Why Are So Many People Googling “Is It Possible To Have Too Much Freedom”?

How much freedom is too much? This question has been the subject of viral TED Talks like “Too much freedom will kill us” and another titled, "How much freedom is too much freedom?" Additionally, “too much freedom” has been an oddly popular search term on Google over the past several months with supplementary questions popping up like, "is freedom a good thing or a bad thing?" being discussed.

Those who question whether or not we have too much freedom in the United States are typically those whose families were established here earlier and who grew up in an environment that was far removed from other places and practices in the world that don’t afford people the freedoms we’re entitled to here. Meanwhile, Americans who have assimilated after fleeing said places are typically more gung-ho about freedom and may even believe we still don’t have enough.

Who’s right and who’s wrong? We’ll discuss where each side is coming from and why.

“Freedom” Changes Where You Go

Depending on where in the world you are, your freedoms can be extremely limited. In the United Kingdom, they have the Communications Act of 2003, which makes it “a criminal offence” to send (or cause to be sent) “by means of a public electronic communications network, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.”

This made it so that in February of 2021, one Joe Kelly from Glasgow was sentenced to 150 hours of community service and 18 months of government supervision for the crime of tweeting “The only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella, buuuuurn,” in response to the passing of a 99-year-old World War II veteran Captain Tom Moore, who had become famous at that time for walking laps to raise money for an NHS charity.

While many can agree that such a tweet is crass and rude, the average Joe (no pun intended) in the United States isn’t prosecuted under the law for tweeting a rude or unsavory opinion about someone else. Many people here tweet and post their worst wishes for major celebrities, politicians, and commentators all the time, and unless it’s something to the extent of actively threatening someone with physical violence, calling the police or reporting it to law enforcement agents would more likely get you reprimanded for wasting their time.

Other European countries, specifically those under the EU, also restrict the freedoms of tech companies in ways the U.S. does not. Under the Digital Services Act, companies like Google and Facebook are made to comply with regulations determined by the EU when it comes to “hate speech,” “disinformation,” and “other harmful online content” – the quotation marks here are to emphasize, as there is no one, solid, concrete definition of what any of these things are. Sensibilities can change, and our understanding of the truth can change as we learn more. What’s harmful to one person can be beneficial to someone else; for instance, teaching a doctor about a natural remedy to apply to a patient’s illness harms the pharmaceutical sales representative’s bottom line.

Other countries severely restrict freedoms that we don’t even think about in day-to-day life in the U.S. Syria has been governed by one party, uninterrupted, since the 1960s. On paper, other parties have a right to form and register when it comes time for elections, but in practice, the government’s intelligence forces monitor such oppositions and put a stop to them if there’s any indication they pose even some kind of risk to the status quo. There is no opportunity in Syria to vote anyone out if a constituent feels unrepresented. Freedom to teach other points of view in schools is also nonexistent, since that can lend itself to sowing dissent and opposition to the established government.

Freedoms can vary outside law and government regulation, too. Barring full-on nudity, there aren’t laws legislating what clothing you can and can’t wear in the U.S. However, depending on where you are in the country, your clothing choices could be severely imprudent and put you in danger. This applies to many other countries around the world, and others still have religious or cultural mandates integrated into their laws.

These examples illustrate how much our individual freedoms vary depending on where we are in the world. But it’s important to stop and define what freedom actually means – or, more accurately, its numerous nuances and gray areas.

What Freedom Meant to the Founding Fathers

The word “freedom” may evoke a different image to different people. Maybe it’s a bird soaring in the wind, or the feeling of safety in the comfort of your own home, or the dream of expressing what you really believe, without being scared of some kind of negative repercussion. Truly, it depends on what you’ve lived through.

If we’re to define whether we need more freedom or have too much, it is important to define it. We’ve seen, at a high level, examples of what greater and lesser degrees of freedom look like. But what does it really mean?

Do what you like in the defense of your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but don’t stop others from doing the same.

Western conceptions of freedom stem from the belief in natural rights. What are you absolutely free to do in nature, without the interference of any government? You’re free to express yourself, to believe in God or any other higher being, and you’re free (and obliged) to protect yourself (whether it be your life, shelter, or resources). In the United States, such beliefs comprised the foundation for the Declaration of Independence and further establishment of the laws of the newly formed country. The right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” was canonized – with the only exception being that you could not infringe on someone else’s pursuit of the same.

So we now have our set of constraints. Do what you like in the defense of your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but don’t stop others from doing the same. It doesn’t take long to see the nuances emerge.

The Nuances of Freedom Today

During the very beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, many were mocked for choosing to wear face masks and other mouth coverings, and some government officials encouraged constituents to go out in public, since they decreed the illness to be under control.

Then, as more information was revealed about the virus, and differing information was provided, the accepted belief and standards changed. If you didn’t wear a mask in public, even if you were by yourself at a park with no one around for miles, you were said to be killing hundreds if not thousands of people. In many places, people weren’t allowed to walk outside without being threatened by local law enforcement. Gyms were shut down, churches were closed, funerals canceled. Very blatantly, people were stopped in their pursuits of health and happiness. Yet others would see that as a good thing, as the lives of others were preserved.

The response to Covid clearly demonstrated how many people differ in their understanding of freedom and why there is a great deal of division around what we’re free and entitled to do in our lives. 

Between Two Extremes

For many, especially those who haven’t suffered severe restrictions that threaten them with jail time or death/disappearance, they want to further society and existence even closer to a utopia, where people suffer minimally, if at all. They want freedom from suffering and freedom from inequality of outcomes. For some, that looks like universal housing, healthcare, education, and a basic income – even if it objectively devalues the work of others.

While that desire appears to work toward elevating the lives of some, it merely levels the playing field in a way that makes life difficult for others. If things like healthcare, housing, education, and entrepreneurship are blatantly devalued, then what does that mean for those who worked toward them? If their work is free, then they don’t get paid and they can’t pursue their security and happiness. Even the answer of “the taxpayer will cover it” burdens the average person, often greatly, especially if they are unfortunate enough to live in a society where the government doesn’t allocate the resources fairly and responsibly. At that point, everyone’s right to the pursuit of prosperity suffers, while the government fattens its wallet.

On the other end of the spectrum are those who believe in a strict adherence to the natural rights of man and nothing else. No interference from the government, and a pure survival of the fittest. It’s anarchy in a vacuum. You are your own government, and you alone are in charge of everything: your food, shelter, clothing, safety, and preservation of life. No one owes you anything, and no one will protect you (unless you’re willing or able to exchange something in favor of protection or other services, as in traditional capitalism).

For those who are used to and appreciate the comforts and safety that modern technology has afforded us, it’s hard to sell them on that. It’s also impossible to return to that system of doing things from our place in time, especially if you don’t believe that humans are essentially good or care about others and their well-being. Anarchy in metropolitan areas would result in the deaths of millions and damage to important infrastructure, especially if those trained to manage it are harmed or killed. In order for the world to “reset” in this way, many would have to die. This doesn’t facilitate the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness as much as it spurs on a reset based on the ability to preserve yourself against the worst actors in society suddenly having no threat of consequence for their actions.

It’s essential to find an actual middle point that doesn’t devalue the work of others and subject society to the mercy of one corrupt government regime and also doesn’t blatantly put the lives of the majority of society at risk so that the person with the most security is left at the top of the pecking order.

Support our cause and help women reclaim their femininity by subscribing today.