expression is thus a negative issue because it confines the population of truth, as well as rationality, questioning, and the ability of people to think independently and express their thoughts.
• Kantian Ethics and Causal Law for Freedom The theory’s main features are autonomy of the will, categorical imperative, rational beings and thinking capacity, and human dignity. The theory emphasizes not on the actions and the doers but the consequences of their effects […]
• Principles in M. L. King’s Quest for African American Freedom The concept of a nonviolent approach to the struggles for African American freedom was a key strategy in King’s quest for the liberation of his communities from racial and social oppressions.
• Technology Revolutionizing Ethical Aspects of Academic Freedom As part of the solution, the trends in technology are proposed as a potential solution that can provide the necessary support to improve the freedom of expression as one of the ethical issues that affect […]
• The Journey Freedom Tour 2022 Performance Analysis Arnel Pineda at age 55 keeps rocking and hitting the high notes and bringing the entire band very successfully all through their live concert tour.
• Freedom of Speech and Propaganda in School Setting One of the practical solutions to the problem is the development and implementation of a comprehensive policy for balanced free speech in the classroom.
• Twitter and Violations of Freedom of Speech and Censorship The sort of organization that examines restrictions and the opportunities and challenges it encounters in doing so is the center of a widely acknowledged way of thinking about whether it is acceptable to restrict speech.
• Freedom of the Press and National Security Similarly, it concerns the freedom of the press of the media, which are protected in the United States of America by the First Amendment.
• The Views on the Freedom from Fear in the Historical Perspective In this text, fear is considered in the classical sense, corresponding to the interpretation of psychology, that is, as a manifestation of acute anxiety for the inviolability of one’s life.
• Freedom of Speech in Social Networks The recent case of blocking the accounts of former US President Donald Trump on Twitter and Facebook is explained by the violation of the rules and conditions of social platforms.
• Emotion and Freedom in 20th-Century Feminist Literature The author notes that the second layer of the story can be found in the antagonism between the “narrator, author, and the unreliable protagonist”.
• Analysis of UK’s Freedom of Information Act 2000 To preserve potentially disruptive data that must not be released to the public, the FOIA integrates several provisions that allow the officials to decline the request for information without suffering possible consequences.
• Fight for Freedom, Love Has No Labels, and Ad Council: Key Statement The most important part of the message, to me, is the fact that the freedoms mentioned in the PSA are not available to every American citizen, despite America being the land of freedom.
• Teachers’ Freedom of Speech in Learning Institutions The judiciary system has not clearly defined the limits of the First Amendment in learning institutions, and it’s a public concern, especially from the teachers.
• Freedom of Expression in the Classroom The NEA Code of Ethics establishes a link between this Freedom and a teacher’s responsibilities by requiring instructors to encourage “independent activity in the pursuit of learning,” provide “access to diverse points of view,” and […]
• Is There Press Freedom in Modern China? There is a large body of literature in the field of freedom of the press investigations, media freedom in China, and press freedom and human rights studies.
• Freedom of the Press in the Context of UAE It gives the people the ability to understand the insight of the government and other crucial activities happening within the country.
• Freedom of the Press in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) According to oztunc & Pierre, the UAE is ranked 119 in the global press freedom data, classifying the country as one of the most suppressive regarding the liberty of expression.
• Mill’s Thesis on the Individual Freedom The sphere of personal freedom is an area of human life that relates to the individual directly. The principle of state intervention is that individuals, separately or collectively, may have the right to interfere in […]
• Privacy and Freedom of Speech of Companies and Consumers At the same time, in Europe, personal data may be collected following the law and only with the consent of the individuals.
• Review of “Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom” From the youth, Mandela started to handle the unfairness of isolation and racial relations in South Africa. In Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, Chadwick’s masterful screen memoir of Nelson Mandela passes on the anguish as […]
• Expansion of Freedom and Slavery in British America The settlement in the city of New Plymouth was founded by the second, and it laid the foundation for the colonies of New England.
• Power, Property, and Freedom: Bitcoin Discourse In the modern world, all people have the right to freedom and property, but not all have the power to decide who may have this freedom and property.
• Religious Freedom Policy Evaluation Ahmed et al.claim that the creation of the ecosystem can facilitate the change as the members of the community share their experiences and learn how to respond to various situations.
• The Concepts of Freedom and the Great Depression Furthermore, blacks were elected to construct the constitution, and black delegates fought for the rights of freedpeople and all Americans. African-Americans gained the freedom to vote, work, and be elected to government offices during Black […]
• Freedom of Choices for Women in Marriage in “The Story of an Hour” The story describes the sentiments and feelings of Louisa Mallard when she learns the news about her husband. The readers can see the sudden reaction of the person to the demise of her significant other.
• Freedom of Speech in Shouting Fire: Stories From the Edge of Free Speech Even though the First Amendment explicitly prohibits any laws regarding the freedom of speech, Congress continues to make exceptions from it.
• Personal Freedom: The Importance in Modern Society To show my family and friends how important they are to me, I try contacting them more often in the way they prefer.
• Economic Freedom and Its Recent Statements Economic freedom is an important indicator and benchmark for the level of income of companies or individual citizens of a country.
• The Freedom Concept in Plato’s “Republic” This situation shows that the concept of democracy and the freedom that correlates with it refers to a flawed narrative that liberty is the same as equality.
• Freedom of Speech as the Most Appreciated Liberty In the present-day world, the progress of society largely depends on the possibility for people to exercise their fundamental rights. From this perspective, freedom of speech is the key to everyone’s well-being, and, in my […]
• The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom In the introductory part of the book, the author discusses his main theses concerning the link between the development of networks and shifts in the economy and society.
• Freedom of Association for Radical Organizations This assertion is the primary and fundamental argument in the debate on this topic – radical groups should not use freedom of association to harm other people potentially.
• Freedom of Expression on the Internet Randall describes the challenges regarding the freedom of speech raised by the Internet, such as anonymity and poor adaptation of mass communication to the cyber environment.
• Black Sexual Freedom and Manhood in “For Colored Girls” Movie Despite the representation of Black sexual freedoms in men and women and Black manhood as a current social achievement, For Colored Girls shows the realities of inequality and injustice, proving womanism’s importance in America.
• Frederick Douglass’s My Bondage and My Freedom Review He criticizes that in spite of the perceived knowledge he was getting as a slave, this very light in the form of knowledge “had penetrated the moral dungeon”.
• The Essence of Freedom of Contract The legal roots of the notion of freedom of contract are manifested in the ideals of liberalism and theoretical capitalism, where the former values individual freedom and the latter values marker efficiency and effectiveness.
• Why Defamation Laws Must Prioritize Freedom of Speech The body of the essay will involve providing information on the nature of defamation laws in the USA and the UK, the implementation of such laws in the two countries, and the reason why the […]
• Domination in the Discussion of Freedom For this reason, the principle of anti-power should be considered as the position that will provide a better understanding of the needs of the target population and the desirable foreign policy to be chosen.
• Freedom or Security: Homeland Issues In many ways, the author sheds light on the overreactions or inadequate responses of the US government, which led to such catastrophes as 9/11 or the war in Iraq.
• War on Terror: Propaganda and Freedom of the Press in the US There was the launching of the “Center for Media and Democracy”, CMD, in the year 1993 in order to create what was the only public interest at that period. There was expansive use of propaganda […]
• The Freedom of Expression and the Freedom of Press It is evident that the evolution of standards that the court has adopted to evaluate the freedom of expression leaves a lot to be desired. The court has attempted to define the role of the […]
• Information and Communication Technology & Economic Freedom in Islamic Middle Eastern Countries This is a unique article as it gives importance to the role ecommerce plays in the life of the educationists and students and urges that the administrators are given training to handle their students in […]
• Is the Good Life Found in Freedom? Example of Malala Yousafzai The story of Malala has shown that freedom is crucial for personal happiness and the ability to live a good life.
• The Path to Freedom of Black People During the Antebellum Period In conclusion, the life of free blacks in 19th century America was riddled with hindrances that were meant to keep them at the bottom of society.
• Civil Rights Movement: Fights for Freedom The Civil Rights Movement introduced the concept of black and white unification in the face of inequality. Music-related to justice and equality became the soundtrack of the social and cultural revolution taking place during the […]
• Voices of Freedom: Lincoln, M. L. King, Kirkaldy He was named after his grandfather Abraham Lincoln, the one man that was popular for owning wide tracks of land and a great farmer of the time.
• Freedom: Malcolm X’s vs. Anna Quindlen’s Views However, in reality, we only have the freedom to think whatever we like, and only as long as we know that this freedom is restricted to thought only.
• Net Neutrality: Freedom of Internet Access In the principle of Net neutrality, every entity is entitled access and interaction with other internet users at the same cost of access.
• The Golden Age of Youth and Freedom However, it is interesting to compare it to the story which took place at the dawn of the cultural and sexual revolution in Chinese society.
• Academic Freedom: A Refuge of Intellectual Individualism Also known as intellectual, scientific or individual freedom, academic freedom is defined as the freedom of professionals and students to question and to propose new thoughts and unpopular suggestions to the government without jeopardizing their […]
• The Literature From Slavery to Freedom Its main theme is slavery but it also exhibits other themes like the fight by Afro-Americans for freedom, the search for the identity of black Americans and the appreciation of the uniqueness of African American […]
• John Stuart Mill on Freedom in Today’s Perspective The basic concept behind this rose because it was frustrating in many cases in the context of the penal system and legislation and it was viewed that anything less than a capital punishment would not […]
• Conformity Versus Freedom at University To the author, this is objectionable on the grounds that such a regimen infringes on the freedom of young adults and that there is much to learn outside the classroom that is invaluable later in […]
• US Citizens and Freedom As an example of freedom and obtaining freedom in the US, the best possible subject would be the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, particularly during 1963-64, as this would serve as the conceptual and […]
• Value of Copyright Protection in Relation to Freedom of Speech The phrase, freedom of expression is often used to mean the acts of seeking, getting, and transfer of information and ideas in addition to verbal speech regardless of the model used. It is therefore important […]
• Social Factors in the US History: Respect for Human Rights, Racial Equality, and Religious Freedom The very first years of the existence of the country were marked by the initiatives of people to provide as much freedom in all aspects of social life as possible.
• Freedom of Speech and the Internet On the one hand, the freedom of expression on the internet allowed the general public to be informed about the true nature of the certain events, regardless of geographical locations and restrictions.
• Freedom Definition Revision: Components of Freedom That which creates, sustains, and maintains life in harmony with the natural cycles of this planet, doing no harm to the ecology or people of the Earth- is right.
• Freedom of Information Act in the US History According to the legislation of the United States, official authorities are obliged to disclose information, which is under control of the US government, if it is requested by the public.
• Media Freedom in the Olympic Era The Chinese government is heavily involved in the affairs of the media of that country. In the past, it was the responsibility of government to fund media houses however; today that funding is crapped off.
• Managing the Internet-Balancing Freedom and Regulations The explosive growth in the usage of Internet forms the basis of new digital age. Aim of the paper is to explore the general role of internet and its relationship with the society.
• Freedom, Equality & Solidarity by Lucy Parsons In the lecture and article ‘The Principles of Anarchism’ she outlines her vision of Anarchy as the answer to the labor question and how powerful governments and companies worked for hand in hand to stifle […]
• Ways Liberals Define Freedom Liberals are identified by the way they value the freedom of individuals, freedom of markets, and democratic freedoms. The term freedom is characterized by Liberals as they use it within the context of the relationship […]
• Boredom and Freedom: Different Views and Links Boredom is a condition characterized by low levels of arousal as well as wandering attention and is normally a result of the regular performance of monotonous routines.
• The Idea of American Freedom Such implications were made by the anti-slavery group on each occasion that the issue of slavery was drawn in the Congress, and reverberated wherever the institution of slavery was subjected to attack within the South.
• Human Freedom: Liberalism vs Anarchism It is impoverished because liberals have failed to show the connection between their policies and the values of the community. More fundamentally, however, a policy formulated in such a way that it is disconnected from […]
• Liberal Definition of Freedom Its origins lie in the rejection of the authoritarian structures of the feudalistic order in Europe and the coercive tendencies and effects of that order through the imposition of moral absolutes.
• Newt Gingrich Against Freedom of Speech According to the constitution, the First Amendment is part of the United States Bill of rights that was put in place due to the advocation of the anti-federalists who wanted the powers of the federal […]
• Freedom is One of the Most Valuable Things to Man Political philosophers have many theories in response to this and it is necessary to analyze some of the main arguments and concepts to get a clearer idea of how to be more precise about the […]
• The Enlightment: The Science of Freedom In America, enlightment resulted to the formation of the American Revolution in the form of resistance of Britain imperialism. In the United States of America, enlightment took a more significant form as demonstrated by the […]
• Determinism and Freedom in the movie ‘Donnie Darko’ The term determinism states, the all the processes in the world are determined beforehand, and only chosen may see or determine the future.
• Spinoza’ Thoughts on Human Freedom The human being was once considered of as the Great Amphibian, or the one who can exclusively live in the two worlds, a creature of the physical world and also an inhabitant of the spiritual, […]
• Political Freedom According to Machiavelli and Locke In this chapter, he explains that “It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than […]
• Freedom From Domination: German Scientists’ View He made the greatest ever attempt to unify the country, as Western Europe was divided into lots of feudal courts, and the unification of Germany led to the creation of single national mentality and appearing […]
• The Freedom of Speech: Communication Law in US By focusing on the on goings in Guatemala, the NYT may have, no doubt earned the ire of the Bush administration, but it is also necessary that the American people are made aware of the […]
• Freedom of Speech and Expression in Music Musicians are responsible and accountable for fans and their actions because in the modern world music and lyrics become a tool of propaganda that has a great impact on the circulation of ideas and social […]
• American Vision and Values of Political Freedom The significance of the individual and the sanctity of life were all central to the conceptions of Plato, Aristotle, or Cicero.
• Democracy and Freedom in Pakistan Pakistan lies in a region that has been a subject of worldwide attention and political tensions since 9/11. US influence in politics, foreign and internal policies of Pakistan has always been prominent.
• Spanish-American War: The Price of Freedom He was also the only person in the history of the United States to have attained the rank of Admiral of the Navy, the most senior rank in the United States Navy.
• Male Dominance as Impeding Female Sexual Freedom Therefore, there is a need to further influence society to respect and protect female sexuality through the production of educative materials on women’s free will.
• Interrelation and Interdependence of Freedom, Responsibility, and Accountability Too much responsibility and too little freedom make a person unhappy. There must be a balance between freedom and responsibility for human happiness.
• African American History: The Struggle for Freedom The history of the Jacksons Rainbow coalition shows the rise of the support of the African American politicians in the Democratic party.
• Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Definition of Freedom The case of Nicola Sacco can be seen as the starting point of the introduction of Roosevelt’s definition of freedom as liberty for all American citizens.
• Freedom of Speech and International Relations The freedom of speech or the freedom of expression is a civil right legally protected by many constitutions, including that of the United States, in the First Amendment.
• Canada in Freedom House Organization’s Rating The Freedom in the World Reports are most notable because of their contribution to the knowledge about the state of civil and political liberties in different countries, ranking them from 1 to 7.
• Philosophy of Freedom in “Ethics” by Spinoza Thus, the mind that is capable of understanding love to God is free because it has the power to control lust.
• Slavery Abolition and Newfound Freedom in the US One of the biggest achievements of Reconstruction was the acquisition of the right to vote by Black People. Still, Black Americans were no longer forced to tolerate inhumane living conditions, the lack of self-autonomy, and […]
• Japanese-American Internment: Illusion of Freedom The purpose of this paper is to analyze the internment of Japanese-Americans in Idaho as well as events that happened prior in order to understand how such a violation of civil rights came to pass […]
• The Existence of Freedom This paper assumes that it is the cognizance of the presence of choices for our actions that validates the existence of free will since, even if some extenuating circumstances and influences can impact what choice […]
• Philosophy, Ethics, Religion, Freedom in Current Events The court solely deals with acts of gross human rights abuses and the signatory countries have a statute that allows the accused leaders to be arrested in the member countries.
• Mill’s Power over Body vs. Foucault’s Freedom John Stuart Mill’s view of sovereignty over the mind and the body focuses on the tendency of human beings to exercise liberalism to fulfill their self-interest.
• Rousseau’s vs. Confucius’ Freedom Concept Similarly, the sovereignty of a distinctive group expresses the wholeness of its free will, but not a part of the group.
• The Importance of Freedom of Speech In a bid to nurture the freedom of speech, the United States provides safety to the ethical considerations of free conversations.
• Slavery and Freedom: The American Paradox Jefferson believed that the landless laborers posed a threat to the nation because they were not independent. He believed that if Englishmen ruled over the world, they would be able to extend the effects of […]
• Freedom in the Workplace of American Society In the workplace, it is vital to implement freedom-oriented policies that would address the needs of each employee for the successful performance of the company which significantly depends on the operation of every participant of […]
• 19th-Century Marxism with Emphasis on Freedom As the paper reveals through various concepts and theories by Marx, it was the responsibility of the socialists and scientists to transform the society through promoting ideologies of class-consciousness and social action as a way […]
• Political Necessity to Safeguard Freedom He determined that the existence of the declared principles on which the fundamental structure of equality is based, as well as the institutions that monitor their observance, is the critical prerequisite for social justice and […]
• Aveo’s Acquisition of Freedom Aged Care Portfolio The mode of acquisition points to the possibility that Freedom used the White Knight defense mechanism when it approached the Aveo group.
• Aveo Group’s Acquisition of Freedom Aged Care Pty Ltd The annual report of AVEO Group indicated that the company acquired Freedom Aged Care based on its net book value. It implies that the Aveo Group is likely to achieve its strategic objectives through the […]
• Freedom Hospital Geriatric Patient Analysis The importance of statistics in clinical research can be explained by a multitude of factors; in clinical management, it is used for monitoring the patients’ conditions, the quality of health care provided, and other indicators.
• Hegel and Marx on Civil Society and Human Freedom First of all, the paper will divide the concepts of freedom and civil society in some of the notions that contribute to their definitions.
• Individual Freedom: Exclusionary Rule The exclusionary rule was first introduced by the US Supreme Court in 1914 in the case of Weeks v.the United States and was meant for the application in the federal courts only, but later it […]
• History of American Conceptions and Practices of Freedom The government institutions and political regimes have been accused of allowing amarginalisation’ to excel in the acquisition and roles assigned to the citizens of the US on the basis of social identities.
• Canada’s Freedom of Speech and Its Ineffectiveness In the developed societies of the modern world, it is one of the major premises that freedom of expression is the pivotal character of liberal democracy.
• Freedom and Liberty in American Historical Documents The 1920s and the 1930s saw particularly ardent debates on these issues since it was the time of the First World War and the development of the American sense of identity at the same time.
• Anglo-American Relations, Freedom and Nationalism Thus, in his reflection on the nature of the interrelations between two powerful empires, which arose at the end of the 19th century, the writer argues that the striving of the British Empire and the […]
• American Student Rights and Freedom of Speech As the speech was rather vulgar for the educational setting, the court decided that the rights of adults in public places cannot be identic to those the students have in school.
• Freedom of Speech in Modern Media At the same time, the bigoted approach to the principles of freedom of speech in the context of the real world, such as killing or silencing journalists, makes the process of promoting the same values […]
• Singapore’s Economic Freedom and People’s Welfare Business freedom is the ability to start, operating and closing a business having in mind the necessary regulations put by the government.
• “Advancing Freedom in Iraq” by Steven Groves The aim of the article is to describe the current situation in Iraq and to persuade the reader in the positive role of the U.S.authorities in the promoting of the democracy in the country.
• Freedom: Definition, Meaning and Threats The existence of freedom in the world has been one of the most controversial topics in the world. As a result, he suggests indirectly that freedom is found in the ability to think rationally.
• Expression on the Internet: Vidding, Copyright and Freedom It can be defined as the practice of creating new videos by combining the elements of already-existing clips. This is one of the reasons why this practice may fall under the category of fair use.
• Doha Debate and Turkey’s Media Freedom He argued that the Turkish model was a work in progress that could be emulated by the Arab countries not only because of the freedom that the government gave to the press, but also the […]
• The Pursuit of Freedom in the 19th Century Britain The ambition to improve one’s life was easily inflated by the upper grade that focused on dominating the system at the expense of the suffering majority.
• The Story of American Freedom The unique nature of the United States traces its history to the formation of political institutions between 1776 and 1789, the American Revolution between 1776 and 1783 and the declaration of independence in 1776. Additionally, […]
• Military Logistics in Operation “Iraqi Freedom” It was also very easy for the planners to identify the right amount of fuel needed for distribution in the farms, unlike other classes of supply which had a lot of challenges. The soldiers lacked […]
• The Freedom of Information Act The Freedom of Information Act is popularly understood to be the representation of “the people’s right to know” the various activities of the government.
• The United States Role in the World Freedom The efforts of NATO to engage Taliban and al-Qaida insurgents in the war resulted in the spreading of the war into the North West parts of Pakistan.
• Fighting Terrorism: “Iraqi Freedom” and “Enduring Freedom” One is bound to be encouraged by the fact that the general and both his immediate and distant families had dedicated their services to the military of the USA and had achieved great heights in […]
• Freedom of Speech: Julian Assange and ‘WikiLeaks’ Case
• Do Urban Environments Promote Freedom?
• Claiming the Freedom to Shape Politics
• US Progress in Freedom, Equality and Power Since Civil War
• Thomas Jefferson’s Views on Freedom of Religion
• Religious Freedom and Labor Law
• Gilded Age and Progressive Era Freedom Challenges
• Philosophical Approach to Freedom and Determinism
• The Life of a Freedom Fighter in Post WWII Palestine
• Fighting for Freedom of American Identity in Literature
• Philosophy of Freedom in “The Apology“
• Philosophy in the Freedom of Will by Harry Frankfurt
• Advertising and Freedom of Speech
• How the Law Limits Academic Freedom?
• The Issue of American Freedom in Toni Morrison’s “Beloved”
• The Jewish Freedom Fighter Recollection
• Kuwait’s Opposition and the Freedom of Expression
• Abraham Lincoln: A Legacy of Freedom
• Freedom of Speech and Expression
• Multicultural Education: Freedom or Oppression
• “The Freedom of the Streets: Work, Citizenship, and Sexuality in a Gilded Age City” by Sharon Wood
• Information Freedom in Government
• Dr.Knightly’s Problems in Academic Freedom
• Mill on Liberty and Freedom
• Texas Women University Academic Freedom
• Freedom of speech in the Balkans
• Media Freedom in Japan
• Rivalry and Central Planning by Don Lavoie: Study Analysis
• Review of “Freedom Writers”
• Freedom Degree in Colonial America
• What Is ‘Liberal Representative Democracy’ and Does the Model Provide an Appropriate Combination of Freedom and Equality?
• Is the Contemporary City a Space of Control or Freedom?
• Native Americans Transition From Freedom to Isolation
• “The Weight of the Word” by Chris Berg
• What Does Freedom Entail in the US?
• Leila Khaled: Freedom Fighter or Terrorist?
• Environmentalism and Economic Freedom
• Freedom of Speech in China and Political Reform
• Colonial Women’s Freedom in Society

✍️ Freedom Essay Topics for College

• The S.E.C. and the Freedom of Information Act
• African Americans: A Journey Towards Freedom
• Freedom of the Press
• Coming of Age in Mississippi: The Black Freedom Movement
• Freedom of Women to Choose Abortion
• Human Freedom as Contextual Deliberation
• Women and Freedom in “The Story of an Hour” by Kate Chopin
• The Required Freedom and Democracy in Afghanistan
• PRISM Program: Freedom v. Order
• Human rights and freedoms
• Controversies Over Freedom of Speech and Internet Postings
• Gender and the Black Freedom Movement
• Culture and the Black Freedom Struggle
• Freedom from Poverty as a Human Right and the UN Declaration of Human Rights
• Personal Freedom in A Doll’s House, A Room of One’s Own, and Diary of a Madman
• Hegel’s Ideas on Action, Morality, Ethics and Freedom
• Satre human freedom
• The Ideas of Freedom and Slavery in Relation to the American Revolution
• Psychological Freedom
• The Freedom Concept
• Free Exercise Clause: Freedom and Equality
• Television Effects & Freedoms
• Government’s control versus Freedom of Speech and Thoughts
• Freedom of Speech: Exploring Proper Limits
• Freedom of the Will
• Benefits of Post 9/11 Security Measures Fails to Outway Harm on Personal Freedom and Privacy
• Civil Liberties: Freedom of the Media
• Human Freedom and Personal Identity
• Freedom of Religion in the U.S
• Freedom of Speech, Religion and Religious Tolerance
• Why Free Speech Is An Important Freedom
• The meaning of the word “freedom” in the context of the 1850s!
• American History: Freedom and Progress
• The Free Exercise Thereof: Freedom of Religion in the First Amendment
• Twilight: Freedom of Choices by the Main Character
• Frank Kermode: Timelessness and Freedom of Expression
• The meaning of freedom today
• Human Nature and the Freedom of Speech in Different Countries
• What Is the Relationship Between Personal Freedom and Democracy?
• How Does Religion Limit Human Freedom?
• What Is the Relationship Between Economic Freedom and Fluctuations in Welfare?
• How Effectively the Constitution Protects Freedom?
• Why Should Myanmar Have Similar Freedom of Speech Protections to the United States?
• Should Economics Educators Care About Students’ Academic Freedom?
• Why Freedom and Equality Is an Artificial Creation Created?
• How the Attitudes and Freedom of Expression Changed for African Americans Over the Years?
• What Are the Limits of Freedom of Speech?
• How Far Should the Right to Freedom of Speech Extend?
• Is There a Possible Relationship Between Human Rights and Freedom of Expression and Opinion?
• How Technology Expanded Freedom in the Society?
• Why Did Jefferson Argue That Religious Freedom Is Needed?
• How the Civil War Sculpted How Americans Viewed Their Nation and Freedom?
• Should Society Limit the Freedom of Individuals?
• Why Should Parents Give Their Children Freedom?
• Was Operation Iraqi Freedom a Legitimate and Just War?
• Could Increasing Political Freedom Be the Key To Reducing Threats?
• How Does Financial Freedom Help in Life?
• What Are Human Rights and Freedoms in Modern Society?
• How the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom Affects the Canadian Politics?
• Why Should Schools Allow Religious Freedom?
• Does Internet Censorship Threaten Free Speech?
• How Did the American Civil War Lead To the Defeat of Slavery and Attainment of Freedom by African Americans?
• Why Are Men Willing To Give Up Their Freedom?
• How Did the Economic Development of the Gilded Age Affect American Freedom?
• Should Artists Have Total Freedom of Expression?
• How Does Democracy, Economic Freedom, and Taxation Affect the Residents of the European Union?
• What Restrictions Should There Be, if Any, on the Freedom of the Press?
• How To Achieving Early Retirement With Financial Freedom?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 24). 267 Freedom Essay Topics & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/freedom-essay-examples/

"267 Freedom Essay Topics & Examples." IvyPanda , 24 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/freedom-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '267 Freedom Essay Topics & Examples'. 24 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "267 Freedom Essay Topics & Examples." February 24, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/freedom-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "267 Freedom Essay Topics & Examples." February 24, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/freedom-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "267 Freedom Essay Topics & Examples." February 24, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/freedom-essay-examples/.

• Freedom Of Expression Questions
• Equality Topics
• Free Will Paper Topics
• Constitution Research Ideas
• Civil Rights Movement Questions
• Respect Essay Topics
• Bill of Rights Research Ideas
• Liberalism Research Topics
• Civil Disobedience Essay Topics
• Tolerance Essay Ideas
• First Amendment Research Topics
• Social Democracy Essay Titles
• Personal Ethics Titles
• Justice Questions
• American Dream Research Topics

Essays About Freedom: 5 Helpful Examples and 7 Prompts

Freedom seems simple at first; however, it is quite a nuanced topic at a closer glance. If you are writing essays about freedom, read our guide of essay examples and writing prompts.

In a world where we constantly hear about violence, oppression, and war, few things are more important than freedom. It is the ability to act, speak, or think what we want without being controlled or subjected. It can be considered the gateway to achieving our goals, as we can take the necessary steps. 

However, freedom is not always “doing whatever we want.” True freedom means to do what is righteous and reasonable, even if there is the option to do otherwise. Moreover, freedom must come with responsibility; this is why laws are in place to keep society orderly but not too micro-managed, to an extent.

5 Examples of Essays About Freedom

1. essay on “freedom” by pragati ghosh, 2. acceptance is freedom by edmund perry, 3. reflecting on the meaning of freedom by marquita herald.

• 4.  Authentic Freedom by Wilfred Carlson

5. What are freedom and liberty? by Yasmin Youssef

1. what is freedom, 2. freedom in the contemporary world, 3. is freedom “not free”, 4. moral and ethical issues concerning freedom, 5. freedom vs. security, 6. free speech and hate speech, 7. an experience of freedom.

“Freedom is non denial of our basic rights as humans. Some freedom is specific to the age group that we fall into. A child is free to be loved and cared by parents and other members of family and play around. So this nurturing may be the idea of freedom to a child. Living in a crime free society in safe surroundings may mean freedom to a bit grown up child.”

In her essay, Ghosh briefly describes what freedom means to her. It is the ability to live your life doing what you want. However, she writes that we must keep in mind the dignity and freedom of others. One cannot simply kill and steal from people in the name of freedom; it is not absolute. She also notes that different cultures and age groups have different notions of freedom. Freedom is a beautiful thing, but it must be exercised in moderation. 

“They demonstrate that true freedom is about being accepted, through the scenarios that Ambrose Flack has written for them to endure. In The Strangers That Came to Town, the Duvitches become truly free at the finale of the story. In our own lives, we must ask: what can we do to help others become truly free?”

Perry’s essay discusses freedom in the context of Ambrose Flack’s short story The Strangers That Came to Town : acceptance is the key to being free. When the immigrant Duvitch family moved into a new town, they were not accepted by the community and were deprived of the freedom to live without shame and ridicule. However, when some townspeople reach out, the Duvitches feel empowered and relieved and are no longer afraid to go out and be themselves. 

“Freedom is many things, but those issues that are often in the forefront of conversations these days include the freedom to choose, to be who you truly are, to express yourself and to live your life as you desire so long as you do not hurt or restrict the personal freedom of others. I’ve compiled a collection of powerful quotations on the meaning of freedom to share with you, and if there is a single unifying theme it is that we must remember at all times that, regardless of where you live, freedom is not carved in stone, nor does it come without a price.”

In her short essay, Herald contemplates on freedom and what it truly means. She embraces her freedom and uses it to live her life to the fullest and to teach those around her. She values freedom and closes her essay with a list of quotations on the meaning of freedom, all with something in common: freedom has a price. With our freedom, we must be responsible. You might also be interested in these essays about consumerism .

4.   Authentic Freedom by Wilfred Carlson

“Freedom demands of one, or rather obligates one to concern ourselves with the affairs of the world around us. If you look at the world around a human being, countries where freedom is lacking, the overall population is less concerned with their fellow man, then in a freer society. The same can be said of individuals, the more freedom a human being has, and the more responsible one acts to other, on the whole.”

Carlson writes about freedom from a more religious perspective, saying that it is a right given to us by God. However, authentic freedom is doing what is right and what will help others rather than simply doing what one wants. If freedom were exercised with “doing what we want” in mind, the world would be disorderly. True freedom requires us to care for others and work together to better society. 

“In my opinion, the concepts of freedom and liberty are what makes us moral human beings. They include individual capacities to think, reason, choose and value different situations. It also means taking individual responsibility for ourselves, our decisions and actions. It includes self-governance and self-determination in combination with critical thinking, respect, transparency and tolerance. We should let no stone unturned in the attempt to reach a state of full freedom and liberty, even if it seems unrealistic and utopic.”

Youssef’s essay describes the concepts of freedom and liberty and how they allow us to do what we want without harming others. She notes that respect for others does not always mean agreeing with them. We can disagree, but we should not use our freedom to infringe on that of the people around us. To her, freedom allows us to choose what is good, think critically, and innovate. 

7 Prompts for Essays About Freedom

Freedom is quite a broad topic and can mean different things to different people. For your essay, define freedom and explain what it means to you. For example, freedom could mean having the right to vote, the right to work, or the right to choose your path in life. Then, discuss how you exercise your freedom based on these definitions and views. 

The world as we know it is constantly changing, and so is the entire concept of freedom. Research the state of freedom in the world today and center your essay on the topic of modern freedom. For example, discuss freedom while still needing to work to pay bills and ask, “Can we truly be free when we cannot choose with the constraints of social norms?” You may compare your situation to the state of freedom in other countries and in the past if you wish. 

A common saying goes like this: “Freedom is not free.” Reflect on this quote and write your essay about what it means to you: how do you understand it? In addition, explain whether you believe it to be true or not, depending on your interpretation. 

Many contemporary issues exemplify both the pros and cons of freedom; for example, slavery shows the worst when freedom is taken away, while gun violence exposes the disadvantages of too much freedom. First, discuss one issue regarding freedom and briefly touch on its causes and effects. Then, be sure to explain how it relates to freedom. 

Some believe that more laws curtail the right to freedom and liberty. In contrast, others believe that freedom and regulation can coexist, saying that freedom must come with the responsibility to ensure a safe and orderly society. Take a stand on this issue and argue for your position, supporting your response with adequate details and credible sources. 

Many people, especially online, have used their freedom of speech to attack others based on race and gender, among other things. Many argue that hate speech is still free and should be protected, while others want it regulated. Is it infringing on freedom? You decide and be sure to support your answer adequately. Include a rebuttal of the opposing viewpoint for a more credible argumentative essay. 

For your essay, you can also reflect on a time you felt free. It could be your first time going out alone, moving into a new house, or even going to another country. How did it make you feel? Reflect on your feelings, particularly your sense of freedom, and explain them in detail. 

Check out our guide packed full of transition words for essays .If you are interested in learning more, check out our essay writing tips !

Martin is an avid writer specializing in editing and proofreading. He also enjoys literary analysis and writing about food and travel.

View all posts

Program: RN Breakfast

Powerful new essay about the loss of freedom

• X (formerly Twitter)

It's a thread that stretches across an entire continent, from Beirut through Kabul.

For the past two decades, their people have built vibrant, liberal societies but they have lived with the threat of powerful forces overwhelming them.

In a powerful new essay for The Atlantic, Lebanese American writer Kim Ghattas says the world is witnessing what loss of freedom looks like.

Guest: Kim Ghattas, Lebanese American writer

Andrew West

Wednesday, November 3, 2021

In this episode

COP26: "Massive divide" between developing and developed counties at climate talks

COP26: World leaders promise to end deforestation by 2030

Andrew 'Twiggy' Forrest launches ad campaign targeting fossil fuels

Join the conversation

Download the ABC listen app to text and call your favourite live radio

We Sacrifice Freedom for Safety, and We Need Not Do So

Americans cherish their freedom. They enjoy a degree of personal, social and political freedom nearly unrivalled in human history. So it is ironic and even tragic that they willingly forfeit so much of that freedom in pursuit of another value: safety. Safety from what? In a word, crime.

Columns appearing on the service and this webpage represent the views of the authors, not of The University of Texas at Austin.

Americans cherish their freedom. They enjoy a degree of personal, social and political freedom nearly unrivalled in human history. So it is ironic and even tragic that they willingly forfeit so much of that freedom in pursuit of another value: safety. Safety from what? In a word, crime. Too often, we needlessly sacrifice freedom for safety.

It’s true that stories of violent crime surround us, from the recent Houston house party where two men were shot and killed to the rape of a 13-year-old hearing-impaired girl at a Dallas park, or the terrible mass shooting at Fort Hood on April 2, these all-too-real stories and images have conditioned Americans to fear crime in their daily lives.

According to data from the Gallup Organization and the National Opinion Research Center, two-fifths of adult Americans say they are afraid to walk alone at night in their own neighborhoods, and two-thirds believe the national crime problem is getting worse. One in seven U.S. households now lies behind locked gates, and millions of residents are afraid to answer their front doors. Our children no longer ride their bikes to school or for play, and parents drive their children to school or the bus stop. One-third of American men have purchased a firearm for protection. One in five women carries pepper spray or Mace.

So what exactly is the problem? The problem is that the world is actually a good deal safer than most Americans realize or appreciate, and the freedoms they sacrifice are often surrendered unnecessarily. Americans, naturally enough, long for safety for themselves and those they care about, and they take actions to secure that safety. However, crime rates in the U.S. have been declining for more than 20 years; the murder rate dropped by half during the past decade alone, and it has been dropping relentlessly for centuries. Research shows that Americans exaggerate their chances of being murdered, raped or robbed, as well as their chances of dying in a hurricane, tornado, earthquake or other rare event. And they seriously underestimate the hazards that pose genuine risk to them, such as heart disease or cancer.

Americans are not stupid or uninformed. Their conception of the world as a dangerous place is one that is depicted to them and reinforced day after day in the mass media. That is where the disconnect between reality and perception takes place. On television, crime is the No. 1 topic in dramas, news programs and movies. The world on television, in newspapers and on the Web is populated by serial killers, child molesters, robbers and rapists. In this media world, the rare appears commonplace, and the commonplace is rarely seen. The resemblance between the dangerous, upside-down world depicted by the media and public perceptions of crime and other hazards is so close that it is difficult to deny a causal influence of the media. In fact, research shows that the more individuals view television, the more likely they are to subscribe to the dangerous-world idea.

Adding to this message are companies and industries that make it their business to scare Americans into buying their products home security systems, car alarms, child-tracking systems, insurance or firearms, to name a few. Their commercials fill the airwaves on any particular day or night.

Newspaper publishers in London discovered almost two centuries ago that placing local crime stories in prominent locations in the paper drove up readership, and the race was on. The public does seem drawn to crime and violence, but that is at least partly because we are naturally attracted to information that is potentially life-saving or life-threatening. In a rationalistic, scientific age, media depictions of death and dying are often the only place in which death is openly discussed or confronted.

The media will continue down this path, but we should not let them determine how safe we feel. Instead, we should always bear in mind that what we encounter in the media is a selective depiction of the world and is often merely the daydreams of script writers and producers. We must also remember that freedom is profoundly precious, too precious to be cast off needlessly or lightly. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, those who would sacrifice liberty in the name of safety deserve neither. So unless you have sound reasons not to, let your kids out to play. Walk to the park. Talk to your neighbors. Seize the freedom that is your heritage.

Mark Warr is a criminologist and a professor of sociology at The University of Texas at Austin. He is an expert on social reactions to crime and peer influence. He has served on numerous federal commissions and panels for such agencies as the National Institute of Justice, the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences and the American Statistical Association.

Explore Latest Articles

Apr 01, 2024

Move More, Sleep Better, UT Study Finds

Mar 31, 2024

Longhorn Pep Band ‘Brings the Energy’

Mar 29, 2024

UT, Austin Parks and Recreation Partner for Eclipse Viewing Opportunities

The Threat to Free Speech, Beyond ‘Cancel Culture’

Plus: Attacks against Ketanji Brown Jackson, and the scholar-snitch problem.

This is an edition of Up for Debate, a newsletter by Conor Friedersdorf. On Wednesdays, he rounds up timely conversations and solicits reader responses to one thought-provoking question. Every Friday, he publishes some thoughtful replies. Sign up for the newsletter here.

Question of the Week

“The University of Pennsylvania’s Lia Thomas made history on Thursday as the first known transgender athlete to win an NCAA swimming championship when she took the title in the 500m freestyle,” the Guardian reported last week. The victory intensified an ongoing debate about what rules should govern transgender athletes in high school, college, and professional sports.

What do you think about this, and why? What, if anything, are you unsure about? If you could ask one question of someone who doesn’t share your position to better understand theirs, what would it be?

Email your thoughts to [email protected] . I’ll publish a selection of correspondence in Friday’s newsletter.

Conversations of Note

Last week, The New York Times published an editorial, “ America Has a Free Speech Problem ,” that fleshed out an argument that “cancel culture” poses a threat to pluralism and deliberative democracy.

Critics of the editorial pounced on a glaring flaw in its first sentence––more specifically, the final seven words of that sentence: “For all the tolerance and enlightenment that modern society claims, Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned.” A fundamental right to speak “without fear of being shamed or shunned” would be incompatible with something the First Amendment properly protects—shaming or shunning others.

I suspect that the editorial board itself would concede that point, because it sometimes shames others in its own commentary, and because the rest of its free-speech editorial is narrower in its claims.

This passage aligns much more closely with my thinking:

“People should be able to put forward viewpoints, ask questions and make mistakes and take unpopular but good-faith positions on issues that society is still working through—all without fearing cancellation,” the editorial asserted, because

freedom of speech is the bedrock of democratic self-government. If people feel free to express their views in their communities, the democratic process can respond to and resolve competing ideas. Ideas that go unchallenged by opposing views risk becoming weak and brittle rather than being strengthened by tough scrutiny. When speech is stifled or when dissenters are shut out of public discourse, a society also loses its ability to resolve conflict, and it faces the risk of political violence.

Of course, that raises a question: What is “cancellation,” exactly? I try to avoid that term in favor of more particular claims, like these: 1) Deliberative democracy depends on the willingness of citizens to air earnestly held positions, including wrongheaded positions, on matters that society is still working through. 2) Fulfilling attendant civic obligations sometimes requires the courage to air ideas publicly despite the possibility that those ideas will be criticized or even ridiculed. 3) Alas, many Americans self-censor on issues that society is still working through not because they are unwilling to have their ideas tested by fire, but because they so frequently see others personally and viciously attacked, arbitrarily and capriciously punished, or unjustly shamed or shunned by digital mobs who reject liberal speech norms. When others complain about cancel culture, those various speech-chilling treatments of others is often what I understand them to mean, granting that the term is underdefined, inconsistently applied, and sometimes abused.

As the attorney Ken White sees it , I’m going way too easy on the New York Times editorial board, partly due to its invocation of the term cancel culture , which he dislikes even more than I do.

His grievances:

We don’t have anything resembling a consensus on what “cancel culture” is and we’re not having a serious discussion about defining it[.] We don’t have a consensus on how we reconcile the interests of speakers and responders, and we’re not making a serious attempt to reach one. We don’t have a consensus about what to do about it and we’re not trying to reach one.

He continues:

People complaining about “cancel culture” frequently suggest that it chills speech. Perhaps. But so does a vague denunciation of other people’s speech. In responding to bumptious defamation threats, I often say “vagueness in a defamation threat is the hallmark of meritless thuggery.” That is, if you say someone’s speech is defamatory and threaten to sue over it, without specifying which exact speech is defamatory, you’re likely just trying to chill speech, not redress genuine defamation. Similarly, if you denounce “cancel culture” without citing specific examples and suggesting how people should act differently, you’re closer to chilling speech than fixing it. Talking about “cancel culture” can be a genuine expression of concern that some response speech is disproportionate and outside our society’s norms, or it can be a partisan attempt [at] delegitimizing entire areas of conversation—usually race, gender, and sexuality. When I read attacks on “cancel culture” I’m often left wondering what I’m being asked not to do.

I am sympathetic to White’s concerns. For more, see the related debate he participated in with Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, as well as Jonathan Rauch’s attempt to specify the circumstances in which cancel culture complaints should be taken seriously. Additional attempts to clarify terms and adjudicate what America’s free-speech norms ought to be are necessary––the cancel culture debate might be muddled, as Cathy Young illustrates in her analysis of recent kerfuffles, but the incidents that fuel it are ongoing.

To cite some examples from March:

In The Atlantic , I detailed excesses in the ongoing attempts to “cancel” all things Russian.

After covering very recent attempts by law students at UC Hastings and Yale to prevent controversial guest speakers from airing their views, the journalist and Yale Law alum David Lat wrote ,

I can’t believe I’m having to write a defense of a free-speech regime in which people listen respectfully to the other side, even when they find the other side’s views abhorrent, as opposed to a free-speech regime where “freedom” belongs to whoever can yell the loudest. You would have expected—and hoped—that law students, as future lawyers, would understand the value of the former and the problems with the latter.

After a student group at the University of Virginia invited former Vice President Mike Pence to speak on its Charlottesville campus, the student newspaper, The Cavalier Daily , published an editorial opposing his “platforming,” arguing that “so-called ‘perspectives’ should not be welcomed when they spread rhetoric that directly threatens the presence and lives of our community members.”

An essay collection was nominated for a literary award, then pulled from consideration after its author took to Twitter to defend another author from social-media attacks she believed to be unjust.

Pen America, an advocacy organization that favors free expression, is tracking numerous bills in state legislatures that would restrict or punish the expression of certain ideas in educational settings.

Kudos to Andy McCarthy of National Review , who would like to see a judicial nominee rejected by the Senate, but came to her defense anyway in the matter of a specific attack that he found unfair:

I would oppose Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson because of her judicial philosophy, for the reasons outlined by Ed Whelan last week. I address that in a separate post . For now, I want to discuss the claim by Senator Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) that Judge Jackson is appallingly soft on child-pornography offenders. The allegation appears meritless to the point of demagoguery.

The deep-in-the-weeds details are here .

Provocations of the Week

In The Chronicle of Higher Education , Laura Kipnis, the Northwestern University cultural critic, asks, “ Why Are Scholars Such Snitches? ” In her telling, “the university bureaucracy has been hijacked for political grudge matches and personal vendettas.” She writes of her observations and experiences:

There are, to be sure, right-wing students and organizations dedicated to harassing professors whose politics they object to, but that’s to be expected. What’s not is the so-called campus left failing to notice the degree to which the “carceral turn” in American higher ed—the prosecutorial ethos, the resources reallocated to regulation and punishment—shares a certain cultural logic with the rise of mass incarceration and over-policing in off-campus America. Or that the zeal for policing intellectual borders has certain resonances with the signature tactics of Trumpian America, for which unpoliced borders are equally intolerable … Is snitching a function of character, the result of a trait you either possess or don’t? Or is it rather that certain institutional contexts, like prisons, incentivize snitching? In higher ed’s overfunded, secretive, and ever-expanding punishment infrastructure (hiring for which now vastly outstrips new faculty lines), glutted with vague regulations about everything from romance to comportment to humor, snitching has become a blood sport.

In the Jacobin article “ The Right Is Still the Enemy of Freedom ,” Branko Marcetic argues,

There’s a narrative taking shape in certain corners of the political discourse right now that goes something like this: Democrats are the real authoritarians. While Republicans may have started this century leading the charge on shredding civil liberties and expanding the national security state, liberals and the Democratic Party have now taken up that torch, while the Right—with its opposition to pandemic mitigation and tech censorship, and its invocations of free speech—are the defenders of core civil rights. This is, at best, half right. It’s true that the Democratic Party has, along with the rest of the US political center, embraced a range of authoritarian moves, from embracing and expanding George W. Bush’s “war on terror” and pushing for tech companies to censor political speech and ban users, to valorizing entities like the CIA and increasing the role of the national security state at home. But are these alarming trends on the liberal side matched by a commitment to protecting civil liberties on the Right? In a word, no. From criminalizing protest, to banning books, concepts, and even words from schools, to using executive power in new, repressive ways—the Right continues to be an extreme and growing authoritarian threat in today’s United States.

Rest assured, dear reader, that you are safely in the hands of a vigilant and freedom-loving civil libertarian who trusts neither the right nor the left nor the center, and certainly not the Jacobins.

Thanks for your contributions. I read every one that you send. By submitting an email, you’ve agreed to let us use it—in part or in full—in the newsletter and on our website. Published feedback may include a writer’s full name, city, and state, unless otherwise requested in your initial note.

Erich Fromm: Escaping from Freedom The attractiveness of being unfree

By Andreas Matthias

Erich Fromm’s theory of the human condition begins with the insight that freedom itself can sometimes be the cause of fear and anxiety, forcing us to find ways to “escape from freedom”. Authoritarianism, destructiveness and automaton conformity are, according to Fromm, three ways how we try to cope with the freedom we fear.

This article is part of The Ultimate Guide to the Philosophy of Erich Fromm.

If you like reading about philosophy, here's a free, weekly newsletter just for you: Subscribe!

The problem of freedom

It is surprising to see freedom identified as a problem, isn’t it? And why would we want to “escape from freedom”?

We usually think that freedom must be something unequivocally good. All over the world people are fighting for their freedom. Being imprisoned, losing one’s freedom, is a heavy punishment that we reserve only for the worst offenders in our society. Slavery seems almost unimaginably cruel to us, not only because slaves in the past have been mistreated, but primarily because they weren’t free. (By the way, slaves were not always mistreated. In ancient Greece and Rome, there were all kinds of slavery , and some of them looked much better than some modern employment contracts ). And finally Kant identified human autonomy (which essentially means human freedom) as the basic, defining feature of what makes us special and distinguishes us from animals. So how can this precious thing, our freedom, be a problem?

People weren’t always as free as we are today. In the Middle Ages, one didn’t have much choice about how to live one’s life. You were born into a gender role, a social caste, even a job. The son of a miller became a miller, whether he wanted to or not (this is where our surnames come from). This all began to change during the Renaissance (~15 and 16th centuries), when the big cities offered more social mobility and more choices and material wealth to their citizens. Suddenly, people were free to redefine themselves, to start a trade, to make money, and to use this money in order to advance in society. The old structures of inherited status began to crumble away and slowly the citizens got used to enjoying freedoms that they never had before. This process went on through the centuries, always progressing towards more equality, more rights, more choice, more freedom, up to the present day.

In the industrialised West, we now enjoy more freedom and more material wealth than ever before. But are we therefore happier?

This is the question that Fromm uses as his starting point. Think about it for a moment. If suddenly a genie came out of an Arabian lamp and granted you total freedom from all restrictions that society imposes upon you, how would this feel? Would this only be a source of happiness?

No, says Fromm. Freedom comes with another, often overlooked side. Being free also means having to take responsibility. It also means being more isolated and alienated from others. There is comfort in being unfree. Think of a small child, having no possessions, no own dwelling, not even the ability to make its own food or to decide how to spend its time. Every hour of its life is planned and managed by parents, schools, uncles and aunties, by the needs of its body, by the incomprehensible rules of a world that the child cannot even begin to understand. Still, as long as they are not suffering from extreme deprivation or poor health, small children are generally some of the happiest human beings: cheerful, relaxed, entirely free from anxiety and stress. How can this be?

Being embedded in a bigger world that takes away our decisions from us gives security and peace to our lives, says Fromm. The less we have to decide, the less we are to blame if things go wrong. Often, the low-paid employees in a company are the most cheerful and friendly people, while its managers are plagued by fear of failure, by stress, heart attacks, anxiety and sleeplessness.

One of his best known concepts of Marxism is the idea of “alienation” that describes how human beings get estranged from their work.

The process from embeddedness to freedom is one that everyone goes through in their own, individual life. As children, we are all safe and fully unfree. Later, as we step out of childhood, we have to increasingly make our own choices: to choose our friends, our lovers, later a field of study or a job. These are extremely wide-ranging decisions that will have consequences for the rest of our lives. Shall I start smoking or not? Shall I be cool or nerdy? Shall I study philosophy or get a well-paying job? Shall I move out of my parents’ house and to where? And as we grow older, we have to make more and more terrible choices. In the beginning, we’re only responsible for our own welfare. But suddenly we find ourselves responsible for the lives, the health and the survival of others: for our children, who blindly trust us to keep them alive, as if we knew what we are doing. Should I buy my kids this plastic toy, or will the chemicals in it make them die of cancer in twenty years? Should I feed them tuna, or explain to them why we should leave the tuna alone? And how am I going to feed them if I make some silly mistake and lose my job?

More and more, we realise that freedom is not only a blessing but also a heavy burden. And if we cannot handle it, we might wish to “escape from freedom,” which is the title of one of Erich Fromm’s books.

Here is an affiliate link to Erich Fromm’s book. If you buy through this link, Daily Philosophy will get a small commission at no cost to you. Thanks!

Ways of escape

Fromm identifies three ways in which many people try to escape from that unwanted and threatening freedom.

One is authoritarianism , the attempt to give up one’s individuality and to become part of a collective, an authoritarian system that will tell us what to do. This can happen in two ways: we can either submit to the power of others, becoming passive like children and following the instructions that we are given. Or we can ourselves become authorities in such a system, the people who will lead others. In both cases, we would escape our own, separate identity and we would become part of a larger group that would either dictate or validate our choices.

The second way is what Fromm calls destructiveness. Being afraid of what the world might do to harm them, some will strike out against it, in order to destroy it first. We see examples of that all around us: in everyday brutality, vandalism, humiliation, crime and terrorism, says Fromm. Of course, we should probably not judge every kind of terrorism and crime in the same way. A father who steals food from a supermarket in order to feed his children is not a destructive vandal. And neither is a terrorist who is attacking a military installation in order to free his country from foreign occupation. But we all know the kinds of people Fromm has in mind here.

The third way of escaping from freedom is automaton conformity , as Fromm calls it. “Automaton” here means “robot”. This kind of escape is particularly suited to our modern, Western societies, which don’t offer many authoritarian hierarchies in which one could hide. So we hide in our mass culture instead. This is the same observation that we already saw in Richard Taylor’s book chapter: that for some people, life consists only in dressing like others do, in watching the same TV programs (Breaking Bad?), reading the same books (Harry Potter) and consuming the same culture as everyone else.

“If I look like, talk like, think like, feel like… everyone else in my society, then I disappear into the crowd, and I don’t need to acknowledge my freedom or take responsibility,” writes Fromm.

The Happier Society. Erich Fromm and the Frankfurt School. In this book, philosophy professor, popular author and editor of the Daily Philosophy web magazine, Dr Andreas Matthias takes the reader on a tour, looking at how society influences our happiness. Following Erich Fromm, the Frankfurt School, Aldous Huxley and other thinkers, we go in search of wisdom and guidance on how we can live better, happier and more satisfying lives today. This is an edited and expanded version of the articles published on tis site. Get it now! Click here!

How to apply this thought

So let us see how we cope with our freedom in our own lives. Do we cherish it? Do we make the best use of it? Or do we hide behind the power and the authority of others, behind violence and destructiveness, or behind mass culture, in the attempt to disappear and to get rid of that freedom that scares us?

Of course, it is hard to look at our own problems directly and to self-diagnose what’s wrong with out lives. Still, if we want to live truly happy lives, we will have to learn to accept our freedom and to use it as an opportunity, as a rare and precious thing, rather than as something to be feared.

Let us also look at the ways which each one of us uses to escape from the responsibility and anxiety of being free. There are so many different ways in which we may settle into a life that’s unfree but comforting: a relationship to someone who is strong and authoritarian; a life that follows the expectations of our surroundings in every detail; a life that is built upon imitating a role model; a life that is so busy that it doesn’t leave any space for bigger choices; a life without a family of one’s own. The latter, what today is often fashionably called the “nomadic” life , could be argued to sometimes be just another form of fleeing from responsibility. If all I have is my van or my sailboat, then I have escaped much of what is difficult in human life: the anxiety and the burden of having a family, the need to earn enough money, the problems of long-term human relationships, the judgement of society, the sometimes difficult relations to relatives and friends. Somewhat paradoxically, “freedom” itself can sometimes be a way to escape from freedom.

If the whole of my life is reduced to sailing a boat across the empty Pacific ocean, then it would be strange to say that I have “achieved freedom.” The freedom to do what, exactly? In the middle of the ocean, my freedom is reduced to a handful of immediate choices: to eat or not to eat; to put up this sail or that; and to turn the boat this way or that. That’s all. We can see how this might be attractive, but it is nothing more than another way of escaping freedom, of escaping the complexities of life as a grown-up member of our difficult, dangerous, and often infuriating societies. Freedom, properly understood, is not only the freedom from the constraints of our social lives; it must, and Aristotle would surely agree with Fromm here, always also be the freedom towards doing what we consider valuable, good, and worth fighting for.

Return to The Ultimate Guide to the Philosophy of Erich Fromm.

Shed a tear for America’s rapidly vanishing freedoms

“Is the best of the free life behind us now?”

Merle Haggard asked in a haunting 1982 country music hit song. 

Nine years earlier, Haggard had scoffed at potheads and draft dodgers in a White House performance for President Richard Nixon.

But, reflecting widespread loss of faith in the American dream in the 1970s, his “free life” song lamented Nixon’s lies, the Vietnam debacle and the ravages of inflation.

The “free life” question helped inspire me 30 years ago to write a book titled Lost Rights , chronicling how “Americans’ liberty is perishing beneath the constant growth of government power.” 

When I recently updated the political damage report in a book titled Last Rights , the late 20th century seemed practically a golden era of freedom in hindsight.

Indeed, since then, federal censorship multiplied a hundredfold.

The Biden administration trampled the First Amendment by “suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens,” a federal appeals court recently ruled.

The Supreme Court will hear that bellwether case next month.

In the 1990s, local bureaucrats sporadically cracked down on home schooling, preventing a smattering of parents from teaching their own kids.

During the recent COVID epidemic, teacher unions spurred unjustified school lockdowns that victimized tens of millions of children.

Vast learning losses resulted that continue to plague young lives. 

In the 1990s, controversies erupted when some schools gave free condoms to teenagers.

Nowadays, many of the nation’s largest school systems encourage children to agonize over their own gender identity from kindergarten through high school.

Ten million kids attend government schools that will assist children in changing their gender without parents’ knowledge or permission.

Puberty blockers and “gender-affirming” double mastectomies are far more disruptive than prophylactic freebies.

In the 1990s, civil-liberties groups challenged laws requiring drug tests for new employees. 

In September 2021, President Biden decreed that 80 million-plus adults working for private companies must get Covid vaccine injections.

After millions of Americans took the jab thanks to his edict, the Supreme Court struck down his order. 

But neither Biden nor his political appointees have any liability for that illicit command or the side effects of the vax.

Haggard lamented the decline of the work ethic, harkening back to a time “when a man could still work and still would.” 

Since the “free life” song came out, the number of handout recipients has more than doubled, and the feds are now feeding more than 100 million Americans. 

In the 1990s, police used ethnic and racial profiles to target suspected drug couriers.

After the 9/11 attacks, the Patriot Act treated every American like a terrorist suspect.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court secretly ruled in 2006 that all Americans’ telephone records were “relevant” to terrorism investigations and thus could be poached. 

The National Security Agency entitled itself to snuff the privacy of anyone “searching the Web for suspicious stuff.” 

A federal report admitted last year that FBI warrantless searches had zapped the privacy of more than 3 million Americans, but Congress recently extended the FISA law with no reform.

Haggard’s 1982 song had a piercing refrain: “Are we rolling down hill like a snowball headed for Hell?”

He tacked on an upbeat ending: “The best of the free life is still yet to come.”

But he lost hope and lamented before his death: “In 1960, when I came out of prison as an ex-convict, I had more freedom under parolee supervision than there’s available to an average citizen in America right now . . . God almighty, what have we done to each other?”

Since Haggard’s passing in 2016, freedom is even more of an endangered species.

The biggest sea change is the plummeting number of Americans who cherish their own liberty.

Many of the protesters who vehemently denounce Donald Trump or Joe Biden are not opposed to dictators per se; they simply want different dictates.

No wonder a 2022 nationwide poll found that six times as many Americans expected their rights and freedoms to decline in the next decade, compared to the number expecting an increase.

Unfortunately, it is easier to document the loss of freedom than to rouse people to defend their own rights.

But citizens cannot shrug off rising oppression until a neon “Here Comes Tyranny!” sign flashes in Times Square.

Liberty is invaluable regardless of how many politicians seek to destroy it or how many fools fail to cherish it.

Freedom Essay for Students and Children

500+ words essay on freedom.

Freedom is something that everybody has heard of but if you ask for its meaning then everyone will give you different meaning. This is so because everyone has a different opinion about freedom. For some freedom means the freedom of going anywhere they like, for some it means to speak up form themselves, and for some, it is liberty of doing anything they like.

Meaning of Freedom

The real meaning of freedom according to books is. Freedom refers to a state of independence where you can do what you like without any restriction by anyone. Moreover, freedom can be called a state of mind where you have the right and freedom of doing what you can think off. Also, you can feel freedom from within.

The Indian Freedom

Indian is a country which was earlier ruled by Britisher and to get rid of these rulers India fight back and earn their freedom. But during this long fight, many people lost their lives and because of the sacrifice of those people and every citizen of the country, India is a free country and the world largest democracy in the world.

Moreover, after independence India become one of those countries who give his citizen some freedom right without and restrictions.

The Indian Freedom Right

India drafted a constitution during the days of struggle with the Britishers and after independence it became applicable. In this constitution, the Indian citizen was given several fundaments right which is applicable to all citizen equally. More importantly, these right are the freedom that the constitution has given to every citizen.

These right are right to equality, right to freedom, right against exploitation, right to freedom of religion¸ culture and educational right, right to constitutional remedies, right to education. All these right give every freedom that they can’t get in any other country.

Value of Freedom

The real value of anything can only be understood by those who have earned it or who have sacrificed their lives for it. Freedom also means liberalization from oppression. It also means the freedom from racism, from harm, from the opposition, from discrimination and many more things.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Freedom does not mean that you violate others right, it does not mean that you disregard other rights. Moreover, freedom means enchanting the beauty of nature and the environment around us.

The Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech is the most common and prominent right that every citizen enjoy. Also, it is important because it is essential for the all-over development of the country.

Moreover, it gives way to open debates that helps in the discussion of thought and ideas that are essential for the growth of society.

Besides, this is the only right that links with all the other rights closely. More importantly, it is essential to express one’s view of his/her view about society and other things.

To conclude, we can say that Freedom is not what we think it is. It is a psychological concept everyone has different views on. Similarly, it has a different value for different people. But freedom links with happiness in a broadway.

FAQs on Freedom

Q.1 What is the true meaning of freedom? A.1 Freedom truly means giving equal opportunity to everyone for liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Q.2 What is freedom of expression means? A.2 Freedom of expression means the freedom to express one’s own ideas and opinions through the medium of writing, speech, and other forms of communication without causing any harm to someone’s reputation.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

US Gun Control: Losing Freedom or Safeguarding?

Gun control has long been among the chief sources of debate in the United States. Being granted by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, the right to keep and bear firearms remains among the most recognizable national liberties and is strongly embedded in the public perception as a demonstration of national freedom. At the same time, the availability of firearms has led to numerous social issues, including criminal activity, accidents, and the phenomenon known as the school shootings. These aspects have led to the emergence of the movement opposing the free circulation of guns, advocating gun control among other precautionary measures. Despite the strong opposition to strict gun control policies, which will supposedly violate the basic human rights without achieving an observable positive result, the modification of gun control laws is required to address the situation, with certain proposed decisions showing the possibility of positive outcomes without adverse effects on civil rights when properly applied.

Being a polarizing topic as it is, the gun control debate understandably presents a powerful political tool and is extensively used by both Democrats and Republicans. This adds an extra layer of complexity to the already complicated matter, as every proposed alteration is now judged not only on grounds of common sense and resulting benefit but also as a potential perspective of either gaining or losing the upper hand in the political stand-off. Such effect is vividly demonstrated every time the gun control policy amendments are proposed, with either the Republicans raising concerns over the supposed negligence of the Constitution in case the additional control is implied or the Democrats describing the prospects of skyrocketing violence and crime rate after some control is sacrificed. The recent executive actions proposed by President Barack Obama is not an exception and have triggered the same reaction, despite addressing the most common concerns and critiques of the opponents.

The proposed strategy unveiled by Obama in his recent January 5th speech focuses primarily on expanding background check requirements for buyers and providing the means to commence such checks by sellers of the firearms. Other amendments are directed at maximizing the efficiency of National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by increasing the funding and expanding its staff, reforming the structure to allow better data processing, investing into mental health care projects dealing with the related issues, and removing legal barriers that hamper the processing of data relevant for NICS (Frederick par. 2).

The expansion of background checks is, without a doubt, the centerpiece of the proposed executive actions. In essence, it gives the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) the authority to require licensing from any seller of firearms, regardless of the volume or frequency of the sales. The failure of obtaining such a license will result in criminal penalties. This will supposedly close the so-called gun law loophole, allowing multiple small-scale firearm sellers to operate without the license and, as a result, without neither the requirement nor the possibility of checking the buyer’s permission for possessing a firearm.

The strategy was instantly met with the resistance by the Republicans, with Speaker of the House Paul Ryan describing it as “the form of intimidation that undermines liberty” and adding that “everything the president has done can be overturned by a Republican president” (“Obama’s Words and Actions” par. 1). While there is little doubt in the latter, the legitimate reason for this remains questionable. Ryan in his denouncing focuses primarily on appeal to tradition and ethical side of the question. However, the strategy proposed by the President does not have any new restrictions and is aimed instead of improving the already existing, but malfunctioning system.

The NICS is one such system, which was conceived for supplying firearm sellers with the relevant information on the buyer. However, examples abound of NICS inadequate functioning. Among the most publicized is the case of Seung-Hui Cho, the perpetrator of the Virginia Tech mass shooting, which has led to deaths of 32 students and injuries of 17 more. Seung-Hui Cho was declared mentally ill and prohibited from possessing a firearm since 2005, but the gap between the state and federal law resulted in the prohibition not being reported to the NICS. As a result, Cho was able to buy two semi-automatic handguns with which he had later perpetrated the shootings (Luo par. 1). As we can see, the system is both in place and properly conceived, but not functional enough to prevent even the most outrageous violations.

The other concern often pointed out by both the gun rights and gun control advocates is that had the system worked, Cho would still be able to purchase a gun. NICS covers only the licensed market, leaving behind a large segment of private sellers. These sellers do not have either the right or the possibility to perform a background check on the buyer, having to rely instead on their judgment. NICS isn’t even available to them, being accessible only for Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders. Besides, they are not required to register the sale or keep records of it, effectively introducing the second market to the scene. While it is perfectly logical when applied to an individual selling his gun on a secondary market – it would be an overshoot to demand to license for such an occasion – this legal gap allows certain small-scale sellers to trade guns effectively without much control. Such an approach is prominently featured on gun shows, where the only check you need to pass to buy a gun is to notarise the seller’s suspicions. While certainly convenient, it does not contribute to the safety of the population.

Convenience and the resulting affordability is another concern voiced by the opponents of gun control. There is little doubt that the mandatory licensing and subsequent emergence of additional control measures will eventually complicate the system, making it more difficult to own a gun. This, according to the opposition, will mostly affect the general population while the criminals will hardly have any difficulties adapting to new rules. Besides, these changes will inevitably lead to the increased costs of firearms, compromising their affordability. Both arguments are hard to deny, as any law is more complex than its absence, both bureaucratically and economically. The important point to remember is these amendments are not uncalled for, and the price tag of a gun may prove lesser of two evils when compared to the adverse effects of a poorly controlled field with an already controversial reputation. Besides, the price of guns in the US is far from the verge of unaffordable for the majority of the population, so increasing it should not become such severe blow to liberty as it is sometimes described.

All the information mentioned above should by no means imply that gun rights activists compromise the safety of the population by impeding the precautions. Several approaches have proposed that address the same issues but do it with other means. Some of them are more popular than the others, like the implication that gun control affects the general population more than it does criminals, and thus decreases the safety (Washington Post Editorial Board par. 1). Unfortunately, this implication is not easily measurable and remains largely speculation. The existing statistics even disprove, rather than supports, this notion, showing that less than one percent of violent crime victims have protected themselves with the threat or use of a firearm, making it one of the least effective means of self-defense (Planty and Truman 12).

This, coupled with the fact that only one in thirty-seven homicides is a justifiable one (Planty and Truman 17) suggests that, unfortunately, self-defense is not among the top priorities of many gun users. Other concerns are more formidable, like the controversial gun-free zones, deemed as weak points by many gun-rights advocates. Their point is hard to argue, as it is supplied with the terrifying statistics of school shootings, the mass killings regularly occurring in educational establishments across America. The school is a gun-free zone, which, according to gun rights proponents, deprives the victims of means of protection. Suzanna Hupp, the leading advocate of an individual’s right to carry a concealed weapon, is frequently citing her experience as a proof of concept.

Suzanna, a survivor of Luby shooting, says that had she not left her gun in the car, she could stop the perpetrator from killing her father and other victims. While being of anecdotal and speculative nature, this argument is not easily ignored. Gun-free zones remain vulnerable to criminals, who, after managing to bypass the security, gain the upper hand in the situation, facing virtually no resistance. The important question here, again, is if the authorities should work on improving the functioning of the restrictions or put both the right and the responsibility of the citizens’ safety in their own hands, removing the restrictions.

The idea of having personal freedoms and rights appeals to me as to every American. I appreciate the possibility of protecting myself and respect the right of others to do so. The arguments of the gun rights advocates also sound extremely appealing to anyone who considers himself or herself a free person. They often cite the Constitution and the Second Amendment which makes it our right to bear arms. Another popular trend is to remind that such right keeps the government from usurping or abusing power, and we should respect the founding fathers’ wisdom of conceiving such a great nation. I couldn’t agree more with this. However, we must be sure to always distinguish between freedom violation and precaution, between the freedom and overindulgence. Gun control should not be perceived as a violation of our rights. Instead, it must be aimed at improving the existing and introducing new methods of addressing issues that exist in America today. I like the idea of having a possibility to walk into a store and buy a gun or two, but I am ready to sacrifice some of this ease in exchange for knowing that at least some tragedy can be averted thanks to it. We should remember we all have not only rights, but obligations and that with rights come responsibilities. Again, this may prove a difficult task when dealing with such a heavily politicized topic. But given how important this topic is, I think it deserves an effort of looking into more closely.

Works Cited

Frederick, Susan. President Obama’s 2015 Executive Actions on Gun Control . 2016. Web.

Luo, Michael. U.S. Rules Made Killer Ineligible to Purchase Gun . 2007. Web.

Obama’s Words and Actions are “Intimidation that Undermines Liberty” 2016. Web.

Planty, Michael and Jennifer Truman 2013, Firearm Violence, 1993-2011 . PDF file. Web.

Washington Post Editorial Board. The NRA’s Simplistic Response to Newtown: ‘Good Guy with a Gun’. 2012. Web.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, December 9). US Gun Control: Losing Freedom or Safeguarding? https://studycorgi.com/us-gun-control-losing-freedom-or-safeguarding/

"US Gun Control: Losing Freedom or Safeguarding?" StudyCorgi , 9 Dec. 2020, studycorgi.com/us-gun-control-losing-freedom-or-safeguarding/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'US Gun Control: Losing Freedom or Safeguarding'. 9 December.

1. StudyCorgi . "US Gun Control: Losing Freedom or Safeguarding?" December 9, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/us-gun-control-losing-freedom-or-safeguarding/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "US Gun Control: Losing Freedom or Safeguarding?" December 9, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/us-gun-control-losing-freedom-or-safeguarding/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "US Gun Control: Losing Freedom or Safeguarding?" December 9, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/us-gun-control-losing-freedom-or-safeguarding/.

This paper, “US Gun Control: Losing Freedom or Safeguarding?”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: January 21, 2022 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Surveillance – Are We Losing Our Freedom?

Introduction, purpose of surveillance, technology used in surveillance, laws and regulations, protests against surveillance.

View All An activity such as surveillance is now being increasingly protested against in all parts of the world. This suggests that surveillance must be problematic. In reality, there is only an ethical aspect attached to it-the question about whether the citizens of a country are losing freedom owing to surveillance or being protected because of it. Analysis and logic suggests that surveillance brings with it both; restriction and protection. We need to see which one it brings more and as suggested by this paper; its biggest disadvantage is loss of freedom, and this maybe be a big price to pay in return for personalized goods and services and security that seems unreasonable.

Surveillance is the act of constantly monitoring or observing people and evaluating information gathered about them secretly. These people could be individual persons or people in groups. There are many ways to monitor these days, given the extensive use of technology used in such activities. An increasingly used word today, ‘dataveillance’, a shortened form of data surveillance, is the use of personal data systems for the purpose of investigation, observing, and/or monitoring (Clark, 1988). In this paper, we will study surveillance, the purpose of monitoring people, the ways people are monitored, regulations against or supporting surveillance, and much more to see what how surveillance threats our information privacy.

In the previous section, the term ‘information privacy’ was mentioned. According to Clarke (2009), information privacy is the power that people have over controlling information concerning them, or at least having the control to influence this information. This term is important to us because throughout the paper, we will be discussing surveillance in the light of information privacy.

Also, important to discuss here is that surveillance is not an issue of developed countries only. Today even developing countries such as Peru, Pakistan and many others are concerned about the constant surveillance activities carried out to investigate them. People in such countries have big issues such as hunger, even starvation, poverty and the like. Despite all these, global surveillance systems make them feel insecure and unsafe.

The purpose of surveillance is always of a positive nature. Notice how this statement contradicts with the very thesis of this paper. However, it is not the purpose the general, democratic public is interested in, it is the intrusion of privacy that matters to it more. Also, in analyzing the point against or for surveillance, it becomes extremely important to get the bigger picture, which includes all sides, the good ones too.

Surveillance is done to provide a service to people. For example, large authorized companies monitor consumer behavior in places such as shopping malls so that they can identify their needs for the purpose of providing more value to them in the form of more personalized services or better quality, and valued products. Most big organizations today, such as Google, Amazon, and others are carrying out such activities by monitoring a users click stream on the internet, or obtaining information from credit card transactions and other online and offline means. They call obtaining and analyzing consumer data ‘Customer Relationship Management’.

Surveillance is carried out to gain insight into certain subject matters. This is quite relevant to the purpose mentioned earlier however, insight in areas, other than business and consumer behavior, is also a purpose of surveillance. For example, people are monitored in the medical area to gain insight into medical procedures to identify which kind of individuals are most likely to be operated successfully on for a certain kind of disease. Another example is to gain insight into how to improve, let’s say, an elementary school, so that children can be taught better to start with. There are several other examples such as these.

The most important, and most frowned upon purpose of surveillance is obtaining intelligence information. This topic is extremely sensitive these days with growing concerns about national threat, national security, and national and global terrorism. This also seems to be the most relevant to our study because it is this kind of surveillance that gets people worried about intrusion of freedom and privacy. It is this kind of surveillance that monitors peoples every move, uses the most extensive and expensive technology, and destroys or saves peoples lives. As quoted by Wellhausen (2000), “The use of intelligent services in such a case has no longer something to do with national security, but rather with keeping tabs on critics. Surveillance systems can be used to track down virtually all activity of citizens, may they be accused of a special crime or not.”

When people are monitored for the purpose of national security, it should be comforting for them that the heads of the state are concerned about their well-being. However, it intimidates most people than it comforts them. Why intimidate? This is because matters of national security and national threat can become dangerous on so many levels. When the government, and more importantly when intelligence organizations, are involved, peoples control over their information, or their information privacy, is threatened most.

Finally, surveillance is also used to fight crimes such as drug-trafficking and organized crimes such as bank robberies (Wellhausen, 2000). It is not only used to fight these crimes but also investigate them so that they can be prevented in the future. This also falls under the category of national interest and national security.

The technology for surveillance is becoming increasingly advanced with an escalation in violence, organized crimes, and terrorism. Therefore, governments are investing huge sums in such surveillance technologies for their intelligence and police forces, more than ever. For example, the UK government invested a sum of 500 million pounds on a global surveillance system called ‘Project 415’ (Wellhausen, 2000).

Initially, the most widely used surveillance technology was the simple CCTV networks. However, these are being quickly replaced by more advanced technologies such as panning and tilting cameras, digital video recorders, hidden spy cameras, wireless nanny cams, and other full fledged motion-activate systems (Surveillance Technologies, 2007).

Also worth mentioning is the RFID, Radio Frequency Identification, technology. This uses RFID tags and readers to track goods, cars, people, animals, and just about everything. Anything that has an RFID tag on it can be tracked down with an RFID reader. This is done through frequency modulation and demodulation. RFID tags such as those used in shopping give data about consumers and they can be tracked even after consumers have taken RFID tagged goods home from the supermarket.

These technologies give faster, better and easier control. In other words, owing to these technologies, and many more electronic surveillance systems, secretly tracking down people has become easier, better and faster. Take the following image as an example to see just how convenient it has become to spy on people with a range of ‘hidden spy cameras’, the size of a golf ball.

These technologies seem trivial when compared to those used by the intelligence services of mainly developing nations with powerful technology infrastructures. One such global surveillance technology is Echelon, designed by the NSA to capture email, fax, telex, and telephone communications over the world’s communication network (Hager, 2002). Countries that collaborated were USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. What do these intelligence services do with all this information? They filter it to find relevant material on the basis of certain key words. Technologies such as these demonstrate just how convenient it is to track down each and every one of our conversations and moves. The fact that ‘someone is always listening’ is a loss of freedom and information privacy for many people.

There are country specific regulations as to the degree to which authorities are permitted to use means of surveillance to monitor the citizens. For example, the NSA regulates the extent to how much people can be monitored in the US.

Also, in the US, the Fourth Amendment of the constitution is that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (Fourth Amendment, 2009)

The fourth amendment is a protection of privacy and freedom and clearly states the point against surveillance for unnecessary and unreasonable means such as the surveillance means of Echelon. However, an argument by proponents of surveillance against this may be that national security is anything but. Also, the scope of the amendment in the light of surveillance permits authorities to monitor in matters of national security if permitted by the President or the Attorney General (Fourth Amendment, 2009). In any case, the very technology called Echelon is a breach of this constitution for the simple fact that it intercepts the conversations of millions of people who are not even Americans, but may belong to any part of the world.

The most recent worldwide protest against surveillance took place in October 2008, and the theme of it was “Freedom not Fear”. People from different countries got together to peacefully protest against mass surveillance activities, be they online or offline (Avila, 2008).

In the history of Germany, the longest protest march was carried out in Berlin on the Freedom not Fear day. It was a 2 km long march and protesters carried signs against surveillance such as “We are here and we are loud because they are stealing our data”. (Avila, 2008).

In 1991, plans of a Europe-wide surveillance system were originated and by April 1999, a surveillance plan called the Enfopol 98 was about to become the regulation in all European countries for intercepting all kinds of communications. However, it was released because of public protests (Wellhausen, 2000).

Britain, however, today is known as the surveillance society because of the intense monitoring activities carried out throughout the country. There are about 4.2 million CCTV cameras in Britain which means that there is one for every fourteen people (BBC News, 2006). Cameras, along with RFID tags, credit card transactions, mobile phone triangulations, keystroke programmes and many other activities are being used to monitor Britain everyday. The report on the Surveillance Society predicted that by 2016, the monitoring may become so tight that jobs to people with health risks may be refused (BBC News, 2006).

The lives of consumers and citizens have become especially difficult as a result of growing surveillance technologies, be they CCTV cameras set up in shopping malls, shop RFID tags, registration plate recognition cameras, mobile phone triangulation, store loyalty cards, credit card transactions, satellites, travel cards, hidden cameras, bugs, internet cookies, click streams, patient records, phone cameras, call monitoring, Echelon and so much more!

With so much technology and so many authorities monitoring people all the time, it has become difficult to be free. There is always the danger of being watched and heard. There is always the danger that you might do something that the authorities do not approve of. Therefore, in conclusion, it can be said with conviction that surveillance, indeed, is a loss of freedom more than anything else.

Avila, R. (2008). Worldwide Protests Against Surveillance: Freedom not Fear 2008. Global Voices Adcvocacy.

BBC (2006) Britain is ‘Surveillance Society’ . BBC News.

Clarke, R. (2009) Roger Clarke’s Dataveillance and Information Privacy Homepage . Roger Clarke.

GPO Access (2009). Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure. US Constitution. Web.

Hager, N. (2002). Exposing the Global Surveillance System . Cover Action Quarterly.

Survelliance Technology (2009) Surveillance Technologies.Web.

Wellhausen, T. (2000). Surveillance.Web.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

The Debate Over Free Speech, Disinformation and Censorship

More from our inbox:, senator ted cruz responds, talking to children about cancer, why we keep our landlines, internet access.

To the Editor:

Re “ Trump Allies Are Winning War Over Disinformation ” (front page, March 17):

The U.S. Supreme Court put limits on free speech, saying you can’t falsely shout “fire” in a crowded theater. Fundamental to our democracy is an informed electorate. Yet our courts seem to be OK with a flood of lies and propaganda masquerading as news and aimed at burning down our democracy.

This should concern every American for several reasons, including the surge of social media sites that contain much misinformation, the closure of many local newspapers, a decline in the number of real journalists, and an increase in the amount of misinformation spread by adversaries like Russia and China in an attempt to affect the outcome of our elections.

Richard Dickinson Richmond Hill, Ga.

In the same way that semiautomatic guns and bump stocks were never foreseen by the founding fathers when establishing the Second Amendment, social media and A.I. escaped their prescience when it came to issues of free speech.

The commerce of ideas as they addressed it consisted primarily of public discourse via the printed or spoken word at social, political and religious gatherings. The idea that citizens would someday own portable electronic devices that facilitated both the easy manufacture and distribution of subjective realities certainly surpassed anything imagined in the Sedition Act.

America must now address two pressing questions that Madison, Hamilton and others were spared. How do we prevent the yelling of “fire” in a crowded theater when there is neither an actual theater nor an assembled crowd? And how do we stop domestic and foreign profiteers who would embrace the resultant turmoil?

Anthony Nannetti Philadelphia

There is a difference between supporting the First Amendment and hiding behind it. A presidential campaign that uses disinformation to subvert a fair and legal election is undermining the very democracy for which free speech is a bulwark.

Louis Greenstein Pleasantville, N.J.

A Supreme Court decision preventing the Biden administration from deciding what can and cannot be said on social media would also prevent a potential future Trump administration from deciding what can and cannot be said on social media.

Ronald J. DeFelice Irvine, Calif.

Re “ An Islamophobic Smear Campaign Is Dividing Democrats ,” by Lydia Polgreen (column, March 21):

Ms. Polgreen blames Islamophobia for Adeel Abdullah Mangi’s difficulty in getting confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and she accuses me of conducting “bad faith ambushes” because I asked Mr. Mangi during a Senate Judiciary hearing if he condemns Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack on Israel.

The reason I asked Mr. Mangi this question — which Ms. Polgreen fails to mention — is that Mr. Mangi has refused to denounce statements by the director of Rutgers’s Law School Center for Security, Race and Rights in which the director referred to Israel as an “occupying force” and accused Israel of engaging in “settler colonialism.” Mr. Mangi donated to the center and served for years on its board of advisers.

Ms. Polgreen also fails to note that the Senate confirmed another nominee, Zahid Quraishi, who, like Mr. Mangi, is Muslim and Pakistani American, with 81 votes — one of the highest vote totals for any judicial nominee of the Biden presidency.

The White House and Senate Democrats don’t want to defend Mr. Mangi on the merits of his record, so they instead accuse his critics of Islamophobia. That is a shameful attack.

Ted Cruz Houston The writer is a Republican senator from Texas.

Re “ How to Talk to Children About Cancer ,” by Talya Minsberg (Live, nytimes.com, March 22):

We were saddened to learn that Catherine, Princess of Wales, has been diagnosed with cancer. Our thoughts as therapists immediately turned to her children and the challenge of having difficult conversations. We agree with Ms. Minsberg’s recommendations.

No one can provide better care than a parent as their child experiences emotional trials. Illness is inevitable, and caring for a child through a family illness is an inevitable part of parenting. This affects the parent, too, but they can be most effective in helping a child by attending to their own feelings first; then they can fully focus on their child’s needs.

We believe that being honest with a child is always best. Tell the truth, but only the amount that a child can hear and digest at any given moment. Take the lead from what a child asks, making sure the tone and the answer align with where a child is. This conversation is an ongoing one that will be elaborated on over time.

We believe that the best antidote to the fear and pain of loss is togetherness. As Catherine said : “Please do not lose faith or hope. You are not alone.”

Elena Lister Michael Schwartzman New York The writers, a psychiatrist and a psychologist, respectively, are co-authors of “Giving Hope: Conversations With Children About Illness, Death and Loss.”

Re “ Speaking Out for Landlines in Digital Age ” (front page, March 17):

My wife and I are on the high side of 65, and we pay for a landline only as a lifeline as we deal with the never-ending onslaught of power outages wrought by National Grid in Massachusetts, some as long as 10 days in our years here.

We also live in a mobile phone dead zone. So our mobile phones must depend on internet Wi-Fi for all calls. When the electricity goes out, so does the internet, hence our lifeline to the outside world in times of crisis.

We plug in two touch-tone phones to replace cordless phones when there is no juice from National Grid. Whether AT&T, Verizon and others like it or not, plain old telephone service (POTS) is as close to 100 percent reliable as you can get. But now they want to tear out the copper, forcing us to unreliable telephone service.

Ben Myers Harvard, Mass.

You’ll have to pry my landline phone from my cold, dead hands.

I find it absolutely ridiculous and user-unfriendly to hold a screen to my ear, as well as to then hold the phone back where I can see the screen in order to find the keypad, while missing the spoken conversation.

Claire Albahae Brewster, N.Y.

Re “ Millions Are Set to Lose Internet Access Subsidies ” (news article, March 24):

During our history, Americans brought mail service, electrification and telephone service to all corners of the country. Why the lessons learned from these experiences can’t be used to solve the challenge of similarly providing residential internet access coast to coast as well is a damning indictment of our broken national politics.

Gary Rucinski Newton, Mass.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• March Madness
• AP Top 25 Poll
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Court agrees to pause collection of Trump’s massive civil fraud judgment if he puts up $175M

Donald Trump says he will post $175 million within ten days

FILE - Former President Donald Trump holds up a copy of a story featuring New York Attorney General Letitia James while speaking during a news conference, Jan. 11, 2024, in New York. Trump could find out Monday, March 25, how New York state aims to collect over $457 million he owes in his civil business fraud case, even as he appeals the verdict that led to the gargantuan debt. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File)

• Copy Link copied

FILE - New York Attorney General Letitia James speaks during a press briefing, Feb. 16, 2024, in New York. Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump could find out Monday, March 25, how New York state aims to collect over $457 million he owes in his civil business fraud case, even as he appeals the verdict that led to the gargantuan debt. After James won the judgment, she didn’t seek to enforce it during a legal time-out for Trump to ask an appeals court for a reprieve from paying up. (AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews, File)

Donald Trump is facing four criminal indictments, and a civil lawsuit. You can track all of the cases here .

NEW YORK (AP) — A New York appeals court on Monday agreed to hold off collection of former President Donald Trump’s more than $454 million civil fraud judgment if he puts up $175 million within 10 days.

If Trump does, it will stop the clock on collection and prevent the state from seizing the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s assets while he appeals . The appeals court also halted other aspects of a trial judge’s ruling that had barred Trump and his sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., the family company’s executive vice presidents, from serving in corporate leadership for several years.

In all, the order was a significant victory for the Republican ex-president as he defends the real estate empire that vaulted him into public life. The development came just before New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, was expected to initiate efforts to collect the judgment.

Trump, who was attending a separate hearing in his criminal hush money case in New York, hailed the ruling and said he would post a bond, securities or cash to cover the $175 million sum in the civil case. Speaking in a courthouse hallway, Trump revisited his oft-stated complaints about civil trial Judge Arthur Engoron and the penalty he imposed.

“What he’s done is such a disservice and should never be allowed to happen again,” said Trump, who argues that the fraud case is discouraging business in New York.

James’ office, meanwhile, noted that the judgment still stands, even if collection is paused.

“Donald Trump is still facing accountability for his staggering fraud,” the office said in a statement.

Trump’s lawyers had pleaded for a state appeals court to halt collection, claiming it was “a practical impossibility” to get an underwriter to sign off on a bond for such a large sum, which grows daily because of interest. The Trump attorneys had earlier proposed a $100 million bond , but an appellate judge had said no late last month.

Monday’s ruling came from a five-judge panel in the state’s intermediate appeals court, called the Appellate Division, where Trump is fighting to overturn Engoron’s Feb. 16 decision . Trump attorneys Alina Habba and Christopher Kise characterized Monday’s ruling as a key first step.

Siding with the attorney general after a monthslong civil trial , Engoron found that Trump, his company and top executives lied about his wealth on financial statements, conning bankers and insurers who did business with him. The statements valued Trump’s penthouse for years as though it were nearly three times its actual size , for example.

AP AUDIO: Appeals court reduces amount needed for Trump to appeal

AP correspondent Julie Walker reports Donald Trump doesn’t have to pay a $454 million dollar bond in one case, but in a separate case faces an April trial.

Trump and his co-defendants denied any wrongdoing, saying the statements actually lowballed his fortune , came with disclaimers and weren’t taken at face value by the institutions that lent to or insured him. The penthouse discrepancy, he said, was simply a mistake made by subordinates.

Engoron ordered Trump to pay $355 million, plus interest. Some co-defendants, including Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, were ordered to pay far smaller amounts. Monday’s ruling also puts those on hold if the $175 million bond is posted.

After James won the judgment, she didn’t seek to enforce it during a legal time-out for Trump to ask the appeals court for a reprieve from paying up.

That period ended Monday, though James could have decided to allow Trump more time.

James told ABC News last month that if Trump doesn’t have the money to pay, she would seek to seize his assets . She didn’t detail the process or specify what holdings she meant, and her office has declined more recently to discuss its plans. Meanwhile, the office has filed notice of the judgment, a technical step toward potentially moving to collect.

Trump maintained on social media on Friday that he has almost $500 million in cash, but he said at a news conference on Monday that he’d like to be able to use some on his presidential run. He asserted that James and Engoron , who’s also a Democrat, “don’t want me taking cash out to use it for the campaign.”

If the penalty is ultimately upheld, the attorney general could go after Trump’s bank and investment accounts. There’s also the possibility of going through a legal process to seize properties such as his Trump Tower penthouse, aircraft, Wall Street office building or golf courses, and then seeking to sell them.

But that could be complicated in Trump’s case.

“Finding buyers for assets of this magnitude is something that doesn’t happen overnight,” noted Stewart Sterk, a real estate law professor at Cardozo School of Law.

Under New York law, filing an appeal generally doesn’t hold off enforcement of a judgment. But there’s an automatic pause if the person or entity posts a bond covering what’s owed.

Many defendants are able to get such a bond, but “judgments of this size are rare,” said Joshua Naftalis, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice.

“What makes this one unusual is someone who is subject to an enormous amount of money and has to come up with it himself,” Naftalis said.

The ex-president’s lawyers have said underwriters wanted 120% of the judgment and wouldn’t accept real estate as collateral. That would mean tying up over $557 million in cash, stocks and other liquid assets, and Trump’s company needs some left over to run the business, his attorneys have said.

They asked an appeals court to freeze collection without his posting a bond. The attorney general’s office objected , saying he hadn’t explored every option for covering the amount.

The appeals court “chose a middle ground” by still requiring Trump to put up money but lowering the amount, Naftalis said.

Associated Press writers Larry Neumeister and Jill Colvin contributed to this report.

Follow the AP’s coverage of former President Donald Trump at https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump .

Programs submenu

Regions submenu, topics submenu, a conversation with u.s. ambassador to the united nations linda thomas-greenfield on u.s. diplomacy in the pacific islands, press briefing: japanese state visit and trilateral leaders’ summit, the state of governance and rule of law in uganda.

• Abshire-Inamori Leadership Academy
• Aerospace Security Project
• Africa Program
• Americas Program
• Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy
• Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative
• Asia Program
• Australia Chair
• Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy
• Brzezinski Institute on Geostrategy
• Chair in U.S.-India Policy Studies
• China Power Project
• Chinese Business and Economics
• Defending Democratic Institutions
• Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group
• Defense 360
• Defense Budget Analysis
• Diversity and Leadership in International Affairs Project
• Economics Program
• Emeritus Chair in Strategy
• Energy Security and Climate Change Program
• Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program
• Freeman Chair in China Studies
• Futures Lab
• Geoeconomic Council of Advisers
• Global Food and Water Security Program
• Global Health Policy Center
• Hess Center for New Frontiers
• Human Rights Initiative
• Humanitarian Agenda
• Intelligence, National Security, and Technology Program
• International Security Program
• Japan Chair
• Kissinger Chair
• Korea Chair
• Langone Chair in American Leadership
• Middle East Program
• Missile Defense Project
• Project on Fragility and Mobility
• Project on Nuclear Issues
• Project on Prosperity and Development
• Project on Trade and Technology
• Renewing American Innovation Project
• Scholl Chair in International Business
• Smart Women, Smart Power
• Southeast Asia Program
• Stephenson Ocean Security Project
• Strategic Technologies Program
• Transnational Threats Project
• Wadhwani Center for AI and Advanced Technologies
• All Regions
• Australia, New Zealand & Pacific
• Middle East
• Russia and Eurasia
• American Innovation
• Civic Education
• Climate Change
• Cybersecurity
• Defense Budget and Acquisition
• Defense and Security
• Energy and Sustainability
• Food Security
• Gender and International Security
• Geopolitics
• Global Health
• Human Rights
• Humanitarian Assistance
• Intelligence
• International Development
• Maritime Issues and Oceans
• Missile Defense
• Nuclear Issues
• Transnational Threats
• Water Security

America is Losing the Shoe Race With China

Photo: TAUSEEF MUSTAFA/AFP via Getty Images

Blog Post by James Andrew Lewis

Published April 1, 2024

China not only has more shoes, it is the world largest producer of shoes. How did The United States let this crucial industry, on which modern economies must stand, escape from its grasp?

A better question might be who cares.   The number of shoes is not a good indicator of national power.   In fact, no single technology is a good indicator of national power.   The U.S. economy is vast, decentralized, continental in size, and is guided by actively competitive markets. It has been exceptionally innovative for decades.   Leading in a single technology (like railroads in the 19th century or semiconductors today) reflects a common analytical error that misjudges how economies and technology actually create national power.   The concept of a “race” itself is a questionable legacy of Cold War thinking – the Cold War had a finish line (identified by Eisenhower and Dulles at the onset), while the current situation does not.

Stories about the United States falling behind are so predictable  that they form a literary genre.   In 1957, the President’s Science Advisor predicted that Soviet performance in math and science education would give it global leadership in a decade.  In 1969, the Departments of Treasury, Commerce and Agriculture warned President Nixon that a powerful new economic entity, the European Union, would displace the United States.  Starting the 1980s, assorted pundits announced that Japan would dominate the global economy. And until recently, there were routine predictions that China would displace the United States, predictions that still make regular appearances. 

These predictions have two things in common. First, they were wrong.  Second, they were wrong because they counted the wrong things.  They did not place their analyses  in the context of larger national economies. Instead, they relied on picking illustrative metrics, usually proxy indicators that provide an indirect measurement of technological success.   One recurring problem is the tendency to measure inputs rather than outcomes.   A politician may have great staff and spend more on an election, but the ultimate metric is how many votes are received.   Claims that the Unites States is falling behind China in 5G because China has deployed more base stations or has more 5G enabled phones reflects a similar confusion over metrics.   It is not the number of base stations that is important, it is the ability to use 5G to create new goods and services (or be more efficient in the use of existing goods and services) that is important, and this is best measured by the monetization of new 5G enabled services and products and their revenue. 

A report that announces that China leads in 37 technologies  out of 44 technologies does not explain why the United States is the center for development of artificial intelligence, quantum technology, and biotechnology.   China did not develop successful COVID vaccines, lags in quantum, and there are anecdotes that China’s leaders asked the author of a best-selling 2018 book on China’s coming dominance of artificial intelligence why, if that was the case, were GPT technologies developed first in the United States?  Of the 37 technologies listed, China’s alleged lead is open to question in 23.   Does China really lead in cybersecurity, as the Report asserts?   The digital economy depends on cloud computing, next generation networks (like 5G and 6G), and software (like AI products) and these are technologies where the United States has a strong if not dominant position.   

China is good at manufacturing what others have invented but no longer so good at innovation itself.   This is the result of political change. China was becoming a leading innovator when it was politically open, before 2012.   It still has advantages, but now that it is becoming politically closed, idea creation has slowed, entrepreneurs, investors and researchers are leaving, foreign investment is in decline (because of a perception of increased political risk), and geopolitics frays connections to global research and tech.   Under different political leadership, China would be a much more formidable competitor, but China made a political decision that values continued party control over innovation and its ability to innovate is at risk. 

Similarly, the EU spends significantly on R&D and has excellent research facilities, but its regulations are a powerful disincentive to entrepreneurship and commercialization.  Europe’s major economies have shown flat income growth for more than a decade.   It is not positioning itself to compete in a digital economy, since this requires a willingness to accept risk and allow entrepreneurship. Europe values privacy over innovation.

There is no easy way to directly measure innovation, so there can be a tendency to use proxies like number patent issued, amount spent on R&D, number of PhDs and publications.   It seems reasonable to assume that more R&D spending, more publications, and more patents correlate with more innovation and one of their attractions is that they are easier to count, but by themselves they do not explain strength in technological innovation.   Until the last few years, the United States lagged in investment in basic research (the foundation of innovation) and in the infrastructure to support innovation.   Yet it has over eighty years outperformed other economies when the measures are the creation of valuable new technologies and national income.   The strength of the U.S. “innovation machine” lies somewhere else. 

The discussion of technology and innovation relies on indirect proxy measurements, like the number of patents. Patents are a metric that must be used carefully.   The assertion that “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure” is particularly true for China’s centrally directed economy, where people perform to meet measures set by Beijing, leading to situation where researchers are rewarded for the number of patents issued (or number of publications) even if no one uses those patents. 

Many quantitative measures may not actually measure technological leadership as it relates to national power.   Specific metrics such as the percentage of national income spent on R&D or the number of patents issued, are inadequate by themselves to predict technological leadership. It is the ability to use technology for commercial and military purposes that is essential.   Looking at the U.S. economy, it is investment in R&D, access to skilled labor, supportive business and intellectual property laws, a dynamic financial system, and an entrepreneurial business culture that explains its overall strength compared to other economies.  

Nor does technological “leadership” guarantee military advantage.   Other factors determine military success, the most important being political will, leadership, and strategy.   An opponent that has an advantage in these areas will be able to resist and thwart a more technologically advanced opponent (the Taliban, for example).   Advanced technology in the service of flawed strategy will not change outcomes.   There is an assumption that technology provides an advantage and, in a contest, where other factors are equal, technological leadership can be critical, but in most situations this technological advantage is only one factor among many in determining effectiveness. Specific quantitative measures may not actually measure what we want to assess.   It may be better to ask what nations want (wealth, international influence, military power) to determine the contribution of a basket of technologies.

These issues are not binary – an outcome where China makes all the shoes, and the United States makes none. We would need to consider both the number of shoes produced and their quality and type, and then ask how shoes contribute to wealth, power, and military strength and whether there are alternative technologies that can substitute for them (since under duress, nations are inventive). Answering these questions requires a broader view than that taken in many reports that looks at the overall economy and its technological base. The best predictors remain overall national revenue and tech market share.

The keys to technological leadership are at the most fundamental level, access to capital and to ideas (both the ability to create new ideas and to use them). Better measures of success include market share (meaning someone actually buys what you are making), the number of startups (particularly ‘unicorns’), revenue, and the long-term trend in national income. These revolve around the central importance of the ability to commercialize research and innovation. This is an area – entrepreneurship - where the United States has had an advantage over Europe and China, both of which score well on proxy innovation metrics but less well for outcomes.   The biggest risks to the U.S. innovation system are political dysfunction and regulatory ideologues. These are domestic problems, not the result of international competition, but is easier to fault China than in the mirror.   

James Andrew Lewis

Programs & projects.