safety over freedom essay

Skip to main content
Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Ben Franklin's Famous 'Liberty, Safety' Quote Lost Its Context In 21st Century

Virginia caucus hopes to limit police data collection, storage.

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." That quote often comes up in the context of new technology and concerns about government surveillance. Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the editor of Lawfare, tells NPR's Robert Siegel that it wasn't originally meant to mean what people think.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

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.

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

Aug 28, 2024

In-Person Contact Linked With Lower Levels of Loneliness in Older Adults

On the left, a younger man with dark hair and a beard sits beside an older man with white hair. The younger man has his arm around the shoulders of the older man. Overlaid on the image are digital distortion lines.

Aug 26, 2024

Early Galaxies Were Not Too Big for Their Britches After All

In outer space, a bright object glows in the center, surrounded and partly obscured by a dark cloud

Aug 21, 2024

Next Time You Beat a Virus, Thank Your Microbial Ancestors

Two curly ribbons, one purple and one green, represent the three dimensional shapes of two related proteins

Why freedom matters more than safety

Russell coates october 9, 2023 civil liberties liberty nanny state regulations.

In an age consumed by concerns for safety and security, many of us have been quick to embrace unprecedented safety measures, surveillance , and expanding state control. Safety is, of course, to be valued, but some important questions do arise, particularly in the context of our 21st-century challenges: Are we sacrificing too much freedom in the pursuit of safety? Is freedom more important than safety, and if so, why?

The idea here is not to reject safety outright, but to ensure that it is achieved within the bounds of individual freedom, limited government, and the protection of individual rights. Moreover, it’s worth noting that pursuing safety without due regard for freedom can paradoxically render the world less safe.

But what’s the driving force behind this belief that freedom should be favored even amidst safety concerns? Let’s delve into the reasons why, with the aim of fostering a just and prosperous society, the principle of individual liberty is paramount.

How the pursuit of safety can be dangerous

Excessive safety measures and regulations can stifle innovation and economic progress. In a society where government control is pervasive, individuals and businesses may be discouraged from taking risks or pursuing innovative ideas. This can result in economic stagnation and a lack of dynamism, hindering overall prosperity.

When a society prioritizes safety above all else, it often leads to the concentration of power in the hands of a few. Governments may seek to centralize authority to respond to perceived threats more efficiently.

However, this concentration of power can undermine the system of checks and balances that is essential for preventing abuses of power. Authoritarian tendencies can emerge, jeopardizing the principles of democracy and individual rights .

Indeed, arguably the most concerning risk is the gradual slide toward authoritarianism. It often begins with seemingly well-intentioned safety measures but can evolve into a full-blown authoritarian regime if left unchecked.

Once established, authoritarian governments are notoriously difficult to dismantle, and the erosion of individual liberties becomes a long-term and entrenched reality.

Indeed, history is replete with stories of authoritarianism emerging when societies prioritize safety or perceived stability over individual liberty. Here are some notable historical examples:

Nazi Germany (1933-1945): Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in Germany is a stark example of authoritarianism emerging in the name of safety and stability. In the aftermath of World War I and the economic turmoil of the Weimar Republic, many Germans were yearning for stability.

Hitler promised to restore order and provide safety and economic security, but his regime quickly dismantled democratic institutions, suppressed dissent, and imposed a totalitarian rule marked by violence and terror.

Soviet Union (1917-1991): The Russian Revolution of 1917 led to the rise of the Soviet Union . While the initial promise was to create a fair and equitable society, the pursuit of collective safety and societal transformation led to a regime under Joseph Stalin marked by purges, mass executions, and a complete disregard for individual liberties. The ‘safety’ of the Soviet regime came at the expense of individual freedom, progress, and prosperity.

Post-9/11 United States (2001-present): In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. Government implemented a series of security measures in the name of safety.

The Patriot Act expanded surveillance powers, and the government engaged in mass data collection. These measures compromised civil liberties and privacy rights, providing a compelling example of the erosion of individual freedoms in the name of national security

China’s Social Credit System (ongoing): China’s Social Credit System is a modern example of authoritarianism emerging under the guise of safety and social stability.

Under Xi Jinping, the communist regime has implemented a complex system that assigns scores to individuals based on their behavior, online activities, and social interactions. Those with low scores face restrictions on various aspects of life, including travel and access to certain services. The system is designed to promote compliance with government policies, but it raises significant concerns about privacy and freedom of expression.

Freedom is the fundamental principle that enables justice and prosperity

Freedom isn’t an abstract aspiration; rather, it serves as the very foundation of a just and prosperous society. In pursuing safety, we mustn’t forget the timeless principles that define our civilization.

The idea of freedom as an important end in and of itself has been at the heart of the philosophical discourse for centuries, championed by classical liberal and Enlightenment thinkers who laid the intellectual groundwork for the modern world.

John Locke , a seminal figure in the Enlightenment era, argued that individuals possess natural rights, including life, liberty, and property. These rights, he contended, precede the existence of government and cannot be taken away without just cause.

Locke’s ideas laid the foundation for the concept of limited government and individual freedom. He believed that governments exist to protect these rights, and their legitimacy is derived from the consent of the governed. For Locke, the primacy of freedom was not merely a philosophical notion; it was a blueprint for constructing a just society.

Likewise, John Stuart Mill , another influential figure in classical liberalism , emphasized the importance of individual liberty as a means to promote the well-being and progress of society. Mill argued that a society that fosters freedom of thought, expression, and action allows individuals to pursue their own happiness and development.

In his famous work, On Liberty , he asserted that the only justification for limiting individual freedom is to prevent harm to others. But this harm has to be real and demonstrable in order for an individual to be restrained from pursuing their course of action — not just a potential risk.

Why freedom makes us thrive

One of the essential aspects of freedom is the idea that it allows individuals to take responsibility for their choices and actions. In a society that prioritizes safety at the expense of freedom, personal responsibility often takes a backseat.

This can result in a culture of dependency, where individuals look to the government for solutions to every problem, eroding the self-reliance and resilience that are essential for a prosperous society.

Furthermore, freedom fosters innovation and economic prosperity. History has shown that societies with greater economic freedom enjoy greater economic growth and higher standards of living.

When individuals are free to pursue their economic interests and innovate without excessive government interference, it leads to the creation of wealth and opportunities.

Cultural and intellectual diversity also thrive in a free society . The exchange of ideas and perspectives is vital for the growth of knowledge and the development of a vibrant culture. In a society that values freedom, individuals are encouraged to express themselves and challenge established norms, leading to social progress and a more dynamic and inclusive culture.

While safety is undoubtedly important, it must be achieved within the framework of individual freedom and limited government intervention to ensure a thriving and vibrant society.

The lessons from history and the insights of classical liberal and Enlightenment thinkers remind us that sacrificing too much freedom in the name of safety can lead down a perilous path. To maintain a just and prosperous society, it is essential to cherish and uphold the principle of individual liberty.

Are you a student interested in getting involved in pro-liberty activism? By applying to join Students For Liberty’s Local Coordinator Program, you can be supported in promoting the ideas of liberty while also developing your skills and meeting many like-minded students from across the world. Click on the button below to find out more and get involved!

Are you looking for an opportunity to gain new insights about the ideas of liberty and network with like-minded individuals? Students For Liberty’s upcoming LibertyCon International , held in Washington, D.C. , on February 2-4, 2024 , is an event you won’t want to miss!

LibertyCon International offers an opportunity to engage with top experts, scholars, and entrepreneurs from a variety of fields while providing a platform for attendees to connect with others who are dedicated to advancing pro-liberty ideas and creating a freer future.

Click the button below to sign up for updates and secure your spot at this exciting event. We can’t wait to see you there!

This piece solely expresses the opinion of the author and not necessarily the organization as a whole. Students For Liberty is committed to facilitating a broad dialogue for liberty, representing a variety of opinions.

Share this blog post

Russell Coates

Editor-in-Chief, Learn Liberty Blog

Russell is the Editor-in-Chief of the Learn Liberty blog, having also served as Students For Liberty’s Global Content Marketing Specialist. He enjoys researching and reading about a wide variety of topics, including the history of liberalism, philosophy, politics and current events, emerging technologies, and conservationism. Russell obtained a B.A. in…

Tags: authoritarianism authority Classical Liberalism enlightenment free society government hitler individual liberty individual rights john locke John Stuart Mill liberty nanny state public safety safety social credit Surveillance surveillance state Xi Jinping

Sign up for our newsletter

Get involved with sfl, write for sfl, sign up for our newsletter, want to know more about learn liberty + students for liberty's impact, new initiatives, and other efforts made to advance liberty around the world, you have successfully subscribed.

Argumentative Essay On Safety Vs Freedom

However, “The Codling of the American Mind” conveys that within education , students themselves are enacting self censorship by demanding trigger warnings in education. This article provides an example: “Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about aw students asking her fellow professors at Harvard not to teach rape law-or, in one case, even use the word violate (as in “that violates the law”) lest it cause students distress. Although the subject is very difficult one, why bypass the opportunity to learn in order to prevent yourself from feeling distress?

As a result, soccer players communicated by email about their respective plans. Hey, that talk looks pretty great,” a white student wrote to a Hispanic student, “but on the off chance you aren’t going or would rather play futbol instead the club team wants to go!! ” The Hispanic student was greatly offended by the email and decided to respond back. However instead of privately engaging in a conversation with the “offender”, she decided to publicly air he conversation on Oberlin Microaggressions; a blog for students who have been marginalized, hoping to provoke sympathy and antagonism towards the emailer. Engaging in what we call Victimhood Culture.

The article also claims that “the culture on display on many college and university campuses, by way of contrast, is “characterized by concern with status and sensitivity to slight combined with a heavy reliance on third parties. People are intolerant of insults, even if unintentional, and react by bringing them to the attention of authorities or to the public at large. Domination is the main orm of deviance, and victimization a way of attracting sympathy, so rather than emphasize either their strength or inner worth, the aggrieved emphasize their oppression and social marginalization. Due to the fact that people are so sensitive of their feelings, they they will enact violence or attract sympathy to feel of self worth.

To export a reference to this essay please select a referencing style below:

Related essays:

Freedom vs Safety: What Matters More?

Is there a right answer in the debate to quarantine or reopen the economy?

The Coronavirus quarantine has been in place for over a month in the US now to varying degrees. While some places reopen, others are extending their quarantines.

Understandably, people are upset and tired of the quarantine. Is it necessary for public safety, or is it an overstep of government limiting freedoms?

Protests sprung up across the U.S. against government lockdowns

There have been demonstrations in almost every state demanding the economy be opened up again.

First, let’s get something out of the way: the majority of these protests and protestors are ridiculous. There are those who are standing closely together and not wearing masks, in complete denial that there is a pandemic right now. There are those who show their vanity and selfishness by demanding to get haircuts and go golfing. There are weird far-right nuts bring their guns to protest their second amendment rights, which has nothing to do with the current situation. Then there are the worst of the worst people who harass nurses who are on the frontline saving lives.

All those people aside, there are legitimate reasons for opening up the economy. People need jobs to feed their families. A society can only survive so long on essential workers and government aid. At some point, the costs of quarantine – unemployment, poverty, hunger, homelessness, delayed health risks – will outweigh its benefits.

What’s the right answer, and who decides? First, we have to step back and look at the core of this debate – freedom and safety.

Freedom and safety are at odds with each other, but also need each other

Freedom is being able to think, say, and do what you want – to live your life as you please. Safety is being protected from harm – to live your life without fear of danger.

Though people may uphold freedom as an ultimate virtue, it’s limited in a society. You can’t have absolute freedom because it takes away from the safety and the freedom of others. If anyone could do whatever they wanted, and they chose to hurt and kill, that restricts someone else’s freedom to live as they please.

But you also can’t have absolute safety. That would require monitoring and limiting the actions of everyone, submitting to a protective but also authoritative body. Restricting actions limits freedom, but it also limits safety because you become vulnerable to whoever you trust for protection.

Absolute freedom and absolute safety don’t exist in the real world. They rely on each other. Freedom needs safety to be free, and safety needs freedom to be safe.

Within the structure of a society, an ideal government holds the authority and responsibility of balancing the two – giving as much freedom and as much safety as possible to as many people as possible.

The misquoted Benjamin Franklin

Every time there’s a debate over freedom and safety, a quote by Benjamin Franklin is always used and taken wildly out of context. You may recognize it:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

The argument is typically made in favor of freedom or liberty, saying that giving up freedom for safety would be a loss of both. The Washington Post has a great explanation of what this quote really means, but I’ll try to sum it up briefly here.

This was part of a letter regarding taxation and military protection. In the arrangement that this letter address, Benjamin Franklin did not feel it was fair and so was opposed to it. He felt the freedom they would give up was too great, and in return, the safety they would get was too little.

He later went on to sign the Constitution, in which states ultimately ceded some of their freedom to the federal government in return for safety.

The key words from that quote are not “liberty” and “safety,” but rather “essential” and “temporary.” You would not give up something “essential,” whether it’s liberty or safety or something else, for something that’s temporary. That’s a bad trade. You have to ensure that whatever you give up is worth what you get in return.

So it’s not really about whether freedom or safety are more important, but how much each is given up in exchange for the other. Let’s take this into a practical scenario.

There’s a balance, and we have to admit we have acceptable limitations to both

We love to drive, and we love the freedom of driving. But there are limits to that freedom – limits that we all generally accept. There are limits to where you can drive, what direction you can drive, how fast you can drive, when you can drive, what you can drive, and a complex set of rules governing how you drive. All these traffic laws are designed to maximize safety while driving, but significantly hamper the freedom of driving. Yet we accept them because for all of us to have the relative freedom to drive, that freedom needs to be limited for everyone.

Though we value safety as evidenced by the abundance of traffic laws to provide it, there’s a limit to how much we are willing to give up for it. Traffic laws help reduce deaths from collisions, and yet there’s an acceptable number of automobile deaths that we can live with. It sounds jarring, but it’s true. In 2019, there were 38,800 deaths from auto collisions in the U.S. We can significantly reduce those deaths by cutting the speed limit in half. We could reduce that to a small fraction if we only permitted essential travel, or designated drivers (public transportation, taxis, and ride services). We can eliminate auto deaths completely by simply banning cars.

But we won’t do any of those. It would be too much of a cost on our economy, productivity, employment, convenience, and leisure. Lives are not worth that much to us. So to maintain the level of freedom we have from driving cars, we are ok with 35,000-40,000 people unnecessarily and prematurely dying every year.

Let’s bring this a little closer to home. Each year, 30,000-60,000 people die from the seasonal flu in the U.S. Every year, we could quarantine during flu season, but we don’t.

The balance of freedom and safety applies to every aspect of our society. It’s a hard reality to admit for either side. Those who value freedom more tend to ignore that they support limitations on freedom in numerous ways. Those that value safety more ignore that there is an acceptable level of danger and death they are willing to tolerate for convenience.

Absolutes from either side are unhelpful, the issue is more complex

The primary and usually passionate argument from both sides is in favor of absolute (or at least very extreme) freedom or safety.

Those in favor of lifting the lockdown often claim that government is being oppressive, limiting freedoms, and creating a communist state (I’m ignoring the more ridiculous claims of the pandemic being a hoax). Yet they often advocate for government to restrict and enforce regulations in other areas of life for other people. They only oppose government when it is in conflict with their personal freedom.

Those who favor staying in quarantine often place an over idealistic emphasis on saving lives. Claims that you can’t put a price on life or that the economy is not worth losing lives sounds great as a virtue to aspire to, but simply isn’t the reality of how we live as a society. The amount of money we spend or don’t spend, as individuals and as a society, reflects how much we value human life. Though we would never quantify it if asked, there is a very real price tag on how much saving a life is worth. This is an eye-opening article on how different organizations and companies place a dollar amount on the cost of a human life .

The real arguments

There are valid arguments on both sides for an extended quarantine or a lift of the lockdown.

An extended quarantine doesn’t mean we’ll save every life, but we will save more lives. Though I pointed out earlier that we tolerate a certain amount of death, we still need to sacrifice as much as we can to preserve life. We have the examples of terrifying death rates from other countries. Our own death toll continues to grow without slowing down. This virus is still too unknown for us to know if people can even build any sort of immunity. While the number of people that have died from Coronavirus is comparable to the seasonal flu, it is far from over. Rising death tolls indicate there will be a lot more deaths in the coming weeks, far surpassing the flu. Quarantine is needed to slow the death rate down.

On the other hand, people need to work to survive. This isn’t about the economy, it’s about jobs and livelihoods. While there is already a high unemployment rate, it will only climb higher as quarantine is extended because small businesses will shut down and companies will no longer be able to pay their employees. Most people will make it through a few weeks of unemployment, but not a few months. It’ll result in higher rates of poverty, hunger, and homelessness – not only in the short-term but especially in the long-term if families can’t recover from their losses. This is in addition to the other negative effects of extended quarantine including increases in suicides, domestic violence, child abuse, sex trafficking, and homelessness.

The real conversation that both sides should be participating in is the duration of quarantine, the phases of reopening, the low-risk industries that can reopen sooner, the precautions that need to be in place, and the markers of success or regression. It’s a much more complex and nuanced conversation than “freedom over fear” or “stay home save lives.”

Better questions to ask

The question of whether freedom or safety is more important isn’t a good question to ask. It’s overly simplistic and doesn’t take into account that both are needed, and that the balance of the two really depend on the situation, which with Conoravirus, is changing daily.

A better question is, “What personal freedoms can I sacrifice to ensure the safety of others?” Or, “What personal safety can I give up so others are free to work and provide?”

Ultimately, it’s a personal moral question of “What can I do to help?”

It’s easy to protest opening the economy when you don’t have anyone close to you who has compromised immunity or still working in high contact jobs. How can you help someone who is self quarantining because they really are at risk if they go out?

It’s easy to tell everyone to stay home when you have the ability to work from home and still get paid. How can you help those without a job?

There are a lot of people doing good during this time, from frontline and essential workers to those who are volunteering to help their neighbors and community with basic needs. They do it in silence and out of sight because it’s the right thing to do. Unfortunately, it’s the angry and aggressive who tend to be the loudest and capture our attentions.

What will you do?

We’re in an era where we’ve confused fighting on the comments section of the internet as “social action.” We’ve confused putting up some witty phrase on a sign and holding it on the street as “social action.” They are not. It’s just a self-absorbed effort to prove a point or pick a fight.

If you really care about your position, this is real social action. Contact your local political leaders and representatives to voice your opinions and provide helpful suggestions. Reach out to local community organizations to see how you can help. Donate money to organizations that are helping people through this crisis. Give money to people who don’t have a job. Check in on people to see how they’re doing physically, emotionally, and financially.

We get so absorbed in proving a point that we forget the vast majority who are struggling and just trying to make it through this. Stop fighting with your neighbor and start fighting for your neighbor.

Share This Article

SUBSCRIBE TO

WEEKLY EMAILS

2 thoughts on “Freedom vs Safety: What Matters More?”

While I agree with the idea that there is always a trade off between freedom and government intervention and laws to insure saftey, the underlying premise in your reference to the Coronavirus is faulty. You have stated your case with the automatic assumption that a quarantine was necessary and then made the argument for both sides to work together to figure out how that should progress and when and how it should end. But it was and has been ever since the beginning, absolutely obvious who in the population is predominately at a risk of death from the virus (80 +%).Those above retirement age. That is an irrefutable fact. And now we know that of the other 20%, identifiable underlying health criteria that affect the immune system is a major contributing factor to almost all of those deaths. In other words approximately 99.3% of all verifiable Coronavirus cases will recover. We could have given that information out to our entire population within the first month after the shutdowns and let them chose if they wanted to go out in public an the at risk portion of the population could have chosen for themselves or if they had a guardian, they could have decided what action to take. The one exception could have been nursing homes or other such care facilities. The worst thing though throughout this entire time, is that those of us who tried to speak up and disagree were derided and shamed for expressing that the solution being presented was both the wrong road and dangerous for our society as a whole. It would have cost us far less to protect those that were truly vulnerable and our economy and individual lives would not have suffered and possibly for many been irreparably damaged. The premise on which you built your view point is simply, wrong and the statistics prove it. Although I do agree that now that we have been forced down this dark hole, we should do everything in our power as individuals, to help our neighbor. “Love thy neighbor as thyself”.

You assume every “sane and reasonable” person would agree with your values. You’re full of shit. All values are subjective – totally unique to that individual – but worse still: all values are imprinted by culture. Human culture favors humans. Viewed from a larger ecological window – humans are the worst virus ever to plague the planet, and COVID is just mother nature’s attempt to restore balance. That’s REAL science – not the anthropocentric, arrogant, hypocritical science of woke idiots like you.

On a political level, your FEAR does NOT supersede my FREEDOM. That’s not how the Constitution was written. Jefferson recognized that all parties would be corrupted by power and thus imposed checks and balances. Our Dictator Politicians have declared an open-ended “Emergency” and suspended all civil liberties, shaming any of us who object. My right to manage my own immune system is every bit as “sacred” as a woman’s right to manage her reproductive system. My economic future – and thus my whole life – has been destroyed by restrictions – a casualty every bit as real as all those “theoretical” cases of COVID driving these lockdowns.

In the end, FREEDOM is FAR more critical to human survival than Safety. The world is a random reality, and those who seek to manage, control, and eliminate risk are not only engaged in futility, they are engaged in dying. They live in their safe cubicles glued to their safe virtual realities and preach compassion, but its only for other zombies like themselves. No less than Benjamin Franklin said: “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for lunch.” So now the sheep have multiplied and crowded into cities and they outnumber the wolves, and by vote, they sentence us to financial death or banishment if we don’t embrace their shaming fear. A wolf needs only one thing: space. Habitat. To hunt as it was born to hunt. We are not evil just because your white, bearded Messiah says we are. Freedom is our oxygen, and we are gladly willing to risk a few germs in order to continue breathing. If YOU are afraid, it’s YOUR responsibility to lock yourself up. Don’t cages us.

Share Your Thoughts Cancel reply

Get new blog articles emailed to you

A QUOTE IN CONTEXT – What did Franklin really think about Liberty and Safety?

I love Franklin quotes. He was a genius of a writer. The man himself was a mixed bag, and if I’d known him personally I would probably have had serious issues with some of his behavior. But there is no doubt that he left an astounding number of great quotes for posterity. So great, in fact, that over 200 years later, people still love to throw them around.

But do we really know what they mean?

Today, I want to talk about a quote that is very popular among libertarians and others who worry about government overreach:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Seems like a pretty straightforward quote, right? If you give up your liberties by trading them to purchase some kind of temporary safety, you don’t deserve either.

The quote is often used to argue against things like like government surveillance of citizens. And though I haven’t actually seen it, I’m sure somebody has used it to argue against the shelter-in-place orders in the current crises. But was that kind of meaning what Franklin actually had in mind?

Well, some people argue it wasn’t. Look what happened when I googled some key words to find the quote:

The top two results both quote Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, basically saying that the quote is being taking out of context and completely misused. The argument is roughly as follows:

The original quote comes from a 1755 letter about taxation and defense during the French and Indian war, in which Franklin is urging the governor to pass a bill sent to him by the legislature, and along the way arguing that the influential Penn family shouldn’t object to being taxed, along with everybody else, to raise funds for the defense of the frontier border of their state.

Wittes claims that this context means Franklin was not actually talking about liberty as we think of it, but about money and defense, and that the quote therefore doesn’t really apply to most of the causes it is commonly attached to. In fact, he implies, it is closer to the opposite. In the words of of Inigo from Princess Bride :

Wow. Is he right?

I immediately set off to find out. (As those of you who know me are probably aware, random research is basically what I do for fun.)

But I immediately encountered a far-too-common problem: NO ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS.

Oh yes, the articles (read them here and here if you want) certainly reference original documents. But they don’t let me SEE them. They paraphrase things in their own words and talk about what that the documents mean. Problem is, I’m not really all that interested in their personal opinions. I speak English. I’m literate. If you give me the actual letter, I can see the context quite well myself, thank you. But no. They don’t include the letter, or even a large quotation, in either article. Not even a link to where I could find it elsewhere.

Thankfully, after searching around a bit, I was able to find a digital version of it here . It’s rather long, but I dutifully read the whole thing, and finally found the section in question way down in the second-to-last paragraph. And it turns out, the context is somewhat ambiguous. After spending most of the letter talking about the taxation, the war, the Penn family, etc, we get a slight shift in subject and encounter this in the start of a fresh paragraph:

“…we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety…”

He then moves on to talk about arming the settlers, and getting ammunition to those who need it. So this key quote is almost an aside. He does not elaborate a lot on what he meant by “going further.” Apparently there is a line that ought not be crossed, even for the defense of the settlers (and they themselves would not wish the government to cross it) but what that line IS he does not really specify.

However, even this small amount of context make’s Wittes’s argument seem faulty. Yes, he’s right, the main point of the letter was about taxation and money. But this particular section was NOT.

However, I grant that there might be some room for confusion, because of the way the statement is just sort of thrown out there without a lot of explanation, in the middle of a letter that is mostly on a different subject. How do we know exactly what Franklin meant? How do we know if we are really interpreting the quote the way he intended?

Elementary my dear Watson. We ask Franklin himself.

It was not only future generations who found Franklin so wonderfully quotable. In fact, Franklin rather enjoyed quoting himself! (A quirk that was humorously mentioned in another one of my favorite movies, 1776 .***)

(Wow. I seem to be on a movie-quoting spree today.)

Anyway, as it turns out, the first person to recycle this famous statement about liberty and safety into a new context was….you guessed it…Benjamin Franklin. He used a slightly altered version of this quote 20 years later in 1775. At that point, he was part of a delegation that was still trying to achieve a peaceful reconciliation with the British crown. (*Spoiler Alert…they failed). Seventeen points were brought forward for discussion, some of which were rejected by each side. In making a report on the situation, Franklin admitted that some of the issues might be compromised on. But on others, specifically the ones about Parliament meddling in the internal political affairs of the colonies, and troops being quartered in the colonies without the consent of the local legislature, he was quite firm. The colonies could NOT compromise these without compromising their basic liberties. Even for the sake of “temporary safety.”

And here he is, quoting himself:

“ As to the other two acts, the Massachusetts must suffer all the hazards and mischiefs of war rather than admit the alteration of their charters and laws by Parliament. ‘They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.’ “

In other words, their laws and liberties were too precious to be infringed upon, even for the sake of safety. And it would be better for them to risk a lot of death and suffering than to allow those liberties and laws to be trampled on. (Read the full context of his comments here .)

So. Although his first use of the phrase MIGHT be considered a bit ambiguous in it’s context, I’d say that its later use pretty clearly spells out what he meant. Anybody who claims that the modern use of the quote is “taking it out of context” or “butchering” it’s original meaning is, I politely maintain, just plain wrong. They might be very sincere. They might have the best of intentions. But they simply don’t have the facts straight.

Now, you don’t have to agree with Franklin. (I disagree with him on plenty of subjects myself.) You can say he got his priorities backward, that he blew things out of proportion, and didn’t value human life enough. You can say he was a lunatic for all I care. But please don’t try to tell me that the “original context” of the quote proves he was saying something totally unrelated to what we thought he was saying.

It doesn’t. And he wasn’t.

Franklin’s famous quote means pretty much exactly what we think it means.

(Sorry, Inigo.)

P.S. I know some of you are probably wondering what in the world this post had to do with my writing or costume designing. Well….nothing, actually. But sometimes I just get really interested in a random subject and assume somebody else might be too. Haha.

***Warning. This movie, although great fun, does have a significant amount of language. Lots of d–n, h–l, and taking God’s name in vain. I recommend using filtering technology of some kind if this bothers you. (I’ve had friends take my mention of the movie as a recommendation and then be horribly offended by the content. So. Fair warning.)

What do YOU think? Have you ever wondered where Franklin’s famous quote originally came from? Do you think it still applies today? Have you heard someone try to claim it doesn’t “mean what you think it means”? Also, does anybody else think Princess Bride is one of the most quotable movies ever? Let me know in the comments!

Check out these other posts you might enjoy:

34 thoughts on “ a quote in context – what did franklin really think about liberty and safety ”.

I love this! I honestly had never thought about the context, but … it totally means exactly what I thought in context. 😛 Glad you dug into it a bit, though!

Personally I think that Franklin woke up one morning with something of the sort in his head, wrote it down, liked the way it rolled out of his pen, and began using it opportunistically. It is just dropped into the letter to the governor. Benjamin Witte can say that it means one thing because he sees an application of it. Another reader can see another application involving the freemen of Pennsylvania unwilling to relinquish their self-determination for some overreaching act from the Assembly. Another reader can see another application involving the liberty of self-governance of all the colonies. Franklin may well have been carefully building a case for the American revolution. It really doesn’t matter. The logic of the relationship between essential liberty and security is the same. It is tautological. It is actually meaningless except as a reductio ad absurdum.

It is worth noting however that in Franklin’s time the focus was on liberty as it concerns self-determination at the level of the body politic. The primary concern of anyone in Franklin’s position would be with the tensions and discord brought about by governance from afar. Only derivatively would there be concern for the civil liberties of individuals. The freemen of Pennsylvania are not free-standing. Their freedom derives from their body politic.

The foundational belief was that a free people are self-governing. As a body they have jurisdiction over their internal affairs, which is to say that they have the power and the authority to direct their destiny. There is no suggestion that the individuals living within society are or should be self-governing, certainly not when it is taken to mean absence of internal constraint and disregard for the welfare of others. Self-governance cannot relieve itself of governance.

While “live free or die” might be just the call for a people oppressed by a foreign power, “free” cannot be appropriated by individuals within a body politic to mean whatever they want it to mean. Nor is there any suggestion by Franklin that one body politic should have governance over the jurisdiction of another body politic. There are natural limits to the reach of jurisdiction. They apply equally to the peoples within a body politic – most visibly to the manifold oppressions at the root of our current social discord. Full and efficacious representation within a framework of clearly circumscribed jurisdiction is the remedy.

To get to the point about the tautology within Franklin’s remark, essential liberty is a matter of self-determination. There is no overlord. It is in the operation of self-determination, realized within the jurisdiction of a body politic, to obtain safety through protection from outside powers and adventitious causes. This involves no loss of liberty. It is indeed safety that conduces to liberty and the realization of the aspirations of a people. Intrinsic to self-determination is the power to chart and take the considered course, and implement whatever safety measures are needed to ensure the destination is reached.

On the other hand, safety obtained through the invitation of a power outside the jurisdiction of the body politic necessarily involves a loss of liberty. As long as there is Other in contradistinction to Self, self-determination is compromised. There are multiple cases in which this can occur.

There is fear of the loss of liberty to an Other in consequence of merely the exercise of that liberty. This is a case in which liberty has already been lost. It is lost the moment fear becomes the constraint on what is done. It is lost to nothing other than fear. In its place is the semblance of safety.

Then there is the supplication for safety. The supplication is not a directive. The supplicant has no jurisdiction over the power providing the safety. If the power responds, though it may appear to be a case of benevolence, it is a case in which a debt is owed. Despite the semblance of safety, there is no assurance that the power will withdraw from the area over which the body politic originally had jurisdiction.

Then there is the business deal. The body politic makes some form of payment to the power in exchange for safety. Given the semblance of safety, this may appear to be an improvement. Yet there is nothing but a transactional and ultimately non-binding agreement that the power will withdraw from the area.

Then there is the call for the power to provide safety. This can happen if the body politic is owed a debt by the power. While this is the unstable beginning of a measure of jurisdiction over the power, it does not extend to the expulsion of the power.

In all these cases an outside power effectively occupies an area over which the body politic originally had jurisdiction – even in the first case in which there is only the threat of occupation. If the body politic had felt its jurisdiction to be adequate, it would have provided for its own safety and would not have felt the need to issue the invitation. In sum, this outside power that provides safety is the very power that imperils safety. Thus it is not temporary safety that is purchased. It is false safety. It is essentially a palliative for fear. True safety expands liberty. It provides a sure path to do what a people aspire to do.

but in the original case there is no outside power providing safety – the dispute is originally around exice tax and later the taxation of Penn land. By rasing funds via taxation to raise a defence budget the outside power that you reference does not exist and hence the tautology is non existent. If i am wrong please let me know what outside power you are referencing.

As what Franklin says is tautological, there’s no need to look around to identify an outside power. It’s all in the meaning of his words: “give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety”. Essential liberty is given by A to a something B, doesn’t matter what it is, in return for B providing A with “a little temporary safety”. B is the outside power. Essential liberty cannot be given up to anything other than an outside power. One cannot give up essential liberty to oneself.

This is how leftist mentality, along with the hard right, have used google and big tech (corporate fascism) to totally control even our history. The quote, “he who has the power writes the history books” also needs to add “re-writes the history books”. All google results showed the context being wrong until I finally found the original document. When I read it, it seemed he was saying liberty over defense, although you needed to know exactly what he meant to know WHY the “freemen” didn’t want them to go further. Your research, through other means, identifies his thinking. Interesting how this is hidden from us all. Satan is the father of lies and deception. Makes sense then that these corporate fascist would skew history in such a way!

I’m so glad to have found this. I went looking for the original place of the quote and found your article. And I truly appreciate it, because it helped me get my research done a little faster. The reason that I went looking was because I opened a book that we had purchased several years ago by Cody Lundin that’s called “When All Hell Breaks Loose”, and the opening page before the contents says “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither And lose both”. – Benjamin Franklin. I was curious as I’ve never seen it with the “… and lose both.” at the end before.

I totally agree! I did the same as you; looked up the quote, saw the NPR article and others detailing how the quote has been misinterpreted, and then went and found the original document. I came the same conclusion you did – that Franklin had changed topics a bit and was NOT talking about the taxation at that point. And you went even further and found more evidence from what Franklin said later in life, so good on you! Thanks for this! We need to be people who don’t take the first result on Google – or the first 10 results – as truth. We need to be seekers of the truth. It is hard work!

Someone please correct me if I’m wrong or misunderstanding something, but since Franklin’s re-use of the quote in 1775 was referencing Massachusetts’ right to not have charters and laws changed by Parliament, wouldn’t that mean Franklin was talking about “liberty” in the sense of self-government apart from England and not individual liberty like we think of today? He seems to be advocating for their own freedom as a system of government and not directly referencing the liberties of individual people. For context, here’s a link for the original documents that I could find: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-21-02-0269

Franklin does seem to use his quotes opportunistically, but it just felt like a stretch to me to say that his second quote about Massachusetts’s ability to self-govern should automatically negate how he used the quote originally in 1755, even if that quote might be slightly ambiguous to us today.

But again, if I’m missing something, I would sincerely like to know. Thanks!

Thanks for your feedback, Michael!

It was never my intention to argue that the way Franklin used the quote in 1775 “negated” the way he used it 20 years earlier. I was simply pointing out that he probably used it somewhat similarly in both cases.

I think the immediate paragraph context of the 1755 use (as opposed to the wider context of the entire letter) indicates he was talking about the individual liberties of the frontiersmen being important (vs the local Pennsylvania government infringing on them). And you are correct that the 1775 context is referencing the freedom of local government vs the power of national government (Parliament).

I don’t think either of these uses negate the other. They are complimentary and I think both indicate that overall, he believed freedom (of multiple kinds) was worth preserving even at the cost of safety. That is the general idea he was putting forward in both cases.

Wittes tries to argue, from the wider context of the letter, that that’s not really what Franklin was talking about, but I think the way Franklin uses the quote in both cases goes against Wittes argument.

Thanks for contributing to the conversation!

I thought it quite funny that you mentioned Googling the quote and finding the top results being that the quote has been horrendously butchered and taken out of context :D. Not that Google, which is in the business of gathering and profiting off your information, has any vested interest in adjusting your perception of its meaning.

Honestly, it doesn’t even make sense that Franklin would quip that freedom should not be given up for security while discussing the Penn family and taxation. It’s obvious when read in “context”–as the top Google results claim–that he is talking about those under attack on the frontier. It suggests that those people would rather suffer than to subject themselves to outside authority that, while providing aid and succor, may impose their own will.

Franklin never said don’t seek security; that would be moronic. He only stated that you shouldn’t sacrifice that which makes you free to gain security. You’ll never stop paying the price…

People sometimes laugh out loud when they recognize themselves in the subject matter. I found this quite amusing because it describes my sentiments exactly:

“Oh yes, the articles (read them here and here if you want) certainly reference original documents. But they don’t let me SEE them. They paraphrase things in their own words and talk about what that the documents mean. Problem is, I’m not really all that interested in their personal opinions. I speak English. I’m literate. If you give me the actual letter, I can see the context quite well myself, thank you. But no. They don’t include the letter, or even a large quotation, in either article. Not even a link to where I could find it elsewhere.”

I do a lot of research in the field of history and the lack of quotable sources is astonishing. I can identify with your frustrations in this regard.

Thanks for gathering this info! The Brookings Institute is sketchy, and I didn’t believe Wittes’ interpretation was made in good faith.

I saw this quote on a chalkboard outside this cute country ice cream shop, and I think after looking up what the definition of essential liberty was ( lol i tend to have to know specifically what something means before i can even begin to think about what it could possibly mean) and after coming across your post on it, i think it makes sense. I couldnt figure out just what he was trying to say, because safety to me seems to be an essential liberty in itself, but i guess when it comes to privacy of self and safety of all, I honestly myself dont know if I would give up safety of all. You can always find privacy of true self inside you, where else safety of all, is kind of hard to enquire when you dont know when or where this safety has gone (basically saying in layman terms, you arent ever aware of safety until its no longer there). Sorry i went off on a tangent.

Basically thank you for explaining the quote. Usually it takes awhile for me to understand such broad statements.

Your wonderful.

You’re welcome, Rachel! I’m glad it was helpful.

Thank you for your timely and clarifying comments regarding this powerful quote.

Thank you! Great article. I was trying to find info on this because I kept hearing people, usually those against liberty and freedom, say that it was out of “context”, but couldn’t find the proof. Like you, I found people explaining it with nothing to back it up. Thank you for finding the info and explaining it plainly for others to see. God bless you.

You’re welcome! I’m so glad it was helpful.

I accidentally replied to someone else’s post instead of starting a new comment so I am reposting it here (hopefully it works lol). I also added some new information at the end about some of Franklin’s other writings that I found:

“Someone please correct me if I’m wrong or misunderstanding something, but since Franklin’s re-use of the quote in 1775 was referencing Massachusetts’ right to not have charters and laws changed by Parliament, wouldn’t that mean Franklin was talking about “liberty” in the sense of self-government apart from England and not individual liberty like we think of today? He seemed to be advocating for their own freedom as a system of government and not directly referencing the liberties of individual people. For context, here’s a link for the original documents that I could find: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-21-02-0269

Since my original post, I also found a free book that includes a lot of Franklin’s writings, which can be found here: https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Writings_of_Benjamin_Franklin.html?id=jmfaceHkyKcC&printsec=frontcover&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_entity

On page 318, Franklin writes to his son about the negotiations in London between England and America. Based on Franklin’s letter, the complicated nature of politics at that time is enough to make your head spin lol, but page 328 includes the 17 discussion points that Franklin was bringing up to England to resolve their disagreements. Page 382 also includes the second time he used the quote about liberty and safety. While it can be a challenge to read at times, I couldn’t find anything in those 70 pages that was directly related to individual liberties like we think of today. Everything that I read focused much more on the self-governing issues.

Maybe I’m missing something, and I would gladly like to know if I am. But based on what I’m seeing right now in his writings at the time, I think the modern use of Franklin’s quote is being used a little out of context b/c we use it to talk about our individual freedoms, whereas Franklin was using it to discuss the role of government in the colonies in 1755 and 1775.

I think one of the key phrases in Franklin’s quote is “essential liberty”. The next question is what Franklin would consider to be “essential”. Because Franklin supported the Constitution (which shifted more power from the states to a federal government), I doubt he would consider ALL liberty “essential”. It’s a balance of how much we’re willing to give up and receive in return.

The spirit of the quote can be used to mirror our concerns about individual liberties today, but it doesn’t look like Franklin was making a direct connection to our modern sense of individual liberties based on the context of when he used that quote in 1755 and 1775. This would make sense because his primary concerns at the time were different than ours today, which is why I said it does appear that the quote is taken a little out of context when used today.

I would gladly like to hear other opinions though.

I just posted a reply to your original comment. I’d like to add here that I’m very impressed with your depth of research! And I also appreciate your kind and cordial tone. To answer a couple of things you add here…

Most people I’ve heard use this quote are not arguing that we should have NO government at all (and neither would Franklin have done so. We all know he supported SOME liberty being given up for SOME safety, it’s just a question of how much and when). I usually hear the quote used in context of people arguing that the government (usually the State or Federal government) is overreaching it’s proper boundaries. And that is something Franklin was definitely concerned about in multiple different contexts. That’s why I believe that saying the quote is being taken “completely out of context” or “butchered” when it’s used today is incorrect. Franklin clearly WAS concerned about potential overreach of both national government (1775) and more local government (1755), and in both cases used that pithy quote to point out that there times and places where we cannot give up our freedom, even if it means we must live in a less “safe” world in order to preserve it.

So I think when people use it today they are (usually) getting Franklin’s general idea correct, though he may or may not have personally supported whatever issue they are concerned about.

Thanks again for your thoughtful and well-reasearched comments!

Thank you for taking the time to respond to both of my comments so cordially (sorry for messing up my first post!). In all honesty, I think your second response here provides a more balanced, insightful, and nuanced perspective about your opinion than the end of the original article. If you thought it would be beneficial, I would encourage you to incorporate those thoughts a little more clearly into your original article to provide additional context for your readers. When I read the original article, my impression was that you were taking a stronger stance against those who would think that the quote’s modern use is technically not within the context of how Franklin used it. That might just be me though! Feel free to take my suggestion with a grain of salt.

After reading Franklin’s statement to the governor several times, I’m still leaning a little more towards Wittes’ perspective that Franklin’s original use of the quote was probably not about what we think of as liberty today. This is mainly because the vast majority of the original statement from 1755 was concerned with Assembly vs. the governor and proprietor of Pennsylvania, rather than focusing on the liberties of the frontier families.

I do strongly agree with you though that one of the main sources of ambiguity resides in the phrase “…do not wish us to go farther”. Franklin doesn’t really elaborate on what that means exactly, which makes that part of the paragraph difficult to interpret. I have seen several people imply that Franklin is describing the the freedom of the frontier families. However, this doesn’t make as much sense to me because Franklin spent so much time in his statement highlighting the Assembly’s complaints about the governor. To me, it makes more sense that Franklin is talking about the Assembly giving up their taxing capabilities (which included taxing the proprietor) in order protect the frontier families, rather than the frontier families themselves giving up their liberties. This is potentially highlighted towards the end of that paragraph when Franklin compares the situation in Pennsylvania with Virginia, which Franklin implies had actually received more funding to better protect frontier families. Throughout the statement, Franklin and the Assembly seem to be fighting more for their right to tax the proprietor’s lands, which then can indirectly protect the families. That being said, I have not found anyone who directly addresses this point so unfortunately this is based on my own limited understandings of the text.

As I am finishing this, I had one other thought that came to mind after re-reading what you said about whether the quote is “butchered” when it is used today. I would agree with you that people today are probably getting Franklin’s general idea; however, I think the slippery slope is when the quote is paraphrased or re-worded. Long-story-short, I ended up down this rabbit hole after seeing someone reference this quote, but after looking at it again, the quote was completely reworded and missing important context, such as the phrase “essential liberty”, which ignores the nuance of how we balance what liberties we are okay with giving up for some level of safety. I think removing the word “essential” and changing other parts of the quote for today’s use would fall more in that category taking the quote out of its original context too much and possibly even “butchering” important context. Just a thought that I had in retrospect.

Like you Leya, I make it an annual event to watch 1776 every 4th of July. While entertaining, and possibly taking a lot of poetic license, it does give an insight to the people that founded our nation.

Thank you for making this post. Perhaps it can help those who are on the fence determine which side to hop off.

I too was frustrated that so many “sources” regarding this quote were merely opinions, and took Wittes commentary as BS. Upon reading the actual 1755 document, it was clear to me that Franklin was presenting the mindset of the frontier families, identifying their non-want for support . That mindset is in the conservative use of the phrase today. I believe the “ambiguity” that so many speak of comes from the core beliefs of the reader. An individualist thinks of their abilities and what they can achieve. They do not consider the assistance of others, unlike a collectivist. The individualist thinks: “I will do this myself, because I do not wish to be indebted to another, especially a much greater power of which I do not fully understand or trust.” The collectivist thinks: “Together we can accomplish this, because our abilities are augmented, and our numbers give us power.” But does the collectivist consider “at what price?” or do they believe that because their cause is just, it follows that the consequences will be just as well? What follows is the “common good” argument. Post-Covid, you can have a lot of “fun” with that.

When the quote is supposedly “butchered” by some conservative voice, it is in fact being reiterated in a contemporary way. The spirit behind its use is the same mindset as identified by Franklin in 1755.

WOW. This is such a wonderful research. Thank you for sharing. You are amazing.

I’m glad it was helpful!

First, to Leya – Thanks for all of this… I followed exactly the same path you did, and faced the same frustrations, digging into the lineage of this quote once I found the Wittes statements… I reached much the same conclusions, and was frustrated that I had not found anyone else stating this, that I had concluded I would need to sit down and do it myself — before I finally dug deep enough and discovered your bright nugget of truth here. Thus far, I believe this article and discussion is truly a seminal piece in the research around Franklin’s repeated usage of this particular quote. It is truly unfortunate it is not more prominent in current internet search results.

I would add one small addition to the discussion, that speaks a bit to Michael’s comments above: In the 1755 letter, it was fairly obvious to me that the “ambiguous” section where the quote appears is actually Franklin’s describing an understanding of the perspective of those frontier families, rather than him stating his own beliefs/perspectives there. (A wise writer seeking to convince a course of action lays out their understanding of those on all sides of a disagreement, to demonstrate understanding of the differing perspectives, before seeking to arbitrate between them.)

Thanks for contributing to the discussion, Hanzo! I’m glad my post was helpful to you. It puzzles me that there aren’t more people discussing the subject from this angle.

The appropriate and proper role of government is to, on behalf of the governed, deter and suppress threats to security. It is not the appropriate and proper role of government to indoctrinate. Promoting community fire prevention and suppression such as Benjamin Franklin did; volunteer fire response organizations and lightening rods are salient examples.

James Mason and other founders sagely refused to endorse the 1789 U. S. Constitution because it lacked the provisions of the 1791 Bill of Rights. With the U. S. Constitution 3rd Amendment the the founders anticipated that a government might intend to quarter soldiers in homes against the will of the home owners and occupants.

The founders did not anticipate that the society they were founding would allow the government to forcibly house the contagious with the vulnerable elderly, the very segment of the population most mortally vulnerable contagion, and prevent families from tending to their elderly, such as was done by several U. S. Constitution Article IV entities, and with the backing of the U. S. Constitution Article I-III entities. Ongoing for 3 years, there is no whispers about the ongoing violations of the U. S. Constitution being perpetrated under the guise of a COVID emergency. The same society and government elements are doing their utmost to instill a climate of fear of daring to utter a thought of whispering about the U. S. Constitution violations.

All the 20th century and prior totalitarian despotic regimes could not imagine the mass continuance surveillance capabilities and other Creator endowment violations being wielded by governments in the 21st century. Of the 8+ billion global population, there is barely a vestigial awareness that anyone in society had any reservations or raised any objections to the ongoing totalitarian government takeover.

The totalitarian government regimes and allies have orchestrated a disinformation operation that allows it to superficially appear that the global society approves of the totalitarian government takeover. No surprise of course, most all totalitarian government regime takeovers do the same disinformation operation; [ we are only doing what society insist that we do, in order for the greater good – all the evils, of which of course there is none, but even if there were, are all justified because the ends justify the means – it is compassionate to euthanize the unfit misfits ]

Some people in society are incontinent; the very young, the very elderly, some under duress, some suffering other physiological and psychiatric maladies. It is not proper governments’ role to impose on society that just become some are incontinent, all must wear diapers nor even that all must provide for the diapering of those needing diapering.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Djon.

I doubt that the true context of what Franklin wrote in 1755 can be gleaned just from reading the letter. In fact, I’d say that the letter employs some measure of brevity, as Franklin, the governor, and the assembly by extension were aware of the issues covered (and not necessarily obvious to someone reading the letter hundreds of years later).

I recall that part of the “problem” involved the colony’s gov’t urging people to “go west” and settle, in order to grow the size Pennsylvania. This left the settlers isolated and subject to attack by various groups. One aspect of the objection to funding arms and possibly a small militia was that the assembly was controlled to an extent by Quakers, I believe, who were morally opposed to direct violent action (or direct financial support of such things).

So, when (some of) the settlers didn’t want to “go farther”, it may have had to do with no wanting to force or coerce the Quakers into going against their beliefs. Perhaps, it was a bit of an issue surrounding religious freedom.

First, I love that this article keeps getting necro’d as it makes me feel way less bad at adding yet another comment almost 4 years later.

Moving forward, after also doing a fair amount of research (which generally felt like whack-a-mole), I noticed patterns in a lot of the commentary that led to continued confusion.

1.) Not being clear on the “essential liberty” 2.) Not being clear on the “safety” 3.) Not being clear on “purchase” 4.) Continued use of “terms of art” (e.g. proprietary ruler, which requires readers to have an understanding of English Overseas Colonies at the time to fully appreciate)

My new-ish understanding of the quote, then, comes from a desire to try to clarify and *translate* the older language into “today’s” English. Here is what I came up with, and I hope others have wisdom, insight, or knowledge to adjust, alter, or correct my interpretation:

First, understanding that a proprietary rule is essentially a company that rules the land. The British government & Monarchy (“The Crown”) would allow a company to take over land by buying government resources such that it was effectively a British colony. However, the company could select the governor, which was part of the government structure British colonies were to have. Here, the Penn family was to pay the costs of soldiers, transportation, etc. in establishing “their” colony (though, to be clear, it is my historical understanding that the Crown was actually already heavily in debt to the Penn family, so in this case, the use of British resources was likely more a form of balancing the books).

The “essential liberty”, which most sources seem to agree on, is the ability of a government to tax all peoples and lands in its jurisdiction. In this case, that included the land owned by the company that was owned by/synonymous with the Penn family.

Here, the “temporary safety” seems obvious: defense against the French until the war ends. The emphasis, though, is that the relinquishment of the essential liberty was NOT temporary, while the safety WAS temporary.

Enter: “purchase”. Here, it seems to me that the Penn family was quite literally saying “we’ll buy off your ability to, as a colonial government, tax *our* lands in exchange for money you can use for defense”. The Penn family wanted to put the ability tax into a shopping cart and pay for it with a “no return” policy*.

The resulting equation? Give up legal/governmental power to tax (essential liberty) an entity forever in exchange for money (purchase) that would be used for defense in the current war (temporary safety).

That’s a HUGE tradeoff. Even if the Penn family was willing to contribute to future defense, there was no guarantee they would do so (and it likely would have been self-serving anyway). Plus, even if there was an understanding they would do so later, the ask was for the people in that colony to allow the company to make all security decisions potentially ad infinitum.

Franklin, for all his faults, was a brilliant person, and he knew that once this war was over, another would eventually arise. When that happened (and happen it did), the colony would be unable to gather necessary defense funds from what was likely a huge source. It seems to me that for Franklin, it was worth the political fight to find a way to get the money to pay soldiers to defend the territory/colony without that kind of forever sacrifice.

*From a historical perspective, it was unclear whether the amount they offered would have been enough to provide adequate defense. After all, hindsight is 20/20; 270 years later we know when and how the war played out, but those caught up in it at that time certainly had no idea what would happen.

I came here after searching for documents to back up Witte’s comments, thinking I’d find something completely different from the common quote. At least for the sake of simpler argument on my part, I am glad to see the famous quote is pretty precise. I didn’t find the context to be unclear at all, even in the first use. Franklin had switched context and this was pretty common in letters. Writing and sending a letter, even today, let alone in 1755 or 1775, was much more complicated than a 160 character long tweet on X. When they wrote a letter in those days the letter was used to catch up on family, friends, community, government, experiences, the national news and colony news. So switching to arming those settlers heading west was very much an expected change in topic.

Wow, thank you for providing the breakdown AND links to the original documents! I came across Ben’s quote, and had to dig further into it. I saw some of the “Lost its Context” articles, but none of them were satisfactory nor provided evidence to their interpretation. Take care!

I’m so glad it was helpful for you, Conner!

Index Terms — Safety, freedom, dichotomy, debate, polarization, Kavi, critical thinking, political, philosophy, societal

—————————— u ——————————

I NTRODUCTION

“they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” benjamin franklin [1].

Ayn Rand, acclaimed Russian-American essayist, provocatively writes, “Freedom has only one meaning: the absence of physical coercion” [2]. Too often in modern society, freedom and safety are juxtaposed, seen as mutually exclusive concepts that can never coexist in reality without being seen as heretical. However, this is not the case. In fact, when essayist H.L. Mencken writes, “The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe,” [3] he is illogically presuming that there is an inherent trade-off between the two concepts, when, in reality, the effectiveness of one is entwined with the potency of the other. This incontrovertible truth solidifies Rand’s statement as inherently true: that man is free to act when he is unthreatened by others, that a man’s safety is dependent upon the freedom he is given, and that a man who experiences physical coercion and insecurity is being violated of his right to live free from oppression. Freedom and safety are truly symbiotic concepts whose coexistence affects the individual components. Therefore, freedom and safety are intertwined, meant to exist together. Only through a constant, yet balanced securitization can individuals truly exist in an environment that bolsters freedom, and, similarly, only through a careful allotment of rights can individuals exist in an environment that values safety.

A H ISTORICAL A NALYSIS OF H OBBES

So why does society see security and freedom as mutually exclusive? What are the origins of this enduring fallacy? And how can we break down this fallacy? The root of the debate over freedom vs. safety can be traced to the 17 th century philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, as his ideas are the primary reason contemporary society sees the concept as security VERSUS freedom as opposed to security AND freedom. On a superficial level, the idea seems to have some veracity as logically, government security enhancements do indeed curtail individual freedom; however, the debate over its utility arises with libertarians seeing it as yet another method of oppressive bio-political control and conservatives interpreting it as an inherent necessity. So the incendiary question arises, does one choose freedom or safety? With only one option, one is left in a quandary in which either answer will never result in a positive outcome. Too much freedom leads to the proliferation of atrocities unchecked by government control, and too much security leads to the complete shattering of any “rights.” Fortunately, the question and its groundings are misconceptions that originated with a flawed misinterpretation of Hobbes’ philosophy and the subsequent creation of a “false alternative.” In his novel, Leviathan , Hobbes pursues an answer to the perennial question of freedom and safety through a description of complete freedom and complete safety. Hobbes views complete freedom as a state of pre-government, in which there is a “war of all against all” and individuals victimize others and protect themselves from predators [4]. This free-for-all concept, free from government coercion and authoritative rule, is Hobbes’ concept of complete freedom. At the other end of the spectrum is the image of totalized security, the government controlling with an iron fist. Any act outside the pre-established boundaries of social conventions is punished severely and seen as a threat to the safety of the state. This is Hobbes’ conception of complete safety [4]. The juxtaposition of the two extremes and the dichotomy that Hobbes’ identified between the two concepts has endured till this day; therefore, in modern society, both liberals and conservatives look down the middle and flock to whichever side they see the lesser of the two evils. For liberals presented with the threat of a bio-political government vs. the threat of terrorists, they see the lesser of two evils as accepting terrorism yet living free. For conservatives presented with the threat of a bio-political government vs. the threat of Islamic terrorism, the lesser of two evils is to accept an oppressive government that protects the people from external threats. However, both sides are wrong because Hobbes mischaracterized freedom and safety as polarized extremes. This led to the creation of a false conception of reality, and only by accepting this reality is society misled in believing that the interests of those who want freedom and that of those who want security are conflicting when, in fact, they are analogous. Those who want increased security measures are, in fact propagating the expansion of freedom, IJSER ©2013 isjer.org

as society is only free when unhampered by the “physical coercions” and the insecurity that Rand describes. It is these security measures that allow one to have the rights that he has. And it is these security measures that protect one’s rights.

A M ODERN A NALYSIS OF G UN C ONTROL

The coexistence of safety and freedom can be empirically seen in the real world with the debate over gun control and its implications on the American mindset of freedom. The availability of guns directly counters conventional modes of thinking that an increase in freedom scale as Bandow points out that “Gun-owning societies also are notably less corrupt” and that not only does gun- ownership “promote liberty” but can also be used as a tool to enhance safety and “enable a free people to resist foreign invasion and occupation” [7]. In this instance, it is clear that an increase in freedom is not trade off with security and safety.

Fig. 1 [6]. August CNN/ORC Poll-‐ The figure graphically illustrates that public support for gun control laws follows a trend of balance between security and freedom-‐ the public is generally against a total ban of guns, yet still want certain checks in place

leads to a decrease in safety. DiNenna, reporter for the Baltimore Sun, writes in her article that the average police response time in America is six minutes, while the average time it takes to draw a gun is approximately 15 seconds [5]. As a result, opponents of gun control know that freedoms such as the ownership of guns are necessary for the propagation of safety. Though many argue that the increased and sanctioned availability of guns allows a psychopathic murderer to obtain one much more easily, the argument falls apart when one logically takes into consideration that a criminal, with a purpose to kill, will not hesitate to break the law and obtain a gun illegally. Those with a motive will continue to commit atrocities, and only the ownership of guns provides the necessary self-defense to protect helpless victims. Tucci exposes this truth when he writes that, “gun- control laws have no net effect on violence or crime rates, because the benefits of widespread gun ownership cancel out the costs.” Doug Bandow, editor for the American Spectator, expands upon this when he states that gun violence reflects “human evil , not gun ownership” and that gun violence should not be used as a justification “to disarm the responsible and law-abiding” [7]. What Tucci and Bandow are ultimately trying to show is that “guns deter criminals” and there is substantiated evidence that indicates that “burglars are less likely to target occupied homes or businesses in countries with high rates of gun ownership than they are in countries with low rates of gun ownership” [8]. This trend can also be seen at a much larger

Fig. 2 [6] Gallup Poll-‐ The figure graphically illustrates Gun ownership has been steadily declining in the United States. Why then has number of deaths per gun violence increased in this period of time?

Au contraire, a marginal increase in freedom actually increases safety, proving the two to be mutually inclusive rather than exclusive (fig. 2). The Gallup Poll provides evidence to this very fact. Ezra Klein, Washington Post Journalist, writes, “ Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened from 2007 onward [6].” Combine the Gallop Poll study and Klein’s analysis of gun violence and you get a very clear picture that the decrease in gun ownership has, in fact, led to more gun violence. This indicates that a decrease in freedom has led to a subsequent decrease in security. Clearly, only a perfect balance can maximize both freedom and safety within a society.

A IRPORT SECURITY – A TESTAMENT FOR CO -

In order to further prove the argument incontrovertible, one can look towards modern airport security and its impact on safety and freedom. Support for airport security measures such as full-body scans follows a similar line of thought as that of gun control. What’s interesting to note is that one viewpoint “supports” freedom (the ownership of guns) whereas the other viewpoint “supports” a limitation of freedom (airport security) for the ultimate purpose of achieving security. By looking at airport security through Hobbes’ perspective, it would appear that airport security is a detriment to freedom and yet another tool of manipulation by an overbearing government that places the advancement of safety at its core. However, this viewpoint is parochial in nature because it fails to take into account the long-term effects of increased airport security. Only through airport security can one enjoy the benefits of flying and be free from the threat of terrorists looking to hijack planes. Only IJSER ©2013 isjer.org

through airport security can one have the right to live. Only through airport security is freedom ultimately heightened. Ian Stevenson mirrors this thought when he states that, “Others also have some rights, including the right to survive” [9].

Fig. 3 [10] CBS New Poll-‐ The figure illustrates that 4 in 5 Americans support the use of full-‐body scanners in airports – demonstrating the value of a decrease in freedom initially to increase it in the

Fig. 3 is yet another testament to the fact that decreasing freedom is just a medium to achieving more freedom in the long-run. With the constant threat of a terrorist attack in a world without comprehensive airport security, citizens would not be able to enjoy the freedom of travelling as they once used to. Freedom and security truly go hand in hand. An empirical example of this can been seen in the recently held London Olympic games, which thousands of individuals from all over the world attended; in this specific instance, airport security was of the essence to “deliver a safe and secure Games” [11]. Without adequate security, a repeat of the year-prior suicide bomb attempt in London would have been inevitable, and the games would have been canceled as a result. Therefore it is true that the success and freedom to enjoy the Olympic games was a direct result of the safety the government provided. This can also be seen in the attempted hijacking of the Northwest Airlines Flight 253 by a suicide bomber “with explosives sewn into the crotch of his pants” [9]. Only through stringent security measures, revealing x-rays, and scrutinizing body scans was the criminal found and were the lives of the 250 people aboard the plane, saved. Had there been a lack of security, the lives of those on the plane would have been lost, and their right to live would have been shattered.

C ONCLUSION

Clearly, in order to maximize the potency of both, security and freedom must be viewed in conjunction within society, seen as mutually inclusive societal concepts whose coexistence fortifies the benefits of each individual counterpart. Too often has society fallen astray to the fallacy that both cannot exist together as a result of a reliance on Hobbes’ incorrect philosophy concerning freedom and safety in Leviathan . In order to perfect society by balancing both concepts, one must dismiss his predilection towards viewing both as extremes, demystify himself from Hobbes’ “false alternative,” and wholly accept both as intertwined concepts. Only by doing so can one enjoy the benefits of freedom gained from increased rights, as well as be reassured of safety in an inherently volatile and menacing world. The debate over safety and freedom brings forth an unfortunate truth about society’s inclination towards the extremes. Whether it is between security and freedom, justice and revenge, or isolation and immersion, finding a common ground between two concepts is seen as elusive as achieving utopia. Due to this provincial perspective, society has a predilection to flock to an extreme under the presumption that only one can realistically exist. This, however, leads to a complete stagnation of progress, as society can never move towards fostering an environment in which the benefits of both concepts can be reaped. Therefore, only by accepting the possibility of coexistence can society truly change for the better. So, when one questions whether or not the average man wants to be free or safe, the answer is clearly - BOTH.

A CKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author of this research paper would like to thank Dartmouth College for providing access to a variety of research materials that were instrumental in completing this analysis.

R EFERENCES

[1] Franklin, Benjamin. "3929. Benjamin Franklin. 1706-1790. John Bartlett, Comp. 1919. Familiar Quotations, 10th Ed." Bartleby . N.p., 1755. Web. 25 Aug. 2013.

<http://www.bartleby.com/100/245.1.html>.

[2] Rand, Ayn. "Physical Force." Ayn Rand Lexicon . N.p., n.d. Web. 25

<http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/physical_force.html>.

[3] Mencken, H. L. Notes on Democracy . New York: A.A. Knopf, 1926.

[4] Stahl, Noah. "Freedom Versus Security: The False Alternative - The Undercurrent." The Undercurrent - “It was as if an underground stream flowed through the country and broke out in sudden springs that shot to the surface at random, in unpredictable places.”– Ayn Rand . The Undercurrent, 2 Nov.

2006. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. <http://the-

undercurrent.com/freedom-versus-security-the-false- alternative/>.

[5] DiNenna, Jennifer. "Gun control only hurts the law-abiding - Baltimore Sun." Featured Articles From The Baltimore Sun . The Baltimore Sun, 25 Jan. 2013. Web. 22 Feb. 2013.

<http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-25/news/bs- ed-gun-control-letter-20130125_1_illegal-firearms-law- abiding-citizens-gun-legislation>.

[6] Klein, Ezra. "Twelve Facts about Guns and Mass Shootings in the

United States." Washington Post . N.p., 14 Dec. 12. Web. 23

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/

2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-

the-united-states/?s>.

[7] Bandow, Doug. "Guns and Freedom." Special Report . The American

Spectator, 24 Jan. 13. Web. 5 Apr. 2013.

<http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/24/guns-and- freedom>.

[8] Tucci, Peter. "Why I'm against gun control | The Daily Caller." The

Daily Caller . N.p., 17 Dec. 2012. Web. 22 Feb. 2013.

<http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/17/why-im-against-gun-

control/>.

[9] Stevenson, Ian. "Airport Security: Necessity or a Violation of Our

Rights?." Technorati . Technorati, Inc, 16 Nov. 2010. Web. 21

Feb. 2013. <http://technorati.com/politics/article/airport- security-necessity-or-a-violation/>.

[10] Condon, Stephanie. "Poll: 4 in 5 Support Full-Body Airport

Scanners." CBSNews . CBS Interactive, n.d. Web. 25 Aug.

2013. <http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-

20022876-503544.html>.

[11] Hutchinson, Bill. "Transportation and Security Administration Inspectors Will Be Posted at British Airports in Effort to Beef up Safety at Olympic Games in London." NY Daily News. N.p., 17 July 2012. Web. 05 Mar. 2013.

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 […]
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 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.
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.
“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 […]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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’).
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.
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.
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 […]
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.
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 […]
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 […]
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.
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.
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 […]
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.
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.
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.
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 […]
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 […]
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.
Freedom of Speech, Religion and Religious Tolerance As stipulated in Article 19 of the Universal Human Rights Declaration, the pastor has the right to share ideas and information of all kinds regardless of the periphery involved and in this case, he should […]
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 […]
Philosophy of Freedom in “The Apology“ Socrates’ friends requested him to accept the charges, as they were willing to pay the expected fines, but he refused and insisted that he was ready to die for the sake of justice.
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 […]
Nelson Mandela “Freedom in Africa” For example, the struggle for freedom in South Africa is one of the best examples of freedom in Africa so far.
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.
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 […]
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.
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 […]
Media Freedom in Japan Moreover, the government works to ensure that the country upholds and respects the freedom. The use of journalist clubs denies foreign reporters the freedom to cover political and government news in Japan.
Women and Freedom in “The Story of an Hour” by Kate Chopin She is best known for her recurrent theme on the status of women in societal affairs, the challenges and problems facing them as well as repression and gender bias.”The story of an hour” is rhetorically […]
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 […]
“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.
Leila Khaled: Freedom Fighter or Terrorist? This essay elaborates her intentions with the support of academic sources and her movie in order to demonstrate her cause of action as a freedom fighter for her country and not a terrorist as perceived.
African Americans: A Journey Towards Freedom All of the slaves desired to have freedom, but the means of attaining that was still unknown. His intention was to kill all the slave owners in Charleston and free the slaves.
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.
Freedom from Poverty as a Human Right and the UN Declaration of Human Rights This reveals the nature of the interrelatedness of the whole boy of human rights and the need to address human rights in that context.
Personal Freedom in A Doll’s House, A Room of One’s Own, and Diary of a Madman In Chapter Three of Virginia Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own, the protagonist attempts to make sense of the nonsensical elements of female history, namely, how it could be that “in Athena’s city, where women […]
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 […]
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.
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 […]
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 […]
Democracy and Freedom: Inclusion of Underrepresented Groups 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 […]
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 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 […]
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.
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 […]
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 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.
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 […]
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 […]
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.
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.
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, […]
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 […]
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.
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.
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 […]
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 […]
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.
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.
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 […]
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 […]
“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 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, […]
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.
Freedom of Speech: Julian Assange and ‘WikiLeaks’ Case Another significant issue is that the precedent of WikiLeaks questions the power of traditional journalism to articulate the needs of the society and to monitor the governments.
Do Urban Environments Promote Freedom? Lastly, it is the heterogenic environment that contributes largely to the cultivation of the feeling of freedom in the inhabitants of urban cities.
Claiming the Freedom to Shape Politics In addition, this paper also shows that ordinary people claim the freedom to shape politics because politics influence human rights, and the violation of human rights in one part of the world affects another.
US Progress in Freedom, Equality and Power Since Civil War When it comes to the pursuit of freedom and ideals of democracy, progress since the Civil War can be seen in the establishment of a sufficiently capable Federal government, efficient judiciary and presidency systems with […]
Religious Freedom and Labor Law Therefore, it is important for the human resource managers to come up with ways of addressing religious requests in relation to the current labor laws.
Gilded Age and Progressive Era Freedom Challenges They used that fact in their attempt to argue that the slavery of African Americans was natural as well and that it should not be abolished.
Philosophical Approach to Freedom and Determinism The rationale is that Dave’s action was not the outcome of who he was and what he believed, the values he held or his desires.
The Life of a Freedom Fighter in Post WWII Palestine As World War II was coming to an end, the Zionist Movement leaders were hopeful that the British government would amend the White Paper policy, allow the Jews to migrate to Eretz, Israel, and govern […]
Fighting for Freedom of American Identity in Literature Loyalty is one of the themes in the story, as the boy is confused on whether to side with the family or the law.
“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.
Philosophy in the Freedom of Will by Harry Frankfurt Why? Frankfurt’s arguments are very applicable to the case of the ‘Amputees by Choice.’ His first argument is that of persons and nonpersons.
Advertising and Freedom of Speech According to Liodice, the marketer should provide the best information to the targeted consumer. The duty of the marketer is to educate and inform the consumer about the unique features of his or her product.
How the Law Limits Academic Freedom? The majority of academicians treasure the protections that are as a result of academic freedom. Academic freedom is only permitted in the higher institutions of learning.
The Issue of American Freedom in Toni Morrison’s “Beloved” This is evident from the novel’s ending where the author gives a disclaimer against the story disappearing like the experiences of the slaves who perished during slavery.”Beloved” is a postmodern novel that is able to […]
The Jewish Freedom Fighter Recollection We are in urgent need of a nation of our own, but must be willing to respond to the issue of Arab inhabitants within our territory.
Kuwait’s Opposition and the Freedom of Expression The political system in the country has played a major role in limiting the freedom of media because the royal family is very keen on thwarting any form of rebellion against the government.
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 and the Role of Civilization
Freedom of speech in the Balkans
“Freedom Riders”: A Documentary Revealing Personal Stories That Reflect Individual Ideology
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?
Environmentalism and Economic Freedom
Freedom of Speech in China and Political Reform
Colonial Women’s Freedom in Society
The S.E.C. and the Freedom of Information Act
Freedom of the Press
Coming of Age in Mississippi: The Black Freedom Movement
Freedom of Women to Choose Abortion
Human Freedom as Contextual Deliberation
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
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

✍️ Freedom Essay Topics for College

Television Effects & Freedoms
Government’s control versus Freedom of Speech and Thoughts
Freedom of Speech: Exploring Proper Limits
Freedom of the Will
Women in Early America: Struggle, Survival, and Freedom in a New World
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
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?
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
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 Versus Security: Can We Find the Right Balance?

Social Behavior

[ Transcript follows]

During the pandemic and when other natural disasters strike, governments may curtail certain liberties in an effort to save lives. These compromises also happen in everyday life, from seatbelt laws to food-safety regulations. A paper published in Perspectives on Psychological Science , however, suggests that restricting freedoms may have other unintended negative consequences for behavior and health. One of the authors, Nathan Cheek with Princeton University, explains how there may be a balance that can be achieved and how psychological science could help policymakers promote public health , safety, and well-being in times of crisis.

Auto-generated transcript

Charles Blue (00:12)

There is an often misstated and misunderstood quote by Benjamin Franklin, which reads, “Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety. Though often used rhetorically to denounce impositions or laws restricting certain behaviors, Franklin was actually referring to a specific tax dispute. This quote is therefore more accurately a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending statement than a quote supporting the absolute preservation of freedoms. During the Pandemic and other natural disasters, many actions are taken by governments to save lives at the cost of certain liberties. This is even in everyday life, from seatbelt laws to food safety regulations. The worthy objective of these restrictions is to protect people by imposing limits on what they are free to do. A new article published in Perspectives on Psychological Science , however, suggests there may be unintended consequences. Restricting freedoms may have negative consequences for behavior and health. This paper suggests that there is a balance that can be achieved and that psychology can help policymakers promote public health, safety, and well being when crises and disasters strike. I’m Charles Blue and you’re listening to Under the Cortex today.

Charles Blue (01:33)

I have with me, Nathan Cheek with Princeton University and lead author on this paper. Thank you for joining me today.

Nathan Cheek (01:40)

Thanks so much for having me. I’m happy to be here to set the stage.

Charles Blue (01:44)

Can you tell us what did you set out to study and why?

Nathan Cheek (01:49)

Absolutely. So my co-authors and I started having conversations about the many changes we were seeing in the wake of the Pandemic. So in the first few months, we saw dramatic world changes, extreme public policies that for many of us were relatively unprecedented, whether it was in the form of restrictions, social distancing requirements, work from home mandates, and many other things. And as these were unfolding, we were wondering what the psychological consequences would be of these dramatic changes. And then some early data coming out of Italy suggested that the psychology of freedom needed to be taken more seriously. And in fact, in a nationally representative sample of Italians, the most frequently reported new negative consequence of the lockdown was restricted freedom, even above things like financial burdens and social isolation. So clearly we need to be taking freedom seriously. As we were doing this work, we found that there were two broad clusters of negative consequences that seem to emerge when people face these kinds of new restrictions. The first is a cluster of mental and physical health consequences. It hurts to have freedom taken away, sometimes quite literally. And the second cluster was around negative behavioral responses ranging from things like noncompliance to more extreme manifestations of reactants in the form of, for example, public protest.

Charles Blue (03:08)

Your paper implies that there may be an important middle ground and specific tactics that policymakers could use to protect health. This is sort of balancing out the freedom versus protecting public good. Could you spell those out for us.

Nathan Cheek (03:24)

Absolutely. Yeah. So we suggest that if you, as a policymaker, take the psychology of freedom seriously, then you realize it’s important to balance new restrictions with some other methods of either maintaining a sense of freedom or the very least helping people see the value of increased restrictions. So we try to summarize a lot of behavioral science research around this topic in a set of four easy principles that we call safe principles and that’s an acronym for spelling out the benefits of restricting freedom, attaching a moral value to behaviors both desired and undesired, reframing restrictions as freedom from and encouraging freedom in other ways. So I can sort of briefly walk you through each of those one by one.

Charles Blue (04:05)

Yeah, let’s go ahead and dive down that path because those all seem to make kind of sense, but I’m not sure how they would be implemented.

Nathan Cheek (04:13)

Yeah. So the first spelling out the benefits of freedom can be implemented in different ways. It’s really all about making the reasons why restrictive freedom is a good thing more salient. So you can do this by invoking compelling and memorable narratives, maybe focusing on one particular person and having that be a salient example in people’s minds. You can do it by spelling out the many different groups of people who would be benefited by adhering to new restrictions from loved ones, family and friends to children to older adults to compromised individuals and other people who might just be more vulnerable. You can also do it sometimes by effectively invoking threats. So really emphasizing the danger that’s posed by the pandemic or by other sources of threat. And what I would say there is that it’s important when using those kinds of fear appeals to just make sure that people have a sense of self efficacy, that they can do something about it, because if you just make people scared, then they become resigned and they feel panicked and trapped. But if you make them feel like there’s a clear thing they can do, like effectively social distancing or staying at home, then threat might be more effective as well. The second principle is about attaching a moral value, and that’s about framing restrictions in terms of right and wrong. And so we know from a lot of work on moral cognition that moral framings are potentially really powerful drivers of behavior. And you’ve seen examples of this throughout history. So things like littering and drunk driving, there’s a lot of activism around making those about right and wrong rather than, say personal freedom. And that’s why I think many of us were more accepting of public policies restricting those behaviors. And I think you can see the power of moral framing in everyday actions, like why do we return a shopping cart to sort of the shopping cart Loading spot after grocery shopping.

Charles Blue (06:05)

Or we wish people did.

Nathan Cheek (06:06)

Yeah. Or we wish people did. And that’s because we see it as a moral action. So when I do that, it’s not because I think I’m going to be punished. No one is going to do anything to me if I just leave it by where my car was parked. But I take the extra steps of bringing it back just because I know it’s like the right thing to do. So moral framework, at least for those of us who return our shopping cards, can be potentially powerful. The third principle is about reframing restrictions as freedom from so many of these public policies aimed at increasing security can be thought of as ways of increasing a different kind of freedom. They might be limiting your freedom to do whatever you want, but they might be increasing your freedom from threats. So, for example, you see this in the history of smoking bans in the United States. For a long time, smoking was thought of as an individual Liberty, and so attempts to ban smoking would be seen as a real restriction on what you’re free to do. But then the conversation shifted and became more about secondhand smoke and the danger of smoking posed to other people.

Nathan Cheek (07:09)

And once it became a conversation about protecting others individual freedom from the threat of secondhand smoking or other kinds of security threats, then suddenly it became more defensible and more accepted to have these kinds of smoking bans. And so that kind of reframing can be really effective. And I think sometimes it’s so clear to us that we take it for granted. So you don’t see public protests around bans on Hasbro for using lead paint and children’s toys. And that’s because it’s so clear to us that we want children to be free from that kind of threat. So it’s just about understanding new policies through that same kind of light that we often accept. And then the final principle, encouraging freedom other ways Is about finding new outlets for people to exercise freedom. So as you’re losing some perceived freedoms to gain security, Maybe there are other ways either at the individual level or the more structural, collective level that you can see ways to increase your freedom as well. So I think when many of us adopted new habits like becoming obsessed with baking sourdough, that was a way of exercising agency, Taking on something new.

Nathan Cheek (08:12)

It was probably about passing the time, But I think also just exercising this freedom of choice. And then I think there’s a lot of room for policy makers to facilitate that kind of thing. A couple of examples would just be putting more funding towards resources like online libraries and Museum tours in ways that allow us to virtually explore the world as well as amenities like public parks and hiking trails Where we can get out of the world, exercise our freedom Even as we’re also under many restrictions.

Charles Blue (08:39)

I want to go back to something you said earlier. And it struck me that you said that the loss of freedom hurts almost as if it’s a physical injury or damage that a person suffers when they were real or not feel they have given up a type of freedom. Could you explain that a little bit more? What do you mean when someone is physically hurt by giving up a freedom?

Nathan Cheek (09:01)

Yeah, so partly I’m invoking metaphor here, but in a sense, we do see a lot of research that connects people’s sense of autonomy to their physical wellbeing. And a lot of that work is under the umbrella of self determination theory which argues that a sense of autonomy, a free choice of freedom is one of the fundamental needs that all people have and that can look different across different cultural contexts. But all of us need to feel some kind of sense of agency or freedom to pursue what we want to do. And so when we have that freedom taken away, It causes mental pain and sometimes physical pain as we suffer the physical and mental health consequences of having that kind of restriction.

Charles Blue (09:42)

This may not come under the umbrella of your research, but has there been anyone who’s looked into just changing the term freedom? Because I hear comments Reading online that people no longer have the freedom to go to the store? Well, no, that’s not been taken away. You have that freedom, but to exercise that freedom, you are being asked to do something. So even just taking the term freedom off the table, is that such a lightning Rod of a term that even keeping it into the discussion is making it a harder effort to enact policies and to change behavior?

Nathan Cheek (10:22)

I think that’s a really interesting suggestion. I think it certainly could be. And I think particularly in the US, freedom is, like you said, sort of a hot button word itself. And it is in some ways a symbolic word for many other political discussions and debates that we have framing that in terms of choice or maybe framing that as. Yeah, not specifically about this sort of magical and powerful word. Freedom might be a way forward. Absolutely.

Charles Blue (10:49)

That ties into my next question, because we are hearing a lot these days about groups and individuals fighting against what they feel are unbearable restrictions on their freedom in the name of safety. This is not a new rallying cry. What does your research tell us about the problem of today?

Nathan Cheek (11:07)

Yeah. I mean, I think the first thing that research tells us and this is exactly what you said, which is that this isn’t necessarily a new problem. So when we look at the history of pandemics, the new public policies that emerge in an attempt to increase public health and public safety are almost always met with resistance. We can see that in the protests in California during the early 20th century, flu pandemic, where there was the formation of the California Antimask League. There were riots in Liverpool during the cholera outbreak in the 18 hundreds in England. So there’s a history of this kind of resistance. And then we also just see from many other kinds of public policy, attempts to require seat belts, require helmets, banned smoking ban, firearms, and these other freedom related public policies are met with a profound resistance. And so in that way research, we just really see that this is a common recurring theme. The research also suggests, like we’ve talked about, that there are some ways forward. So we have seen that you can get past this kind of resistance. So with the right kind of collective action and public policies, we are able to move forward.

Nathan Cheek (12:18)

I think relatively few of us feel a lot of resistance when we put on seatbelts today, when we drive, but that wasn’t always the case. And so that’s changed a lot. And so there are ways forward as well.

Charles Blue (12:28)

I do recall when the seat belt was first coming out. That was when I was in driver education and my parents never had that. So I had to refuse to get in the car until they decided to start wearing their seatbelts. And well, that worked for them. But it’s not something that you see any, I guess, knee jerk reactions against anymore that’s just accepted.

As we look back two years ago, what could policy makers have done better at the outset of the pandemic, and perhaps what could they do now that they aren’t doing?

Nathan Cheek (13:02)

Yeah, it’s a great question. And one great thing would have been to, I think, more deeply anticipate some of the consequences that we saw. So in terms of mental and physical health effects of restricted freedom, I think doubling down on government and public infrastructure for things like mental health care resources would have been great. And it would have been also great to start building, even from the beginning a plan to deal with vaccine resistance, which there was a relatively large body of literature on already and could have been, I think, more accurately anticipated. So that when vaccines started to roll out, maybe there was some more effective strategies in place to start dealing with that. I think also building an infrastructure with structural support for things that people need, like health care resources, like financial support for people who are struggling, would have been really helpful because it would lessen the health burdens that we saw. But also it would help people accept new restrictions. So it’s easier to accept the consequences of maybe not being able to go into work if that’s accompanied by a stimulus check and a rent freeze. So there are other kinds of resources you have at your disposal that make it easier to live under these kinds of new restrictions.

Nathan Cheek (14:11)

I think also one of the most profoundly ineffective things we saw was that the pandemic was politicized, at least in the United States. And so we see that in the ongoing pandemic where research has shown, for example, that counties that had a higher percentage of people voting for Donald Trump in the election or that consume more conservative news have higher rates of death from COVID and also just show less adherence to behavioral restrictions and guidelines. But you also see it with other kinds of disasters. So an affecting example is the trajectory over history of Hurricane evacuations, where it used to be the case that Hurricanes were not very politicized. And so you didn’t see any relation between county politics and Hurricane evacuations. But in 2017, a research team found for the first time that the share of Republican voters was related to less compliance with evacuations around Hurricane Irma. So that’s an example of disasters don’t have to be politicized. They’re not necessarily inherently political, but then they also can be politicized over time, if that’s what public figures choose to do.

Charles Blue (15:22)

And there is sort of a foundational understanding in strategic communications that you have to get out ahead of other messages. The first message is usually the one that is the most sticky. And once that message becomes politicized, it’s too late to pull it back. It’s already been us-them’ed. Last question then. So where do we go from here moving forward? What’s a good next step if we’re to make things just a little bit better?

Nathan Cheek (15:52)

Yeah. I mean, that’s the million dollar question, and I think politicization is a huge problem. But I think even with that, there are ways to move forward. We need a government and public policy efforts that build more trust and more infrastructure. So trust is really related to compliance. There’s a lot of research Where even things like smoking bans, People who have more public trust Are more likely to adhere to them. And so I think building that kind of trust is really important, and the government can do that by passing policies that people see as tangibly helping them. So things like stimulus checks, More health care resources, Public amenities, and resources like parks, libraries, transportation, voting rights, Things like public child care resources can be really useful. When people see that public officials are taking this seriously, but also trying to help people, Then that increases the public’s will to adhere to these restrictions. And I think good examples of that range from things like cities passing new drinking ordinances Where people can drink outside So they don’t have to go inside to restaurants and bars to things like rent freezes. And those can be good, but they just didn’t seem to be permanent.

Nathan Cheek ( 16:56)

And then I also think trying to adopt some of these principles, Helping people understand that we’re probably going to be in this situation for many more months and most likely years to come. And so it’s not about finding a fix that lasts just a short amount of time. It’s about taking seriously the changes that we need to make long term and so reframing these restrictions, thinking about them in moral terms, finding other ways to exercise free choice and finding ways to really understand the important and ongoing value of these restrictions Are going to be really essential going forward.

Charles Blue (17:32)

And hopefully we can find some of those tools and enact them. I wait for the day when we’re back to life closer to normal.

Nathan Cheek (17:40)

Feedback on this article? Email [email protected] or comment below.

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

Up-and-Coming Voices: Informing Public Health Through Psychological Science

Previews of relevant research by students and early-career scientists.

Research Briefs

Recent highlights from APS journals articles on assessing allegations of harm, relationship well-being surrounding infidelity, the link between sleep and aggression, and much more.

“Stranger Danger”: Children’s Distrust of Men May Outweigh Information Accuracy

Preschoolers are still learning to consider information accuracy when making judgements of trustworthiness.

Privacy Overview

Cookie	Duration	Description
__cf_bm	30 minutes	This cookie, set by Cloudflare, is used to support Cloudflare Bot Management.

Cookie	Duration	Description
AWSELBCORS	5 minutes	This cookie is used by Elastic Load Balancing from Amazon Web Services to effectively balance load on the servers.

Cookie	Duration	Description
at-rand	never	AddThis sets this cookie to track page visits, sources of traffic and share counts.
CONSENT	2 years	YouTube sets this cookie via embedded youtube-videos and registers anonymous statistical data.
uvc	1 year 27 days	Set by addthis.com to determine the usage of addthis.com service.
_ga	2 years	The _ga cookie, installed by Google Analytics, calculates visitor, session and campaign data and also keeps track of site usage for the site's analytics report. The cookie stores information anonymously and assigns a randomly generated number to recognize unique visitors.
_gat_gtag_UA_3507334_1	1 minute	Set by Google to distinguish users.
_gid	1 day	Installed by Google Analytics, _gid cookie stores information on how visitors use a website, while also creating an analytics report of the website's performance. Some of the data that are collected include the number of visitors, their source, and the pages they visit anonymously.

Cookie	Duration	Description
loc	1 year 27 days	AddThis sets this geolocation cookie to help understand the location of users who share the information.
VISITOR_INFO1_LIVE	5 months 27 days	A cookie set by YouTube to measure bandwidth that determines whether the user gets the new or old player interface.
YSC	session	YSC cookie is set by Youtube and is used to track the views of embedded videos on Youtube pages.
yt-remote-connected-devices	never	YouTube sets this cookie to store the video preferences of the user using embedded YouTube video.
yt-remote-device-id	never	YouTube sets this cookie to store the video preferences of the user using embedded YouTube video.
yt.innertube::nextId	never	This cookie, set by YouTube, registers a unique ID to store data on what videos from YouTube the user has seen.
yt.innertube::requests	never	This cookie, set by YouTube, registers a unique ID to store data on what videos from YouTube the user has seen.

D iscover Society

Measured – factual – critical.

Covid-19 Chronicles
Policy & Politics

Let’s talk about security and freedom

By discoversociety
September 05, 2017
2017 , Articles , DS48

Barry Knight

We live by the stories we tell ourselves. The most important storyline is how to live a good life, since this determines what we believe in, how we act, and the institutions we build. The key text here is the famous 1977 essay by Berger and Neuhaus , which examines the importance of mediating structures such as family, church, workplace, trade union and community association in connecting individuals to society. In a healthy society, these connections are at the heart of the common public good.

In the period following the Second World War such mediating structures formed the bedrock for organising British society. This, combined with government policies that pursued full employment and a welfare state, led to social advance on a scale never seen before. This was planned during the wartime Conservative-led coalition government and implemented in full by the Labour government after 1945. The leitmotif was “security”. Politicians of all stripes were determined to avoid the return of the dark days of the 1930s depression.

In the 1970s, this story failed. The post-war consensus between parties buckled under the weight of “stagflation” – the coincidence of low economic growth, high unemployment and high inflation. This resulted in industrial disorder and social unrest, from which a strong leader emerged with a new story. Following her election victory in 1979, Margaret Thatcher was determined to raise the status of business, money-making and growth by creating an “enterprise culture”. The new philosophy was based on five principles: free markets, small state, low tax, individual liberty and big defence.

The watchword for this approach was ‘freedom’. The importance of security was downplayed, since this had produced a ‘dependency culture’. Moreover, Thatcher believed that expenditure on the welfare state was wasteful because it undermined economic growth. While many people criticized the social dimensions of this approach, the economic consequences were remarkable, and median household income has more than doubled in real terms in the 40 years since 1977.

To achieve such growth, society shifted from an economy based on production to one based on consumption. Zygmunt Bauman has described this as moving from ‘solid modernity’ to ‘liquid modernity’. (1) While in the past we saw ourselves as ‘pilgrims’ in search of deeper meaning in a stable world, we now see ourselves as “tourists” in search of multiple but fleeting social experiences. As a result, we now find it harder to construct a durable sense of ourselves as we tend to live a fast life in a kaleidoscope of relationships.

This has created a crisis of meaning. While mediating institutions have declined, shopping has filled the void. As Neal Lawson puts it in All consuming , “Shopping has been emotionally, culturally and socially grafted onto us.” (2) He also says that for many it is an addiction that fails to satisfy us: “Turbo-consumerism is the heroin of human happiness.” An extreme form of such consumerism can be found in ‘celebrity culture’ in which famous individuals transform their fame into product brands, which the public then consumes. In emulating celebrities, ordinary people use the ‘selfie’, posting their photos on social media to display the illusion that life is ‘all about me’. Such developments were foreseen 50 years ago by Guy Debord in his 1967 Society of the spectacle in which “authentic social life has been replaced with its representation.” (3) Debord argues that the history of social life can be understood as “the decline of being into having, and having into merely appearing”. This condition is the “historical moment at which the commodity completes its colonization of social life”.

The price is a soul sickness at the heart of our society, which breeds deep insecurity and unhappiness for many, while violating the basis in nature on which our species depends. The Webb Memorial Trust reviewed the evidence on social attitudes, housing, work, finances, and health, and concluded that the UK is a deeply insecure society. Such insecurity permeates society and is not restricted to the one-fifth of the population who experience chronic poverty.

So, while pursuit of the word ‘freedom’ may have led to much progress, it has come at the expense of “security”. Looking back at history, it appears that security and freedom are antinomies. In their book, The Fourth Revolution Micklethwait and Wooldridge trace the history of government over the past 500 years and find that one or other of these two concepts has been central to the story of societies during different periods. (4) In the 17 th century, security rose to the fore influenced by the work of Thomas Hobbes, but by the 19 th century liberty got the upper hand through the influence of John Stuart Mill. In the mid 20 th century, security became paramount though the influence of Beatrice Webb, only to be replaced by freedom from the 1970s onwards under the influence of Milton Friedman.

We see this dynamic in the organization of contemporary politics, in which the dominance of two political parties encourages bifurcation, one stressing freedom and the other security. And yet, this framing has failed us as a society – the pursuit of one at the expense of the other leads to distortions when what we need is balance. Our current trajectory, based on freedom, encourages untrammelled economic growth, even though Carbon Tracker warns that the destruction of our ecosystem is just around the corner. At the same, there is no obvious alternative because the framing of the current narrative on security takes us back to yesterday’s world of the welfare state for which there is little capacity, finance or public support.

So how do we make progress? The two camps are increasingly polarised, and communication between them seems to occur through shouting. Ponder for a moment the extraordinary fact that, despite all the problems that Greece faces, a Greek foundation – the Stavros Niarchos Foundation – has committed $150 million to Johns Hopkins University to lead a worldwide effort to restore open and inclusive discourse to rescue our democracies.

So how can we make progress? The first helpful step would be to admit our confusion. As Yanis Varoufakis puts it: “Nothing humanizes us like aporia – that state of intense puzzlement in which we find ourselves when our certainties fall to pieces… and when the aporia casts its net far and wide to ensnare the whole of humanity, we know we are at a very special moment in history.” (5)

Such a perspective takes us back to basics, forcing us to rethink our values and to decide what kind of society we want. We attempted to do this in Rethinking poverty: What makes a good society . We used many techniques – surveys, focus groups and participative research to find out what kind of society people want.

Our results show that people want security and freedom. Rather than being antinomies, people see them as complementary. People’s views are complicated and nuanced, and cannot easily be captured in opinion polls that yield binary answers. While our results are provisional, detailed analysis of the results suggests that there are five core principles in what people want from their society:

We all have a decent basic standard of living
So, we are secure and free to choose how to lead our lives
Developing our potential and flourishing materially and emotionally
Participating, contributing and treating all with care and respect
And building a fair and sustainable future for the next generations

One underlying concept that links these five principles is the idea of ‘community’. This reflects the fact that, if there is one factor above all others that people value most, it is the quality of the relationships they have. This is the source of people’s sense of security and freedom.

The conclusions of Rethinking poverty: What makes a good society set out the implications of the findings for the methods of developing a society we want. The conclusions are that a completely different approach is needed, and we cannot rely on politics to do this for us. A good society is one that we create, it cannot be something done to us. As Terry Pratchett wrote in Witches Abroad , “You can’t go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it’s just a cage”. Nowhere is this truer than in relation to the ending of poverty, a process that now can and must involve the poor as their own agents of change

Notes: (1) Bauman, Z. (2013) Liquid modernity , New York: John Wiley and Sons. (2) Lawson, N. (2009) All consuming , London: Penguin. (3) Debord, G. (1994) The society of the spectacle , New York: Zone Books. (4) Micklethwait, J. and Wooldridge, A. (2015) The fourth revolution: The global race to reinvent the state , London: Penguin. (5) Varoufakis, Y. (2011) The global minotaur, University of Chicago Press Economics Books

Barry Knight is a social scientist and statistician, and Director of the Webb Memorial Trust . Having advised the Ford Foundation and the CS Mott Foundation, he now works with the Global Fund for Community Foundations, the Arab Reform Initiative and the European Foundation Centre. He is co-chair of the Working Group on Philanthropy for Social Justice and Peace and is the author or editor of 14 books on poverty, civil society, community development and democracy.

Do Americans really prioritize security over freedom?

CNN's Jake Tapper says yes. The evidence says no.

Newsletter sign up Newsletter

Americans are getting less hawkish about national security.

Jake Tapper of CNN raised eyebrows recently by claiming that "the American people, honestly, want security over freedom."

That would seem to be a big departure from the ideals of, say, Benjamin Franklin, who wrote that "those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

And is Tapper's claim even true? Do the American people prioritize security over freedom? The most recent evidence doesn't support Tapper's claim.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/jacafc5zvs1692883516.jpg

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Since the 9/11 attacks, Gallup has periodically conducted polls on the question of whether or not the government should violate civil liberties in order to take steps to prevent terrorism.

In the most recent poll, in August 2011, 71 percent of respondents said that they thought the government should only take steps that do not violate civil liberties, while just 25 percent thought the government should take any steps necessary, even if that means violating civil liberties.

Even in January 2002, just a few months after the 9/11 attacks, only 49 percent of Americans thought the government should take any steps necessary. But over the last decade, every time Gallup has asked the question, a majority have chosen protecting civil liberties over enhanced security.

Other polls have shown similar results.

Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox

A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com

A Pew poll in August of this year found that 47 percent thought the government had gone too far in restricting civil liberties compared to 35 percent who thought the government had not gone far enough to protect the country. In 2010, 58 percent thought the government had not gone far enough, with just 27 percent saying it had gone too far.

And a Quinnipiac poll in July of this year found that 45 percent thought the government had gone too far in restricting civil liberties, compared to 40 percent who thought the government had not gone far enough to protect the country. This was a major shift from 2010, when Quinnipiac asked the same question and found that 25 percent thought the government had gone too far, while 63 thought it had not gone far enough.

The most recent polls which, remember, came during a rash of revelations about invasive NSA domestic spying practices, point to the fact that Americans are getting less hawkish about national security, and want more freedom, not more security measures.

John Aziz is the economics and business correspondent at TheWeek.com . He is also an associate editor at Pieria.co.uk . Previously his work has appeared on Business Insider , Zero Hedge , and Noahpinion .

Boar's Head meat recalled amid listeria outbreak

Speed Read Food safety inspectors reported many violations at a Virginia plant that has been linked to a nationwide deli meat recall

By Peter Weber, The Week US Published 30 August 24

In this photo illustration, Elon Musk's twitter account is seen displayed on a smartphone with Donald Trump's Twitter account in background

Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day

By Anya Jaremko-Greenwold, The Week US Published 30 August 24

Photo collage of an Ukrainian tank superimposed on a map of Russia. It's breaking through red lines.

Talking Points And what do they mean for Putin's red lines?

By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published 30 August 24

Illustration of George Wallace, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader

In Depth Though none of America's third parties have won a presidential election, they have nonetheless had a large impact on the country's politics

By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published 26 August 24

J.D. Vance arrives on the first day of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee

Today's Big Question Trump's hawkish pick for VP said UK is the first 'truly Islamist country' with a nuclear weapon

By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published 16 July 24

Donald Trump survived assassination attempt

Speed Reads A 20-year-old gunman grazed Trump's ear and fatally shot a rally attendee on Saturday

By Peter Weber, The Week US Published 15 July 24

Speed Read The court rejected a conservative-backed challenge to the way the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is funded

By Peter Weber, The Week US Published 17 May 24

Speed Read The law makes all abortions illegal in the state except to save the mother's life

By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published 10 April 24

Speed Read The former president is hawking a $60 "God Bless the USA Bible"

By Peter Weber, The Week US Published 27 March 24

In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?

By Grayson Quay Published 13 February 24

Former U.S. President Donald Trump prepares to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference

Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service

By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published 17 January 24

Contact Future's experts
Terms and Conditions
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Advertise With Us

The Week is part of Future plc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site . © Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036.

Share full article

Supported by

Freedom of Speech? A Lesson on Understanding the Protections and Limits of the First Amendment

By Staci Garber

Sept. 12, 2018

This lesson plan was created in partnership with the National Constitution Center in advance of Constitution Day on Sept. 17. For information about a related cross-classroom “Constitutional Exchange,” see The Lauder Project .

While Americans generally agree that the First Amendment to the Constitution protects the freedom of speech, there are disagreements over when, where, how and if speech should be ever limited or restricted.

This lesson plan encourages students to examine their own assumptions about what freedom of speech really means, as well as to deepen their understanding of the current accepted interpretation of speech rights under the First Amendment. The lesson should reinforce the robustness of the First Amendment protections of speech.

While teaching, you may want to use all or part of this related Student Opinion question, which asks: Why is freedom of speech an important right? When, if ever, can it be limited?

Using this handout (PDF), students will read the First Amendment provision that protects the freedom of speech and then interpret its meaning using 10 hypothetical situations. For example, here are two situations in the handout: a person burns an American flag in protest of government policies , and a public school student starts a website for students to say hateful things about other students .

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

Essay Papers Writing Online

Why the “freedom writers essay” is an inspiring tale of hope, empathy, and overcoming adversity.

Education has always been a paramount aspect of society, shaping individuals’ intellect and character. Within the vast realms of academia, written expressions have played a pivotal role in documenting and disseminating knowledge. Among these, the essays by Freedom Writers stand out as a testament to the importance of personal narratives and the transformative power they hold.

By delving into the multifaceted dimensions of human experiences, the essays penned by Freedom Writers captivate readers with their raw authenticity and emotional depth. These narratives showcase the indomitable spirit of individuals who have triumphed over adversity, providing invaluable insights into the human condition. Through their stories, we gain a profound understanding of the challenges faced by marginalized communities, shedding light on the systemic issues deeply ingrained in our society.

What makes the essays by Freedom Writers particularly significant is their ability to ignite a spark of empathy within readers. The vivid descriptions and heartfelt accounts shared in these personal narratives serve as a bridge, connecting individuals from diverse backgrounds and fostering a sense of understanding. As readers immerse themselves in these stories, they develop a heightened awareness of the struggles faced by others, ultimately cultivating a more inclusive and compassionate society.

The Inspiring Story of the Freedom Writers Essay

The Freedom Writers Essay tells a powerful and inspiring story of a group of students who were able to overcome adversity and find their own voices through the power of writing. This essay not only impacted the education system, but also touched the hearts of many individuals around the world.

Set in the early 1990s, the Freedom Writers Essay highlights the journey of a young teacher named Erin Gruwell and her diverse group of students in Long Beach, California. Faced with a challenging and often hostile environment, Gruwell used literature and writing as a platform to engage her students and help them express their own experiences and emotions.

Through the use of journals, the students were able to share their personal stories, struggles, and dreams. This essay not only became a therapeutic outlet for the students, but it also allowed them to see the power of their own voices. It gave them a sense of empowerment and hope that they could break free from the cycle of violence and poverty that surrounded them.

As their stories were shared through the Freedom Writers Essay, the impact reached far beyond the walls of their classroom. Their words resonated with people from all walks of life, who were able to see the universal themes of resilience, empathy, and the importance of education. The essay sparked a movement of hope and change, inspiring individuals and communities to work together towards a more inclusive and equitable education system.

The Freedom Writers Essay is a testament to the transformative power of education and the incredible potential of young minds. It serves as a reminder that everyone has a story to tell and that through the written word, we can create understanding, bridge divides, and inspire change.

In conclusion, the Freedom Writers Essay is not just a piece of writing, but a catalyst for change. It showcases the remarkable journey of a group of students who found solace and strength in their own stories. It reminds us of the importance of empowering young minds and providing them with the tools necessary to overcome obstacles and make a difference in the world.

Understanding the background and significance of the Freedom Writers essay

The Freedom Writers essay holds a notable history and plays a significant role in the field of education. This piece of writing carries a background rich with hardships, triumphs, and the power of individual expression.

Originating from the diary entries of a group of high school students known as the Freedom Writers, the essay documents their personal experiences, struggles, and remarkable growth. These students were part of a racially diverse and economically disadvantaged community, facing social issues including gang violence, racism, and poverty.

Despite the challenging circumstances, the Freedom Writers found solace and empowerment through writing. Their teacher, Erin Gruwell, recognized the potential of their stories and encouraged them to share their experiences through written form. She implemented a curriculum that encouraged self-expression, empathy, and critical thinking.

The significance of the Freedom Writers essay lies in its ability to shed light on the experiences of marginalized communities and bring attention to the importance of education as a means of empowerment. The essay serves as a powerful tool to inspire change, challenge social norms, and foster understanding among diverse populations.

By sharing their narratives, the students of the Freedom Writers not only found catharsis and personal growth, but also contributed to a larger discourse on the impact of education and the role of teachers in transforming lives. The essay serves as a reminder of the profound impact that storytelling and education can have on individuals and communities.

Key Takeaways:
– The Freedom Writers essay originated from the diary entries of a group of high school students.
– The essay documents the students’ personal experiences, struggles, and growth.
– The significance of the essay lies in its ability to shed light on marginalized communities and emphasize the importance of education.
– The essay serves as a powerful tool to inspire change, challenge social norms, and foster understanding among diverse populations.
– The students’ narratives contribute to a larger discourse on the impact of education and the role of teachers in transforming lives.

Learning from the Unique Teaching Methods in the Freedom Writers Essay

The Freedom Writers Essay presents a remarkable story of a teacher who uses unconventional teaching methods to make a positive impact on her students. By examining the strategies employed by the teacher in the essay, educators can learn valuable lessons that can enhance their own teaching practices. This section explores the unique teaching methods showcased in the Freedom Writers Essay and the potential benefits they can bring to the field of education.

Empowering student voice and promoting inclusivity: One of the key themes in the essay is the importance of giving students a platform to express their thoughts and experiences. The teacher in the Freedom Writers Essay encourages her students to share their stories through writing, empowering them to find their own voices and fostering a sense of inclusivity in the classroom. This approach teaches educators the significance of valuing and incorporating student perspectives, ultimately creating a more engaging and diverse learning environment.

Building relationships and trust: The teacher in the essay invests time and effort in building meaningful relationships with her students. Through personal connections, she is able to gain their trust and create a safe space for learning. This emphasis on building trust highlights the impact of positive teacher-student relationships on academic success. Educators can learn from this approach by understanding the importance of establishing a supportive and nurturing rapport with their students, which can enhance student engagement and motivation.

Using literature as a tool for empathy and understanding: The teacher in the Freedom Writers Essay introduces her students to literature that explores diverse perspectives and themes of resilience and social justice. By incorporating literature into her curriculum, she encourages her students to develop empathy and gain a deeper understanding of the experiences of others. This approach underscores the value of incorporating diverse and relevant texts into the classroom, enabling students to broaden their perspectives and foster critical thinking skills.

Fostering a sense of community and belonging: In the essay, the teacher creates a sense of community within her classroom by organizing activities that promote teamwork and collaboration. By fostering a supportive and inclusive learning environment, the teacher helps her students feel a sense of belonging and encourages them to support one another. This aspect of the teaching methods showcased in the Freedom Writers Essay reinforces the significance of collaborative learning and the sense of community in fostering academic growth and personal development.

Overall, the unique teaching methods presented in the Freedom Writers Essay serve as an inspiration for educators to think outside the box and explore innovative approaches to engage and empower their students. By incorporating elements such as student voice, building relationships, using literature for empathy, and fostering a sense of community, educators can create a transformative learning experience for their students, ultimately shaping them into critical thinkers and compassionate individuals.

Exploring the innovative approaches used by the Freedom Writers teacher

The Freedom Writers teacher employed a range of creative and groundbreaking methods to engage and educate their students, fostering a love for learning and empowering them to break the cycle of violence and poverty surrounding their lives. Through a combination of empathy, experiential learning, and personal storytelling, the teacher was able to connect with the students on a deep level and inspire them to overcome the obstacles they faced.

One of the innovative approaches utilized by the Freedom Writers teacher was the use of literature and writing as a means of communication and healing. By introducing the students to powerful works of literature that tackled relevant social issues, the teacher encouraged them to explore their own identities and experiences through writing. This not only facilitated self-expression but also fostered critical thinking and empathy, as the students were able to relate to the characters and themes in the literature.

The teacher also implemented a unique system of journal writing, where the students were given a safe and non-judgmental space to express their thoughts, emotions, and personal experiences. This practice not only helped the students develop their writing skills but also served as a therapeutic outlet, allowing them to process and reflect upon their own lives and the challenges they faced. By sharing and discussing their journal entries within the classroom, the students built a strong sense of community and support among themselves.

Another innovative strategy utilized by the Freedom Writers teacher was the integration of field trips and guest speakers into the curriculum. By exposing the students to different perspectives and experiences, the teacher broadened their horizons and challenged their preconceived notions. This experiential learning approach not only made the subjects more engaging and relatable but also encouraged the students to think critically and develop a greater understanding of the world around them.

In conclusion, the Freedom Writers teacher implemented a range of innovative and effective approaches to foster learning and personal growth among their students. Through the use of literature, writing, journaling, and experiential learning, the teacher created a supportive and empowering environment that allowed the students to overcome their adversities and become agents of change. These methods continue to inspire educators and highlight the importance of innovative teaching practices in creating a positive impact on students’ lives.

The Impact of the Freedom Writers Essay on Students’ Lives

The Freedom Writers Essay has had a profound impact on the lives of students who have been exposed to its powerful message. Through the personal stories and experiences shared in the essay, students are able to gain a deeper understanding of the challenges and resilience that individuals can possess. The essay serves as a catalyst for personal growth, empathy, and a desire to make a positive difference in the world.

One of the key ways in which the Freedom Writers Essay impacts students’ lives is by breaking down barriers and promoting understanding. Through reading the essay, students are able to connect with the struggles and triumphs of individuals from diverse backgrounds. This fosters a sense of empathy and compassion, allowing students to see beyond their own experiences and appreciate the unique journeys of others.

In addition to promoting empathy, the Freedom Writers Essay also inspires students to take action. By showcasing the power of education and personal expression, the essay encourages students to use their voices to effect change in their communities. Students are empowered to stand up against injustice, advocate for those who are marginalized, and work towards creating a more inclusive and equitable society.

Furthermore, the essay serves as a reminder of the importance of perseverance in the face of adversity. Through the stories shared in the essay, students witness the determination and resilience of individuals who have overcome significant challenges. This inspires students to believe in their own ability to overcome obstacles and pursue their dreams, no matter the circumstances.

Overall, the impact of the Freedom Writers Essay on students’ lives is profound and far-reaching. It not only educates and enlightens, but also motivates and empowers. By exposing students to the power of storytelling and the potential for personal growth and social change, the essay equips them with the tools they need to become compassionate and engaged citizens of the world.

Examining the transformation experienced by the Freedom Writers students

The journey of the Freedom Writers students is a testament to the power of education and its transformative impact on young minds. Through their shared experiences, these students were able to overcome adversity, prejudice, and personal struggles to find their voices and take ownership of their education. This process of transformation not only shaped their individual lives but also had a ripple effect on their communities and the educational system as a whole.

Before	After
The students entered the classroom with a sense of hopelessness and disillusionment, burdened by the weight of their personal challenges and the expectations society had placed on them.	Through the guidance of their dedicated teacher, Erin Gruwell, and the power of literature, the students discovered new perspectives, empathy, and the possibility of a brighter future.
They viewed their classmates as enemies, constantly at odds with one another due to racial and cultural differences.	By sharing their personal stories and embracing diversity, the students formed a strong bond, realizing that they were more similar than different and could support one another in their pursuit of education.
Academic success seemed out of reach, as they struggled with illiteracy, disengagement, and a lack of confidence in their abilities.	The students developed a renewed sense of purpose and belief in themselves. They discovered their passions, excelled academically, and gained the confidence to pursue higher education, despite the obstacles they faced.
They were trapped in a cycle of violence and negativity, influenced by the gang culture and societal pressures that surrounded them.	The students found a way out of the cycle, using the power of education to rise above their circumstances and break free from the limitations that had once defined them.
There was a lack of trust between the students and their teachers, as they felt unheard and misunderstood.	Through the creation of a safe and inclusive classroom environment, the students developed trust and respect for their teachers, realizing that they had allies in their educational journey.

The transformation experienced by the Freedom Writers students serves as a powerful reminder of the potential within every student, regardless of their background or circumstances. It highlights the importance of creating an inclusive and supportive educational environment that encourages self-expression, empathy, and a belief in one’s own abilities. By fostering a love for learning and empowering students to embrace their unique voices, education can become a catalyst for positive change, both within individuals and society as a whole.

Addressing Social Issues and Promoting Empathy through the Freedom Writers Essay

In today’s society, it is important to address social issues and promote empathy to create a more inclusive and harmonious world. One way to achieve this is through the powerful medium of the written word. The Freedom Writers Essay, a notable piece of literature, serves as a catalyst for addressing social issues and promoting empathy among students.

The Freedom Writers Essay showcases the experiences and struggles of students who have faced adversity, discrimination, and inequality. Through their personal narratives, these students shed light on the social issues that exist within our society, such as racism, poverty, and violence. By sharing their stories, they invite readers to step into their shoes and gain a deeper understanding of the challenges they face. This promotes empathy and encourages readers to take action to create a more equitable world.

Furthermore, the Freedom Writers Essay fosters a sense of community and unity among students. As they read and discuss the essay, students have the opportunity to engage in meaningful conversations about social issues, sharing their own perspectives and experiences. This dialogue allows them to challenge their beliefs, develop critical thinking skills, and broaden their horizons. By creating a safe space for open and honest discussions, the Freedom Writers Essay creates an environment where students can learn from one another and grow together.

In addition, the essay prompts students to reflect on their own privileges and biases. Through self-reflection, students can gain a better understanding of their own place in society and the role they can play in creating positive change. This reflection process helps students develop empathy for others and encourages them to become active agents of social justice.

In conclusion, the Freedom Writers Essay serves as a powerful tool for addressing social issues and promoting empathy among students. By sharing personal narratives, fostering dialogue, and prompting self-reflection, this essay encourages students to confront societal challenges head-on and take meaningful action. Through the power of the written word, the essay helps create a more inclusive and empathetic society.

Analyzing how the essay tackles significant societal issues and promotes empathy

In this section, we will examine how the essay addresses crucial problems in society and encourages a sense of understanding. The essay serves as a platform to shed light on important social issues and foster empathy among its readers.

The essay delves into the depths of societal problems, exploring topics such as racial discrimination, stereotyping, and the achievement gap in education. It presents these issues in a thought-provoking manner, prompting readers to reflect on the harsh realities faced by marginalized communities. Through personal anecdotes and experiences, the essay unveils the profound impact of these problems on individuals and society as a whole.

Furthermore, the essay emphasizes the significance of cultural understanding and empathy. It highlights the power of perspective and the importance of recognizing and challenging one’s own biases. The author’s account of their own transformation and ability to connect with their students serves as an inspiring example, urging readers to step outside their comfort zones and embrace diversity.

By confronting and discussing these social issues head-on, the essay not only raises awareness but also calls for collective action. It encourages readers to become advocates for change and actively work towards creating a more inclusive and equitable society. The essay emphasizes the role of education in addressing these societal problems and the potential for growth and transformation it can bring.

In essence, the essay provides a platform to examine important societal problems and promotes empathy by humanizing the issues and encouraging readers to listen, understand, and work towards positive change.

How to master the art of writing expository essays and captivate your audience, convenient and reliable source to purchase college essays online, step-by-step guide to crafting a powerful literary analysis essay, unlock success with a comprehensive business research paper example guide, unlock your writing potential with writers college – transform your passion into profession, “unlocking the secrets of academic success – navigating the world of research papers in college”, master the art of sociological expression – elevate your writing skills in sociology.

IMAGES

Safety Vs. Freedom Argumentative Essay Example
⇉Safety vs. Freedom Essay Example
Essay on Freedom in 150 Words
The Importance of Freedom Essay Example
Reflection Essay on Freedom (300 Words)
Freedom Definition Essay

VIDEO

Гражданская Оборона -Свобода (Killdozer)
Essay 5 : Safety, Health and Environment
Essay on*Road*Safety*Awareness*💞💞🌹#shorts #viral #creator
my freedom without safety gear
Republica Libertății. Eseu
Безопасность и стабильность

COMMENTS

Ben Franklin's Famous 'Liberty, Safety' Quote Lost Its Context In ...
Virginia Caucus Hopes To Limit Police Data Collection, Storage. Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither ...
We Sacrifice Freedom for Safety, and We Need Not Do So
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 ...
Why freedom matters more than safety
Why freedom matters more than safety. Russell Coates October 9, 2023 Civil Liberties Liberty Nanny State Regulations. In an age consumed by concerns for safety and security, many of us have been quick to embrace unprecedented safety measures, surveillance, and expanding state control. Safety is, of course, to be valued, but some important ...
PDF AP® ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND COMPOSITION
This essay effectively qualifies Mencken's statement, claiming that people prefer "safety over freedom on the surface," yet beneath this surface, people "crave freedom.". To support this claim, the student discusses the fact that many people will "work under an awful boss" in order to maintain the safety of a job.
Freedom Vs. Safety: Exploring The Dichotomy
Freedom represents the ability of individuals to exercise their rights, express their thoughts, and make choices without undue constraints. Safety, on the other hand, refers to the protection of individuals and communities from harm, threats, and risks. The challenge arises when the pursuit of one value potentially compromises the other.
Argumentative Essay On Safety Vs Freedom
In one form or another our society embraces censorship whether it's intentional or not in order to ensure safety. Censorship is the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. However the main contradiction is between the idea of safety and ...
Freedom vs Safety: What Matters More?
Freedom and safety are at odds with each other, but also need each other. Freedom is being able to think, say, and do what you want - to live your life as you please. Safety is being protected from harm - to live your life without fear of danger. Though people may uphold freedom as an ultimate virtue, it's limited in a society.
Mencken's Theory Of Safety Over Freedom
People often divert from the path they want to take in life to a safer path because freedom means taking risks that are "unsafe.". When H.L. Mencken stated his argument, he was correct to an extent. People do live in a way that burdens their freedom, but provides physical and financial safety. However, behind false contentment, they wish to ...
Want To Be Free, By H. L. Mencken
819 Words4 Pages. The phrase, "The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe", by H.L. Mencken, an American essayist and social critic, is an accurate and agreeable statement. What Mencken is trying to say here is that people in this society don't really look for freedom to do whatever they want, instead they look ...
What does Benjamin Franklin's quote about liberty and safety mean
Benjamin Franklin's quote about liberty and safety means that personal liberty is paramount in a democratic society. He argues that sacrificing essential liberty for safety results in losing both ...
A QUOTE IN CONTEXT
The supplicant has no jurisdiction over the power providing the safety. If the power responds, though it may appear to be a case of benevolence, it is a case in which a debt is owed. Despite the semblance of safety, there is no assurance that the power will withdraw from the area over which the body politic originally had jurisdiction.
Safety Versus Freedom: An Eternal Fallacy
Unveiled in Modern America. Kavi Shah. 1342. Abstract —Ayn Rand, a famous Russian-American essayist known for her views on political philosophy, argued in the 1990s that the definition of freedom, in and of itself, was unique in that it was mutually exclusive of the basic fundamentals of security. This is evident today as the public seems to ...
267 Freedom Essay Topics & Examples
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.
Argumentative Essay On Safety Vs Freedom
Argumentative Essay On Safety Vs Freedom. Decent Essays. 579 Words. 3 Pages. Open Document. From the federalism debates of our country's infancy to more modern political issues, the question of whether safety or freedom is more important is inescapable. While there are many different opinions on this issue, most can be explained by a basic ...
Freedom Versus Security: Can We Find the Right Balance?
The third principle is about reframing restrictions as freedom from so many of these public policies aimed at increasing security can be thought of as ways of increasing a different kind of freedom. They might be limiting your freedom to do whatever you want, but they might be increasing your freedom from threats.
Safety over Freedom Essay Example For FREE
Safety over Freedom. By giving up a percentage of freedom, people in turn receive safety by creating restrictive laws, dealing punishments, and developing intricate procedures as seen when governments have dealt with drug use, terrorism, and vehicular management. Time and time again philosophers have come to agreement that a social contract exists.
PDF 2011 Ap English Language and Composition Free-response ...
ISH LANGUAGE AND COMPOSITION. FREE-RESPONSE QUESTIONS (Form B)Question 3(Suggested time—40 minu. es. This question counts for one-third of the total essay section score.)American essayist and social critic H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) wrote, . The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe." In a well-written essay ...
Let's talk about security and freedom
This is the source of people's sense of security and freedom. The conclusions of Rethinking poverty: What makes a good society set out the implications of the findings for the methods of developing a society we want. The conclusions are that a completely different approach is needed, and we cannot rely on politics to do this for us.
Explain Why Safety Is More Important Than Freedom Essay
To be safe is defined as the condition of being protected from or unlikely to cause danger or risk. In my opinion safety is more important than freedom. Freedom is something that can be offered anywhere. Safety is not offered anywhere and is a privilege. Safety is something that you hope for because anything can happen on any given day.
Do Americans really prioritize security over freedom?
CNN's Jake Tapper says yes. The evidence says no. Jake Tapper of CNN raised eyebrows recently by claiming that "the American people, honestly, want security over freedom." That would seem to be a ...
Freedom's values: The good and the right
In value theory and normative ethics it is commonplace to distinguish between the good, which pertains to the positive evaluation of outcomes and states of affairs, and the right, which pertains to how people should treat one another, and therefore to the moral evaluation of actions (Rawls, 1971: sections 5-6; Zimmerman, 2015).Consider how a state of affairs in which people have freedom can ...
Freedom of Speech? A Lesson on Understanding the Protections and Limits
This essay, "Freedom of Speech and of the Press," by the constitutional law scholars Geoffrey R. Stone and Eugene Volokh, is part of the National Constitution Center's Interactive Constitution.
Discover the Importance of Freedom Writers Essay and Its Impact on
The essay serves as a reminder of the profound impact that storytelling and education can have on individuals and communities. Key Takeaways: - The Freedom Writers essay originated from the diary entries of a group of high school students. - The essay documents the students' personal experiences, struggles, and growth.
Essay
Lost in the fierce debate over motherhood and reproductive freedom are women like me. Eugenia Cheng at her South Loop Home in Chicago on Aug. 28. Brittany Sowacke for The Wall Street Journal