“Freedom To” vs “Freedom from”

1.1. The Trading Balance: Tolerating Impositions

Now, with my neighbor’s party, some might be the kind of smeghead who, as soon as the sun goes down, immediately calls the cops and complains. But, if this is a rare party, I’m actually not likely to. Because at some point, some other weekend, I might want to have a party of my own. So, even if it annoys me, I’m likely to tolerate the neighbor’s party. They’re not vandalizing my property, nor endangering me, and though it might not get quiet, the music is gradually turned down as it gets later.

Compare that to the college students who rented a house two doors down a few years ago. They held parties too—but their guests weren’t contained in the back yard, instead using their front porch too. Sometimes guests would wander up and down the street, leaving trash around and vomiting in others' yards. The music never got turned down until cops showed up, which more than once resulted from altercations at the party.

If my neighbor throws a party, I’ll tolerate it—in part because of an unspoken expectation that when it’s my turn, the neighbor is going to return the favor and not interfere. Years of living here has shown this to be the case, so there really is an unspoken agreement to let each other impose on the other, up to a point.

The college students didn’t participate in this exchange. More than once, neighbors knocked on their door to ask them to keep it down, and though sometimes the music was turned down, it was soon cranked up again. After a while, we gave up trying to find balance, and calling the cops early and often became the norm for their parties.

The rest of our rights to peaceably enjoy our properties won out.

But comparing the two situations shows that we don’t always defend our rights hard-and-fast. Instead, there’s a gray area that involves compromise. And even the compromise isn’t fixed; there’s an accounting of how much give-and-take has happened, and we’re only willing to afford so much give without receiving accommodation in return.

1.2. When Freedom Imposes On Others: Smoking

As far as whether freedom to or freedom from is stronger, I don’t think it’s either, but instead depends on the time, place and situation. For example, freedoms over smoking have changed in my lifetime.

When I was a kid, the freedom to smoke outweighed the freedom from smoke, so restaurants had choking sections and if you wanted to be free of smoke, you hoped you wouldn’t be seated along the imaginary wall between the sections that was utterly ineffective in keeping the smoke away. About 20 years ago, though, the freedom from smoke began to outweigh freedom to smoke, and injunctions against smoking indoors were put in place in many places.

This raises the question of why: One explanation is that understanding of the harms of smoking and second-hand smoke grew in the late 20th century, and consequently the “weight” of freedom from smoke overtook the freedom to smoke.

But an alternate explanation is majority rule: up until anti-smoking campaigns in the 1970s, smoking was the norm and most adults smoked, and thus the zeitgeist was that freedom to smoke mattered more than the freedom from of a bunch of hippie health nuts. Under this explanation, as smoking declined and non-smokers became the majority, the non-smokers imposed their freedom from on smokers and laws banning indoor smoking were imposed.

Probably, both contribute to the change. There are more people that want freedom from smoke, and the health implications mean their freedom carries more weight than it would if smoke was just an inconvenience or annoyance.

When the change happened, some smokers complained about the erosion of personal liberties, as if their freedom to was the only freedom that existed. And that’s why I like this freedom from idea. Banning indoor smoking wasn’t just taking away smokers' personal liberties arbitrarily, it was adjusting the balance point between smokers' freedom to and non-smokers freedom from.

1.3. Subtle Differences, Divergent Outcomes: Dogs vs. Cars

But let’s go back to my neighborhood to look at how inconvenience and annoyance plays in the balance.

One of the circumstances that decides whether freedom to or from is stronger is how imposing either side is. One of my neighbors used to have a rusted out, broken down eyesore of a van in his back yard. Then he bought 2 dogs which, once one started barking, tried to out-bark each other and would keep going almost indefinitely. The sound of walking to my garage, or opening a window to let in some cool breeze at night, or the sight of someone walking by on the public sidewalk, was enough to set them barking.

There’s a difference between the van and the dogs. With the van, when I stopped looking out the window and did something else, my problem went away. With the dogs, it didn’t; to avoid setting the dogs barking, I’d have to avoid using my yard and not open my windows (though even that wouldn’t solve the barking 100%). The same person created 2 different problems, but one of them I could easily choose to avoid, therefore his freedom to keep a busted down van won; but the other was a burden for me to avoid, so my freedom from incessant barking won out when I sicced the dog warden on him.

I didn’t do that immediately, of course—I complained to him about the dogs, and afforded him time to train them, because I knew going to the city would effect the balance sheet of give-and-take trade-offs we make with each other. And when I finally did invoke authority, he reciprocated by filing zoning complaints about minor yard stuff. The give-and-take of compromises can instead be the give-and-take of retaliation.

1.4. Abuse: The Unopposable Freedom of Telemarketing

But, what if the accounting of that give-and-take couldn’t be balanced? What if you couldn’t escape imposition?

I think telemarketing and spam e-mail are a good example of this. When I was a kid, telemarketing was super rare, especially cold-calling. If the phone rang, it was important. It didn’t matter if we were busy: if the phone rang, we stopped what were doing and answered the phone. Living in the country we had an “outside bell”, for which we paid a monthly fee—and still Ma Bell occasionally came sniffing around insisting we had a second, illicit second phone, which always turned out to be the outside bell.

If I was in the barn and nobody else was home, when the phone rang, I had to run to the house—answering machines were unheard of in the 1970s—which was about 6 rings, or 40 seconds at a full run, which was necessary so the call wasn’t missed—just to answer the phone.

How different it is today: if I’m busy, I won’t go into the other room to grab my phone when it rings. It’s probably just some schmuck trying to sell me debt consolidation or a car warranty. All of us long to be free from scam calls and telemarketers. There was always a freedom to harass in this way, but in the 1970s business lines were metered by the minute or the call—and long distance was expensive. Phones had to be staffed; there was no automation. Thus, there was a cost to mass calling. But now, cheap telecommunications costs, autodialers and robocallers mean they impose their freedom to be completely obnoxious to the rest of us.

And e-mail: e-mail was great, back when I was in college. Then the Internet went mainstream, and the spam started. Various filtering technology arrived, and people changed e-mail addresses when a mailbox became too contaminated.

Today, a lot of folks use Gmail. Why? People’s desire to be free from spam leads them to the provider with the best spam filters, and Gmail’s are reputed to be some of the best. So people use it, even when the cost is some of their privacy.

So we’re starting to see a way to measure abuse: when one side’s freedom goes unchecked, and the other’s is entirely disregarded, there’s a problem. Sellers push their advertising, that none of the rest of us want. They enshittify our communication tools, and impose costs on us that we can’t escape from—the waste of our time, the frustration they create, the cost of resources they use, and sacrifices we make to solve these problems.

2.1. Ourselves

We first learn about freedoms to because it’s a more active idea: freedoms to are things that personally apply to what we do, to our own behaviors and choices. It is the quintessential idea of freedom: that I have freedom to do whatever things I want to do.

Freedom from seems more abstract, as it’s a more passive idea. My freedoms from suggest restrictions on your behaviour because of the effects of your behavior upon me.

Determining whether freedom to or freedom from wins requires looking at all aspects: the value to the person who wants to exhibit that freedom, the cost that will be imposed on others, and the situation involved: is it temporary, or permanent? Is it just an annoyance, or is there measurable damage? Is there something that can be done to mitigate effects, and if so, what is its cost, effectiveness, value, and who will bear that cost?

Personally, it took me a long time to understand that both are valid, both strong. When night club smoking bans went into effect in New York—even though I loved the newfound fresh air and being able to come home without the stinking stench of smoke in my hair—the injunction on smoker’s freedoms stuck out. It’s not until I really thought about this issue that I’ve come to appreciate how valuable my own freedom from smoke really is.

But given how long it took me, I’m not surprised that there’s a societal bias toward freedoms to.

2.2. Libertarians

Contemplating those who only respect freedom to: that is libertarianism. But let’s be clear: a proper libertarian will do whatever they want, but also let you do whatever you want. If you want to crap up the neighborhood by opening a dog kennel in your back yard, well, your libertarian neighbor thinks that’s fine. It’s on them to solve the noise and bad smells your kennels create. They can install some deodorizers, install central air so windows can stay closed, and get some earplugs or noise-cancelling headphones.

This strikes me as an extreme and impractical position, but may explain why a lot of libertarians seem to want to live in rural areas. Live somewhere rural where you’re far away from everyone else, and it reduces the number of freedom from conflicts.

2.3. Sane Folks

This is especially important for folks living in cities or close quarters. If every time a neighbor held a party, I called the police precisely at 9 PM if the volume wasn’t turned down, I’d be seen as inflexible and uncooperative; the rigid SOB neighbor. On the flipside, if the neighbor threw a rager until 3AM every weekend, and I did nothing, I could be described as a pushover. There is a healthy balance between being accommodating and being a pushover, that’s difficult to objectively qualify. Learning how to attain and manage it comes with time and experience, and varies with each situation.

Being a pushover is not healthy. Repeatedly allowing our needs to be ignored wears on mental health, and eventually comes out in dysfunctional ways: lashing out at or threatening offenders when we finally can’t take anymore, or expressing displeasure as passive aggression, perhaps vandalizing the neighbor’s property or possessions. If they suspect I’m the origin of such behavior, it could escalate in the form of a tit-for-tat retaliation, which is counterproductive to solving the original problem. If I’m caught, I could end up in trouble with the police. None of that solves the problem.

The best solution is hashing it out with the neighbor, but doing so requires being able to have a rational conversation. Ignoring problems allows resentment to build up, and the more freedoms have been stomped on, the more difficult it is to eventually have a civil conversation to find a solution or compromise.

We want to give others some leeway, but not too much. That can be difficult or impossible when people are inflexible, or only recognize their own freedoms.

2.4. Freedom Balancing Transactions

For example, I’m an atheist. Whether it’s quippy signs in front of churches or missionaries knocking at my door, I’d rather be free of religious propaganda. Meanwhile, there’s a certain type of church person that would prefer I go back to being a quiet, unobtrusive person living a sheltered life where they don’t see me, and can pretend I don’t exist. I have no doubt they think the way I live my life is a bunch of nonsense, which is pretty much what I think of their religion and way of life too. But, in this case, I acknowledge their freedom to put signs on their property and proselytize exceeds my desire to be free of these things—but counterpoint, I expect them to recognize my right to live my life my way, and not try to inhibit me from doing so.

That is, I recognize their right to do their life and religion their way, in exchange for them recognizing my right to do my life and religion—or absence thereof—my way.

This is one of my key points, and something that’s often lost in the polarized, politicized conversations we have today. It’s an abstract variation of the golden rule: Give freedom unto others as you would have them give unto you. We need to get better at saying it, of reminding our political opponents that this is a two-way street, and there’s an exchange, a transaction going on here. So I’m going to say it again.

I recognize your right to do your life your way, in exchange for you letting me do my life my way.

There are, of course, restrictions on this; I don’t want you going out murdering, raping, or pillaging. But doing so would violate some third party’s rights—their freedom to life, liberty, happiness and/or property. There is no a special case here.

2.5. Antisocial Expectations of Freedom

Where I think things go wrong is with those who place their personal freedoms to and freedoms from above those of everyone else. They want their way, and only their way—anything they don’t like should be banned. Their attitude is summed up as:

I demand the freedom to do whatever I want, freedom from whatever I don’t like, and in the face of my freedoms yours don’t matter.

An example of this is frequently seen when some Christians want to put a manger display on the town green to celebrate Christmas—but then the Followers of Lovecraft want to remind us with a display of coming climate or Arkham horrors (maybe those are the same thing). “Jesus is the reason for the season,” the Christians say, and rant about Lovecraft being evil and Satanic, an attempt to lead people astray of the pure love of Jesus and God! (Never mind all the slaughtering, raping and other horrific stuff in the Bible—because murder is loving and kind when done by god or in god’s name.)

These folks will get bent out of shape if anything else is put up to compete with their manger: an Angel Moroni by the Latter Day Saints, anything put up by Islamic folk, a little temporary Buddhist or Hindu temple, a bust of Bertrand Russell with his quote, “Remember your Humanity, and forget the rest”; a picture of Carl Sagan and a nebula with some inspiring words about the cosmos.

It’s narcissistic that these folks want the freedom to put up their display, and they want that to be an exclusive freedom. Only they can put a display on the green, and if anyone does, it’s an affront to them to have to share the privilege, as if sharing the privilege means less for them, like it’s a bag of pretzels. These folks don’t want equal rights, they want special rights.

Perhaps underlying this is the belief that only they know the truth, and what is right. Therefore, only they should have freedom to share their message, which they allege is the truth; and have freedom from the rest of the world’s messages, which they claim are lies. But why should they have freedom from criticism of their beliefs, yet have the freedom to criticize the rest of ours?

If anyone has the freedom to put a holiday display on the green, then everyone has the freedom to put a holiday display on the green. And everyone has to exhibit tolerance by setting aside their freedom from those displays they don’t like.

The alternative, if you don’t want to be tolerant and would prefer to keep others others from installing their public display, is to allow no one to install a display on the green. Your freedom from will not be imposed on, nor will anyone else’s equally valid desires to be freedom from these displays. But the trade-off is that nobody is able to exercise their freedom to. That, to me, seems fair.

2.6. Tyrannies of the Majorities

In particular, this solution avoids the tyranny of the majority: the dominant group saying that, as the majority, they should have the freedom to express themselves. But as the majority, they should also be free from that which they disapprove of. The minority finds their freedom to restricted, but also their freedom from neglected. Instead of everybody getting one or the other freedom, some people get both, while others get neither—this is unbalanced, and therefore, unfair.

2.7. Religious Tyranny

I believe in others' freedoms to religious choice and practice, however, I also believe in freedom from religious bigotry. Hence, I believe others have a right to believe and worship however they like, but I disagree with the current trend of “sincerely held religious beliefs”—basically, “but Jesus”—being used as an excuse for the religious to refuse others their civil rights.

Consider my sincerely held belief that human overpopulation is straining the biosphere’s viability, and that humans should not have more than one, maybe two children? Oh, but that’s not a religious belief, so that belief doesn’t matter. Why is that? If they are both sincerely held beliefs, why should one matter more than the other?

Consider the neo-Satanist who feels that it’s his duty to pummel Christian homophobes and transphobes about the head until they come to their senses. I don’t think that’s acceptable, but what if it’s their “sincerely held religious belief”? It seems doubtful courts would agree.

What if a Santeria practitioner has evolved in their beliefs from animal sacrifice to human sacrifice? Murder is illegal—but what if it’s their “sincerely held religious belief?” I hope you agree with me that this is no excuse. A “sincerely held religious belief” should not permit murder.

“Sincerely held religious beliefs” are a loophole that allows the dominant culture to emphasize its freedoms over the freedoms of others. It’s a way to put their thumb on the scale, so-to-speak. It isn’t a catch-all—but it tips the scale of freedom to vs freedom from slightly more in their favor. It is a form of tyranny disguised as fairness.