The average man does not want to be free, he just wants to be safe

Throughout history, the concept of freedom has been championed as one of humanity’s most cherished ideals. From revolutions to constitutions, people have fought and sacrificed for the promise of liberty. Yet, when we examine the attitudes and behaviors of the average person in everyday life, a different picture emerges. It often seems that the majority are less concerned with being truly free and more focused on achieving a sense of safety and security. This preference is not always explicit; it is woven into the choices individuals make, from the mundane routines of daily living to the broader decisions that shape societies. While the rhetoric of freedom inspires, the comfort of safety reassures—a contrast that has echoed through generations and continues to shape the world today.

The Appeal of Safety Over Freedom

Why is safety so appealing? For most, safety means predictability, stability, and the absence of threats. In an unpredictable world, safety is a refuge. It offers comfort and the peace of mind that daily needs—food, shelter, employment—will be met. The desire for safety is deeply rooted in our psychology, stemming from primal instincts to avoid danger and ensure survival. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs places safety just above physiological necessities, highlighting its fundamental importance to human well-being. When safety is threatened, people’s attention and energy almost always shift toward restoring it, sometimes at the expense of other values.

Throughout history, periods of great uncertainty—such as war, famine, or economic collapse—have shown that people will often relinquish freedoms in exchange for a sense of protection. For example, during the Great Depression, many individuals supported government interventions and restrictions that promised economic stability. In times of public health crises, like pandemics, populations are generally willing to accept quarantines, movement restrictions, and even government surveillance if these measures are presented as essential for collective safety.

Freedom, on the other hand, is often uncertain. True freedom brings with it risk, responsibility, and the possibility of failure. It requires making choices, sometimes difficult ones, and living with their consequences. For many, the burden of this responsibility is too great. It is far easier to accept certain restrictions if it means protection from harm or hardship. The unpredictability that comes with freedom can be daunting; the safety net provided by rules and structures is comforting in comparison.

This preference for safety over freedom is evident in everyday life:

• People choose stable jobs over entrepreneurial ventures, valuing a steady paycheck over the uncertain rewards of independence.
• They follow routines and schedules, finding solace in the predictability of daily life.
• Parents often prioritize safe neighborhoods and schools, even if it means higher costs or fewer freedoms for their children.
• Citizens support laws and regulations, even those that limit certain liberties, if they believe these measures reduce crime or disorder.

Ultimately, while freedom is admired as an ideal, the immediate comfort and assurance offered by safety often take precedence in the choices individuals make.

Social Structures and the Illusion of Choice

Modern society is built upon systems and institutions designed to maintain order and safety. Laws, regulations, and social norms all serve to create predictability and reduce risk. While these structures do limit certain freedoms, they also provide a framework in which people feel secure. The average person is often content to operate within these boundaries, exchanging a portion of their freedom for the comfort that comes with safety.

From the earliest human communities, rules and collective agreements have been essential for cooperation and coexistence. As societies have grown more complex, the systems governing them have grown more intricate. Today, nearly every aspect of life is shaped by institutional rules—from traffic regulations and workplace policies to codes of conduct in schools and digital platforms. These frameworks offer clarity and reduce the anxiety that can come from ambiguity or chaos.

However, these structures can also create the illusion of choice. While individuals are encouraged to believe they are free to choose, their options are often constrained by societal expectations, legal boundaries, and economic realities. For example, a consumer may feel empowered by the variety of products in a supermarket, but these choices are shaped by corporate interests, marketing, and broader economic systems. In the workplace, employees may appear to have autonomy, but their actions are limited by organizational policies and hierarchies.

Even in democratic societies, where individual rights are celebrated, the majority frequently support policies and leaders who promise to protect them, sometimes at the expense of personal liberty. This trade-off is accepted, and sometimes even demanded, especially in times of crisis or uncertainty. The aftermath of major events, such as terrorist attacks, often sees widespread support for increased surveillance or security measures, even if these infringe on privacy or freedom of expression.

Over time, these social structures become normalized. Many people come to see the boundaries they live within not as restrictions, but as necessary and natural aspects of life. The security these frameworks provide is valued above the abstract potential of unbridled freedom. As a result, the space for genuine autonomy and dissent narrows, even as the language of freedom remains prevalent.

The Role of Fear in Shaping Desires

Fear is a powerful motivator. Governments and institutions often use the promise of safety from threats—whether real or perceived—to justify the restriction of freedoms. During periods of economic instability, war, or disease, people are more willing to accept surveillance, censorship, and control if it means feeling safe. The desire for freedom takes a backseat to the need for protection. Fear magnifies threats and makes the security offered by authorities or institutions appear all the more necessary.

History is replete with examples of this dynamic. After the 9/11 attacks, many Western nations introduced sweeping security laws and surveillance programs. While these measures were controversial, public support was high at the time, as fear of further attacks outweighed concerns about civil liberties. Similarly, during public health emergencies, governments may impose travel bans, mandatory vaccinations, or curfews, often with public approval.

This is not always a conscious choice. Many do not recognize the extent to which their freedoms are limited in exchange for safety. The gradual nature of these changes can make them difficult to detect, and the reassurance of safety can overshadow concerns about lost liberty. Over time, what begins as a temporary measure can become permanent, as societies adjust to new norms and forget previous levels of freedom.

Some of the ways fear influences attitudes toward freedom include:

• Media amplification: Constant exposure to news of crime, terrorism, or disasters can heighten public anxiety, making security measures seem more acceptable or necessary.
• Political rhetoric: Leaders often frame restrictions as patriotic or essential for the “greater good,” encouraging compliance and discouraging dissent.
• Social pressure: Those who question the need for restrictions may be labeled as reckless or unpatriotic, further discouraging open debate about the balance between freedom and safety.

Ultimately, fear can reshape collective priorities, making the pursuit of safety not just a personal preference, but a societal mandate.

Freedom as a Difficult Ideal

While freedom is celebrated in rhetoric and philosophy, living freely is not always easy or comfortable. It demands self-reliance, courage, and a willingness to face uncertainty. For most people, these demands are outweighed by the desire for security. As a result, the average person chooses the path of least resistance, prioritizing safety over freedom in both private decisions and public policies.

True freedom means accepting uncertainty and the possibility of failure. It requires individuals to take responsibility for their actions, manage risks, and forge their own paths. This level of autonomy can be intimidating, particularly in a world that often emphasizes conformity and reward for compliance. The stories of great innovators, artists, or activists who have embraced freedom often involve hardship, sacrifice, and struggle—outcomes many people would rather avoid.

Philosophers like John Stuart Mill and Jean-Jacques Rousseau have long debated the tension between liberty and security. While their writings extol the virtues of autonomy, they also acknowledge the burdens it places on individuals. In practice, the ideals of freedom are often set aside in favor of immediate needs and practical concerns.

For most, the demands of daily life—earning a living, caring for family, maintaining social relationships—leave little room for the risks and responsibilities that come with true freedom. The comfort of routine, the guidance of rules, and the reassurance of collective norms are simply easier to embrace. This does not mean that people do not value freedom, but rather that, when forced to choose, they more often than not opt for safety.

In the end, the tension between freedom and safety is a defining feature of the human condition. It shapes cultures, governments, and personal lives. While the ideal of liberty will likely always inspire, the reality is that most individuals gravitate toward the security of the familiar, even if it means living with less freedom than they might imagine.

And taxation is theft.