Are People Who Prefer Security Over Liberty Less Evolved?

All signs point to yes…

There exists, among humans, a perennial dichotomy:

Some valorize freedom and are willing to sacrifice some security in order to get it.

Some valorize security and are willing to sacrifice some freedom in order to get it.

These, as I will explain in more detail in an upcoming installment of my first book, are personality traits that precede, and partially help to determine, one’s political alignment. Though these charts will make more sense in the context of that installment, here is a tease:

Basically, people who valorize freedom will tend to incline toward the classical-liberal right, and people who valorize security will tend toward the modern left. This is an inexact science, of course, but various tests and observations bear out the conclusion.

Benjamin Franklin has given us arguably the most famous quote¹ on the subject:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Thomas Jefferson was far more disdainful of those who prefer safety and security:

The division into whig and tory is founded in the nature of men; the weakly and nerveless, the rich and the corrupt, seeing more safety and accessibility in a strong executive; the healthy, firm, and virtuous, feeling confidence in their physical and moral resources, and willing to part with only so much power as is necessary for their good government; and, therefore, to retain the rest in the hands of the many, the division will substantially be into Whig and Tory.

And

The sickly, weakly, timid man fears the people, and is a Tory by nature. The healthy, strong and bold cherishes them, and is formed a Whig by nature.

The Whigs were the “radicals” of their day, and thus would be considered by some to be the “left.” This analysis is, however, far too surface-level. Degree of radicalism (in inverse proportion to degree of conservatism) is a secondary trait that depends on the current social context. On a deeper level, the Whigs were classical liberals, and thus the progenitors of today’s classical-liberal right (libertarians and core conservatives).

The Tories were the more authoritarian of the day. (That is by English standards, of course. Compared to Russia, Prussia, Austria, et al, they were not nearly so authoritarian. But relative to the Whigs, they were. Anyway…) Today’s left’s pretensions to the contrary notwithstanding, leftism is an authoritarian, big-government ideology. (Leftists are only radical when they are trying to overthrow the existing regime; they become quite authoritarian as soon as they have power.)

This security vs. freedom dichotomy is a superior way of determining the political poles than most current metrics, which produce skewed, confusing, conflicting definitions of “left” and “right.” So set those aside and focus instead on security vs. freedom.

According to H.L. Mencken, “Most people want security in this world, not liberty.” Mere observation—of voting patterns, human behavior, the widespread reaction to covid, etc.—would seem to indicate that he is correct. Those who valorize freedom appear to be in the minority.

We freedom-lovers hang out together and reinforce one another’s views, which tends to skew our perceptions of our number. How much of a minority is an open question, but we are almost certainly a minority.

From this point, I get somewhat more conjectural, but stick with me and let’s see if I am on to something.

Responding to another use of the Mencken quote,

An K.

says,

Mencken is right! .. fear mongering is such a successful tool for subjugation. These days disasters are created just for that..

There is certainly truth there. The powers that be absolutely do generate and exploit fear in order to produce subjugation.

That said, I am compelled to believe that when it comes to the majority’s preference for security over freedom, there is something more basic at work: a base animal instinct for survival.

Here’s why…

Any web search (or discussion with animal conservationists) will produce the same advice: don’t feed wild animals. Generally speaking, this is sound wisdom. Feeding wild animals—as “nice” as it seems, and as fun as it might be to interact with such creatures—is quite bad for them.

The first reason is dependence. Wild animals quickly become dependent on human food and habituated to human assistance. They stop foraging or hunting for themselves. If it happens at a young enough age, some animals never learn how to fend for themselves properly.

In essence, they come to prefer security (a steady source of food) over freedom (an insecure condition where they must depend on their own mettle to survive).

This varies from species to species, and among individual members of any particular species, but the pattern is generally consistent. Animals go where the food is, and will do so even if that means losing freedom. Some will accept, or even prefer, actual captivity, so long as they get their food.

This pattern indicates a base survival instinct: prefer (food) security to freedom. And I fear that among humans, the majority’s preference for security over freedom may have its roots in this same instinct.

Colloquially speaking, our brains are made up of three “layers”: that which we share in common with all animal species; that which we share in common with other mammals; and that portion of higher reasoning that appears unique to us.²

The tendency to become dependent seems to be widely shared among animal species. Thus, my hypothesis is something like,

The tendency to prefer security to freedom is a reversion to the primary layer of cognition.

In other words, the tendency to prefer security to freedom is less evolved.

Yes, animals and people also share a distaste for captivity. And ultimately, all life, and indeed all flow systems in nature, require freedom³, so there is certainly a base component in a preference for freedom too. Yet animals (and people) will still generally go where the food is, even if it means sacrificing freedom. Thus, we see a higher priority placed on this simple survival imperative. Security overrides freedom.

My corollary hypothesis, then, is that a preference for freedom over security requires more abstract thought. Something taking place at the tertiary layer of cognition must override more primary instincts.

In other words, the tendency to prefer freedom to security is more evolved. Those of us who valorize freedom more than security are rising above a baser, more animal instinct. We are using the human portion of the our brains rather than the animal.

I do not know if this hypothesis is correct. These thoughts only recently occurred to me. They are clearly tendentious, and they reflect my personal bias for freedom.

But none of that is evidence that the hypothesis is wrong. It might be. But it also might be correct. And for the moment at least, it’s gonna have to be one of those things that is simply “too good to check.”

Am I trolling here? Yeah, maybe a little.

But I do not feel bad about that, and here’s why…

Mansuetude—the quality among animals of being “accustomed to the hand of man”—poses a danger not only to those particular animals, but to their wild fellows as well.

It spreads disease among animal populations. It creates competitive pressure, and causes overpopulation within species. Human-fed wildlife can become dangerous, which then produce overreactions among humans, leading to the culling of their wild counterparts. And more. (Feeding wild animals is bad. Just don’t do it!)

In the same way, the preference among humans for security over freedom isn’t just a menace to those particular humans. It also impacts those of us who prefer freedom.

For better or worse, we are an ultra-social species. One of the outcomes of this is toxic collectivism: the belief that a particular way of life must be forced on everyone within a given area. This leads to collective “solutions” like democracy, feudalism, and nearly every other system we’ve ever had. We’ve got to ‘find ways to live together,’ dontcha know.

As a result, every craven, compliant thing that security-valorizers do has an impact on—and ends up being forced upon—freedom-valorizers. As a result, I do not have especially warm or charitable feelings toward security-valorizers. And so I feel perfectly fine positing that they may simply be less evolved.

And I know you know what I mean.

1. Interestingly, Franklin was arguing for taxation and war when he said this quote. It still reflects an underlying classical-liberal sentiment, and the Founding generation’s belief that legislatures were the best answer to monarchical oppression. That was a misconception, albeit an understandable one given their time in history.

2. And perhaps to some other ‘higher’ species, such as cetaceans.

3. This may seem like a contradiction, since these ‘unfree’ animals are surviving. This is complicated, but simply put—those who created the food (humans) had to be free in order to do so. All action requires the freedom to act. Some people (or animals) can still be dependent within that context, but they are dependent ultimately upon someone who had the freedom to produce. (I will be explaining further in another upcoming installment of my first book.)