Freedom to or Freedom From?
By Marlene Krohn
Published April 27, 2026
Ever since moving to the United States, I have always been stuck on a “what if”: What if a school shooting occurs? What if someone breaks in and holds me at gunpoint? While such fears may partly reflect my imagination, the reality is that gun violence occurs far more frequently in the United States than in Norway. In American political culture, the right to bear arms is often framed as an essential form of freedom. However, while Americans appreciate their right to bear arms, I value my freedom from violence caused by arms. I value freedom from fear, rather than the freedom to protect myself from that fear. Freedom can mean more than simply the right to do whatever one wants; it can also mean the ability to live without constant fear of violence. These contrasting perspectives raise an important question: What does freedom actually mean? And does the American concept fully capture it?
Norway and the United States both emphasize individual freedom as their core value. However, there is a distinctive difference in how they approach balancing personal liberties with social responsibility. This contrast reveals the complexities of freedom in practice, with Norway prioritizing social welfare and collective well-being, while the United States places greater emphasis on individual freedom and limited government intervention.
There is a widely held perception that the United States is the “greatest country in the world” because Americans enjoy more freedoms than citizens of most other nations. However, whether this claim holds true depends entirely on how freedom is defined. Merriam-Webster defines freedom as “the quality or state of being free, such as the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.” Yet the concept itself is vague and has historically been used as a justification for many political and social actions. Because societies differ in what they consider a constraint or limitation, the meaning of freedom is difficult to define and remains deeply political. Although the United States is often celebrated as the freest country in the world, this perception overlooks important realities; when freedom is understood as freedom from fear and violence, America is not as free as it is commonly believed to be. At a time when debates over gun violence, economic inequality, healthcare access, and the role of government dominate American political discourse, reconsidering what freedom truly means has become increasingly important.
Political philosopher Isaiah Berlin provides a useful framework for understanding these competing interpretations of freedom in his essay Two Concepts of Liberty. Berlin distinguishes between negative liberty and positive liberty. Negative liberty is described as the freedom from interference, especially from the state or government. Within this framework, individuals are free to the extent that no external authority restricts their actions. This interpretation is heavily integrated into the American political ideology, especially surrounding the Second Amendment and individual rights. Grounding this to our reality, we currently live in the Live Free or Die state. Here, even the decision to wear a seat belt is treated as an individual right. This reminds us that defining freedom solely as non-interference also shapes the level of risk we are willing to accept. In contrast, Berlin refers to positive liberty as the freedom to live securely and to pursue one’s potential. It emphasizes the conditions necessary for individuals to exercise safety, stability, and access to social support systems. Freedom is not solely the absence of government restraints, but the presence of conditions that lay the foundation of human flourishing.
When freedom is defined primarily as a negative liberty, freedom from government interference, the right to bear arms naturally becomes central to that definition. New Hampshire’s Lily Tang Williams expressed this view clearly. To her, gun ownership represents an essential safeguard against state interference and potential tyranny. However, if freedom also includes positive liberty, then persistent fear of violence functions as a constraint in itself. Fear shapes behavior and alters decision-making, and even more profoundly affects the lives of victims of gun violence. Thereby, structural violence and uncertainty may restrict freedom just as effectively as government control. Freedom should not be exclusively defined as protection from government interference, but also protection from preventable violence, structural fear, and severe economic insecurity.
A similar tension between negative and positive liberties appears in the American understanding of economic freedom. In the United States, discussions of economic freedom often center around civil liberties, which fit naturally with a society built on a hands-off approach to individual economy. Rooted in the American Dream, economic freedom in the United States is provided through low taxes, favorable tariffs, and consumer regulations, cultivating individualism. Every American has an equal opportunity to take ownership of their life. However, if freedom is interpreted under Berlin’s conceptualization of positive liberty, structural economic insecurity may function as a constraint in an individual’s pursuit of freedom. In the United States, access to healthcare and higher education is tied to employment and personal income. Economic vulnerability directly limits an individual’s choices and opportunities, especially as the cost of healthcare continues to rise and tuition becomes increasingly steep. Young adults are today left with an average of $39,547 in federal student debt, which they carry into their financial futures. In contrast, Norway’s social democratic model provides universal healthcare and free higher education to all citizens, reducing the degree to which financial instability dictates an individual’s life outcomes. Economic security provided by the government is not the opposite of freedom, but rather a precondition for exploiting personal freedoms.
One area where these competing definitions of freedom become particularly visible is gun policy. The difference in the level of gun violence between the United States and Norway showcases how each country’s understanding of freedom shapes daily life. The United States gun death rate in 2024 was down from previous years, to 13.5 gun deaths per 100,000 people. Compared to Norway, which had a gun death rate per capita of 1.2 deaths per 100,000 people, the United States experiences a far higher rate of firearms-related deaths. American policy prioritizes the protection of gun ownership as a constitutional right, while Norway prioritizes the reduction of risk through strict gun regulation, which is possible with a high level of public trust. With the likelihood of encountering gun violence in everyday life being significantly lower in
Norway, the background fear that shapes daily decisions becomes substantially reduced. If freedom includes the ability to move through society without persistent fear of violence, then public safety itself becomes a dimension of liberty, and not a constraint.
However, critics of expanding this definition of freedom raise an important concern. Supporters of the American model worry that tying freedom to economic security or protection from violence could expand government power and threaten individual autonomy. In light of this view, the primary danger to freedom is state overreach, not social insecurity. Strict gun regulation and extensive welfare policies could be viewed as a violation of personal choice and self-reliance. Nevertheless, within Berlin’s framework, prioritizing positive liberty has historically allowed governments to restrict some individual choices in the name of collective well-being. A balanced understanding of freedom must consider more than just the limits of state power. It also has to account for the conditions people need in order to exercise real, meaningful freedom – freedom that isn’t weakened by fear, insecurity, or structural barriers that limit real opportunities.
Returning to the question that has followed me since moving to the United States, the issue is not simply about gun policy or favorable economic structure, but about how freedom is experienced in everyday life. Norway and the United States do not differ in their appreciation of liberty, but in how they prioritize the conditions that sustain it. If freedom is strictly defined as non-interference, then the American model embodies that ideal. However, if freedom also requires protection from preventable violence and structural inequity, then liberty must be understood with a more extensive approach, allowing for assurance through protective structures. When evaluated through this expanded definition, the American model of freedom appears incomplete, revealing that liberty is not only the absence of government restraint, but also the presence of safety, stability, and real opportunity.