Freedom is subjective- it really has no meaning.  It can’t be quantified, and qualitatively can’t be defined- but this certainly doesn’t stop patriotic jingoists from bearing “freedom isn’t free” and other bumper stickers on the backs of environment destroying cars.  It’s often used as a scapegoat for deeper issues that would be easier to not have to meticulously dissect and  analyze.  In this vein, H. L. Mencken writes that “The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.”- although Mencken comes off as edgy and punk-rock in saying this, his statement is paradoxical.  Because freedom is such a vague and meaningless term the average man cannot want something nonexistent.

A lot of sources would try to define freedom as being ably to do what you want, unimpeded, but this can’t exist (not in our society at least).  Take for example pursuit of happiness in American society: although it seems like a blank check to indulge in your unbounded hedonism, its limitations follow a “your right to swing your fist ends where another person's nose begins” sort of policy.  And although this seems like undemocratic and authoritarian control over your fist-swinging rights, would you truly be free if others were allowed to just swing their fists at you in the name of self pursuit?

Mencken’s statement suggests that there is some perfect alternative to mainstream life that grants utter liberation from the shackles of society- it really doesn’t exist.  Sure, you could just abandon society, there are a ton of advocates for naturalist revolutions and anarchist social changes, but the implications that come from these impossible (wide scale) changes are vast.  If you stop obeying laws and lead your life that doesn’t make you free, it makes you a criminal in the eyes of society.