In a thoughtful article in The Charlotte Observer, mulls the the implications of “freedom from.” I’m not sure that I agree with everything he says–certainly not his reflexive retreat into bothsiderism, when it is one side that relies on the politics of fear and division, whereas the other side, with some few exceptions spurns them–but I do recommend his article to your attention.
Here’s a snippet (I’ve italicized the phrase “freedom from” for the sake of clarity where I thought it appropriate):
Ours, however, has always been a culture that places a high priority on individual freedom – and, over the last several decades, pressures from both the left and the right (note the bothersiderism–ed.) have steadily weakened the ties that bind us together. Freedom from traditional sources of authority and moral truth. Freedom from the responsibility to contribute to what our Constitution calls the general welfare. These are but a few examples.
I’m not suggesting that the expansion of individual freedom has been a bad thing. I am suggesting that it has come at a cost, which we are only beginning to appreciate. A society in which the greatest good is a citizen’s freedom from will cease to function as a society in any real sense of the word and, instead, become a collection of disconnected individuals who, either by design or by default, have as little to do with one another as possible.