Essay: Freedom vs. Safety in Today’s Society

Essay: Freedom vs. Safety in Today’s Society

Context:
H. L. Mencken famously wrote, “The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.” His words suggest that while people claim to value freedom, most are more motivated by the desire for stability, protection, and comfort. In the modern world—where digital technology, global conflict, and social expectations shape our everyday lives—Mencken’s observation continues to feel relevant. Today’s society is filled with situations where individuals must choose between independence and security, and more often than not, the need to feel safe wins.

Claim:
Mencken’s idea largely applies to contemporary society. Although freedom remains an important ideal, many people willingly trade parts of it for convenience, reassurance, or a sense of control. The choices people make—online, in politics, and in their social lives—show that safety often outweighs complete freedom when the two come into conflict.

Concession:
This does not mean people no longer care about freedom. Throughout history and in the present, individuals and groups have fought passionately for civil rights, equality, privacy, and independence. Movements for racial justice, protests for democratic rights in several countries, and debates over personal data all show that freedom still matters. However, these moments of resistance typically arise when restrictions become extreme. In everyday life, most people quietly choose comfort over risk, predictability over uncertainty, and security over absolute liberty.

Evidence/Support:
1. Technology and privacy:
In the digital age, people regularly give up personal freedom for convenience. Millions allow apps to track their location, record their preferences, and collect private data in exchange for easier navigation, personalized recommendations, or faster service. Tools like facial recognition, smart home devices, and online accounts store sensitive information, yet people continue to use them because the sense of safety and convenience outweighs concerns about losing privacy.

2. Government and security:
When societies face threats—such as terrorist attacks, pandemics, or crime—citizens often accept stronger government surveillance and stricter laws. After major security events, people support increased monitoring, airport screenings, and emergency powers because safety feels more urgent than the freedom to move or act without restriction. This pattern shows that in times of crisis, the desire for protection grows stronger than the desire for complete liberty.

3. Social pressures and expression:
Even in everyday interactions, many people limit their freedom of expression out of fear of judgment, conflict, or social backlash. Instead of expressing honest opinions, they choose the “safe” option—staying quiet or agreeing with the majority. Whether online or in person, people often avoid political discussions, controversial topics, or personal truths to maintain social harmony and protect themselves from negative reactions. This shows how the need for acceptance can outweigh the freedom to speak openly.

So What / Further Thought:
Mencken’s observation matters because it warns us about how easily freedom can slip away when safety becomes our main priority. Some level of safety is necessary—no society can function without rules, protections, and systems that keep people secure. But when safety becomes the automatic choice in every situation, citizens may slowly lose rights without realizing it. Recognizing this pattern encourages us to question our decisions and find a healthier balance. We can value safety without surrendering our freedoms, and we can demand protection without giving up what makes a society open, fair, and democratic. In the end, Mencken’s point reminds us to stay aware: freedom must be actively protected, or it can be quietly traded