Can Freedom Survive A World Without Consequences?
As technology redefines our choices, America must decide what kind of society we want to build.
Diogenes In Exile is reader-supported. Keep the lamp of truth burning by becoming a paying subscriber—or toss a few drachmas in the jar with a one-time or recurring donation. Cynics may live in barrels, but websites aren’t free!
Here’s to a meaningful Memorial Day.
Freedom From, Freedom To
Introduction: The Promise and the Challenge
Freedom is America’s founding promise, but in an age where many can postpone adulthood, indulge whims, and often evade consequences, how do we hold society together if no one embraces the yoke of responsibility?
The United States was forged to secure freedom from oppression, with a Constitution that guards against tyranny. Yet it offers little guidance on what we should do with our liberty—or how to balance it with the duties that sustain a community. From tax revolts to digital platforms, America’s history is a tightrope walk between these two freedoms, and the question remains: what kind of people will we choose to be?
Freedom From: The Constitutional Shield
The American system, born in rebellion against a distant king, was designed to protect citizens from coercive power. The Constitution’s checks and balances, separation of powers, and Bill of Rights ensure that government stays within bounds.
Yet even as these safeguards were erected, the young republic faced challenges that tested the limits of liberty.
From 1791 to 1794, the Whiskey Rebellion forced President George Washington to confront this tension head-on. Farmers in Pennsylvania, many of them Revolutionary War veterans, rebelled against a federal whiskey tax meant to pay off war debts.
To them, the tax echoed the British tyranny they had fought against, threatening their hard-won freedom. Yet Washington saw a deeper threat: if citizens could defy lawful governance, the republic itself would crumble.
He deployed the army not solely to rein in dissent, but also to affirm that freedom from tyranny required a shared commitment to self-rule. The rebellion’s defeat clarified a hard truth: liberty does not mean license to ignore the laws that bind a nation together.
Similarly, at the turn of the 19th century, President Thomas Jefferson faced piracy along the Barbary Coast. When diplomacy failed against pirates who saw no value in peace, the United States joined Norway in military action.
This response wasn’t just about protecting trade; it was a defense of America’s freedom to engage with the world without bowing to lawlessness. Both cases underscored a principle: freedom demands boundaries to preserve functionality.
Freedom To: The Modern Frontier
Just as Washington and Jefferson grappled with the boundaries of liberty, today’s technological revolution forces us to redefine what we are free to do. The internet has blurred the lines between public and private, granting unprecedented freedom to express, create, and reshape reality.
But with this power comes new questions. Are we free to spread misinformation that undermines trust? Are we free to build platforms that addict users or exploit vulnerabilities? Are we free to encourage harm in digital spaces where consequences feel distant?
Technology also extends our control over our bodies and biology. Contraception makes pregnancy a choice, while surrogacy allows others to carry a child for hire. Body modification—whether to resemble animals or transition genders—pushes the boundaries between of self-expression and self-harm.
Platforms like OnlyFans empower individuals to monetize their sexuality, yet raise questions about commodifying an illusion of intimacy at a cost of self-respect.
These freedoms seem dazzling, but their ripples are only beginning to surface. When personal choices reshape cultural norms they can erode social trust.
In a society that values freedom, where do we draw the line when those same freedoms create a world so chaotic, the esprit de corps fractures?
These aren’t just legal questions—they’re moral ones. The Constitution protects the space for debate but doesn’t dictate the answers. Its silence on “freedom to” leaves us to decide which actions are benign and which risk harm, whether immediate or gradual.
The Responsibility Gap
The challenge of our era, where many can delay adulthood and indulge without immediate consequence, lies in bridging the gap between freedom and responsibility. The Whiskey Rebellion showed that even our Founding Fathers recognized there are limits and responsibilities.
Today, digital echo chambers and fleeting trends amplify indulgence, often at the expense of civic duty. When individuals prioritize personal gain—whether through divisive online rhetoric or unchecked self-expression—society risks losing the shared values that hold it together.
Yet freedom without responsibility is unsustainable. Just as Washington upheld the rule of law, we must find ways to balance liberty with accountability. This could mean fostering a culture that celebrates civic engagement, like volunteering or ethical digital citizenship.
It could mean educating young people about the long-term impact of their choices, from spreading misinformation to reshaping their bodies. Most crucially, it requires leaders—in tech, politics, and communities—to model responsible freedom, prioritizing collective well-being over profit or popularity.
This is the challenge of our age.
Conclusion: Choosing Our Freedom
From whiskey taxes to digital platforms, the American experiment has always navigated the tension between freedom from tyranny and freedom to act. The Constitution ensures the former, but the latter rests in our hands.
In an age where indulgence often outpaces consequence, we face a defining question: will we use our freedom to indulge every whim, or to build a society that endures? The answer lies less in laws, than in the choices we make—individually and together—to wield our liberty with wisdom, restraint, and a commitment to the common good.
What kind of people will we choose to be?
Housekeeping
The cicadas are quiet when it rains, so did not hear them during my most recent walk. Judging by what the internet says about their life-cycle they may well have peaked. When this hatch is finished it will be another 17 years before Brood XIV will be seen again. We’ll keep an ear out and see if they make it another week.
On the Bookshelf
Some listening happened this week, but most of the time was dominated by juggling plans and commitments. Busy times.
Accreditation on the Edge: Challenging Quality Assurance in Higher Education by Susan D. Phillips
The Case Against Education by Bryan Caplan
The Licensing Racket: How We Decide Who Is Allowed to Work, and Why It Goes Wrong by Rebecca Haw Allensworth
Moral Calculations: Game Theory, Logic and Human Frailty by Laszlo Mero
The New Know-nothings: The Political Foes of the Scientific Study of Human Nature by Morton Hunt
The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard by Marc Brettler, Carol Newsom, Pheme Perkins
Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman! Adventures of a Curious Character by Richard Feynman
We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of the New Elite by Musa al-Gharbi
“Whatever It Is, I’m Against It”: Resistance to Change in Higher Education by Brian Rosenberg
Help Keep This Conversation Going!
Share this post on social media–it costs nothing but helps a lot.
Want more perks? Subscribe to get full access to the article archive.
Become a Paid Subscriber to get video and chatroom.
Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!
Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.
Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.
About
Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a Clinical Mental Health Counseling master’s degree at the University of Tennessee. What I encountered, however, was a program deeply entrenched in Critical Theories ideology. During my time there, I experienced significant resistance, particularly for my Buddhist practice, which was labeled as invalidating to other identities. After careful reflection, I chose to leave the program, believing the curriculum being taught would ultimately harm clients and lead to unethical practices in the field.
Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to investigating, writing, and speaking out about the troubling direction of psychology, higher education, and other institutions that seem to have lost their way. When I’m not working on these issues, you’ll find me in the garden, creating art, walking my dog, or guiding my kids toward adulthood.
You can also find my work at Minding the Campus