Freedom of Entitlement

One of the most heated arguments I’ve ever had with a family member was the “Great Seat Belt Debate” I had with my Uncle Rick two Thanksgivings back. To summarize the nearly 30 minute exchange in a few sentences: my Uncle Rick is a big believer in dismantling government control; he’s like a less-enjoyable version of Ron Swanson. He started the argument with a rant about how the government places limits on too many things and how this is going to eventually lead to us all becoming Communist zombies that light crosses on fire (this is not an exaggeration). The example he used in his argument was mandatory seat belt laws--from his perspective, as an American citizen, he should have the right to decide whether or not he wears a seat belt. It didn't matter that statistics show that wearing a seat belt increases your chance of survival in car crashes; he recognized this and still argued that he should be able to perform an action that could be harmful to himself because that is his guaranteed right as an American.

Perhaps there is some legitimacy as to why laws like the seatbelt one upset people like my uncle; we usually don't like being told what to do. To many conservatives (and non-conservatives alike), the government's installment of policies can resemble a nagging parent from their memories of adolescence. It can appear like the government is barging in on our lives and asserting its control when it's not needed; everyone knows that it's safer to wear a seat belt, so it could come off as overbearing when this information is reinforced with a set of consequences. Taken with a grain of salt, the idea that the government could subtly be gaining more control over our private and public lives is something to take seriously.

However, in this post I want to address the major issue I have with complaints such as the one my uncle has about seat belts--which is that complaints like these are falsely depicting oppression and/or trying to keep issues that affect underprivileged people from changing. So buckle up, we've got a bumpy road ahead of us (that pun was too tempting not to include, sorry).

The discourse surrounding the "unalienable" freedoms in America often seems to involve a certain level of entitlement--we Americans like to believe we have a God-given right to do just about anything we please. This is due to many factors--the US is a privileged country and we are fed patriotic/nationalist propaganda from a young age, for starters. Feeling entitled to certain freedoms isn't necessarily a bad thing; sometimes this entitlement allows us to point out acts of injustice or empower a disenfranchised group. If you feel entitled to something, this often means that you are in some position of privilege--your expectations and standards are set higher.

Left unchecked, however, entitlement can result in several consequences ranging from distasteful Facebook posts to undermining the progression of rights for an entire group of people. I feel it's easiest to express what I mean through an example: let's look at the case of anti-maskers.

Cries of "oppression" rang out when masks became required, but most of the people we see protesting mandatory mask-wearing are privileged Americans. Having to wear a mask that is proven to help stunt the spread of a pandemic is simply not an example of oppression; what is happening instead is that these people feel they are entitled to their personal comfort over the safety of others. Contrasting the treatment of anti-maskers with the treatment of BLM protestors can make the effect of entitlement in politics starkly apparent. Anti-maskers, who often promote conspiracies and Islamophobic viewpoints, were spoken to with sympathy from the president; meanwhile, BLM protests that actually serve to bring attention to oppressive issues were reprimanded and shut down. So in this example we see that the entitled complaints of privileged people work to steal attention from marginalized groups and spread a message that can potentially harm several people.

To connect this post to the point of this blog: freedom of speech is not immune to the entitlement that we've seen in the previous examples. When we discuss freedom of speech in America, sometimes there are legitimate concerns about excessive censorship that should be addressed; however, more often the concerns about limiting freedom of speech have to do with privileged people not wanting restrictions put on their intolerance of others. The viewpoint that you are "entitled" to say whatever you want, even if it is harmful hate speech, is one that does not consider how language--especially in the hands of the majority/powerful--can have real-life affects on more vulnerable groups of people. Because of this, the response that those who are offended by this kind of speech can just turn the other cheek is invalid; communication is an essential part of how society is able to function, therefore we can't afford to allow those within our society to say whatever it is they want to say.

People like to point out the entitlement they see in others because it's such a dislikable trait and makes oneself look better in comparison, but it can be hard to confront the entitlement in ourselves due to how natural it can feel when one grows up with a silver spoon. Before claiming that the government is oppressing us by taking away our rights, one needs to consider a. how serious the issue actually is (is a mandatory seat belt law really infringing on your rights?) and b. what the reason behind the restriction is (is it coming to fruition due to a need to protect a group of people besides yourself?). Without doing this, one risks looking like a child whose (probably racist) toy just got confiscated. Entitlement exists in us all, we just need to realize when it is and isn't appropriate to act on or voice.