Today, there are two popular absolutist positions concerning freedom: On the one hand, there is the libertarian perspective which seeks to maximize autonomy while limiting almost all personal restrictions and, on the other, there is an authoritarian perspective which gives little value to freedom and instead favors state control and the rights of “benevolent” actors to execute their will over others. Yet both positions miss the option of a more reasonable middle ground. Freedom is indeed valuable in itself. It is a basic human right and is crucial for an individual’s physical and mental well-being, as well as social peace and stability. Yet this does not mean that freedom is an absolute right. Instead, the right to freedom should exist only as long as the carrying out of this freedom does not infringe on other people's rights.

Firstly, freedom as a basic right is valuable in itself and provides benefits for individuals and society at large.  Individually, freedom is important, as it provides autonomy—allowing people to take charge of their choices and development to become more empowered individuals with self-discipline. That is, personal freedom allows individuals to avoid subjection to the control of others, offering them opportunities to have personal control, a key feature of identity. At the social level, a society that has greater freedom will also have greater peace and will better represent minority interests. This is because things like freedom of speech and assembly allow constituent groups to voice out potentially unpopular opinions and freely present their demands to the governing body. For example, when the United States Congress considers changes to various tax policies, many citizens from different classes send letters and emails to their congressional representatives expressing their views on issues such as tax rates, deductions, and credits. The government then adjusts the changes to tax rates to accommodate such views and better serve society. Government needs this feedback mechanism in order to be responsive to citizens, particularly underrepresented citizens’, needs. As an added bonus, this feedback mechanism increases the satisfaction of such underrepresented citizens (allowing their voices to be heard) and therefore works to create internal peace and stability. 

However, this does not mean that we should have the absolute freedom to do anything we choose as such an absolute right would infringe on other people’s freedom. Put directly, we cannot let free that which creates unfreedom. We live in a social world, where everyone has their own “sphere of freedom.” When we exercise freedom to the absolute extent, we will inevitably infringe on other people’s “sphere of freedom.” Consider the well-known saying: “my freedom to swing my fist stops at the other person's nose.” Once one person exercises their freedom to the absolute extent and hits the other person’s nose, it infringes on the other person’s right—and freedom—to live in a safe space and move about the world as they choose. Hence, paradoxically, to ensure that everyone’s freedom and rights are protected, we should limit the way we exercise freedom. 

Consider for an additional example, hatemongers that spread hate speech about other races or religions. Perhaps people with the libertarian perspective would argue that such hatemongers have the right to such freedom of expression. But, if they freely spread such hate speech, they would be infringing on people of other racial categories or religion’s right to be respected and properly represented. If it is a societal norm that everyone has the aforementioned extent of freedom to do anything they want, even spread hate speech, then society will progress in a way where some people have less freedom and rights than others. Freedom itself will be eroded. 

Thus, there should be a middle ground between the libertarian and authoritative stance.  While acknowledging the importance of freedom to the individual and society, it is important to realize that individuals should not take freedom as an absolute right that can be exercised to an extreme extent and infringe upon others. It is only the moderate view of freedom that allows for the creation of a peaceful and cohesive society.