It is a word that gets thrown around a lot here in America. It is often one of the first words that comes up in relation to America, it is tied up in its quasi-mythical, idealistic identity—the word I am speaking of is “freedom”. It is assumed to be a good thing, and it is assumed to be a bit of a no-brainer that it should be something that everyone wants.

What does that even mean, though? It doesn’t mean that as an American I am free to do whatever I want. I am free to do more than some people in other countries, perhaps. But I am still bound by laws.

And even more subtly and within the scope of the mundane activities of day-to-day existence, I am not technically free. I have obligations like getting up at a certain time, even though you can bet I still want to sleep, and like going to school and going to work and being friendly with people that I may not feel like being friendly to. And having any sort of human (or animal I suppose) relationship (family, friends, etc.) entails a certain set of obligations as well.

So, what is the relationship between obligations and laws and freedom then? It would seem that the more obligations one has and the more laws that are in place, the less freedom one has. But I suppose one must consider the trade-off—what is it that I am gaining by giving up a degree of my freedom and taking on obligations? A dependable friend, good conversation, laughter, in exchange for the work that I would have to put into a friendship? I would say that that is an exchange that is worth it.

The same could be said for laws. If it is one that benefits me more than it impinges upon my freedom, then perhaps it is a law that is worth being in place.

This thinking is a little branch that grew out of a conversation that took place in my class about dystopia and utopia. We were discussing today the role that freedom plays in a society/utopia/dystopia, and we attempted to define just what, exactly, freedom looks like, and conversely what it doesn’t look like.

I initially defined it as “having the ability to choose what you want to do or not do”, assuming that we possess free will to where we truly would be able to choose. And in the midst of class, in response to a question posed by the professor, I also came to the conclusion that the state in which a person might technically be the most free is a person who is utterly alone and apart from any society, because then one would be completely free from the pressures and obligations that living in a society entails.

But, obviously, that is not something that is desirable, so then, that spurred the beginning bit of this article. Is freedom a number one priority? I don’t know that it is important above all else. I think a certain amount of it is necessary, and I think that the amount that one has should be flexible—one should be able to choose to sacrifice their freedom for a law or certain obligation.

That being said, I now choose to sleep.