PDF Summary:On Freedom, by Timothy Snyder

Most people think of freedom as simply being free from interference—but is that really enough? In On Freedom, historian Timothy Snyder argues that true freedom requires more than just the absence of obstacles. It demands active participation, institutional support, and a commitment to shared values.

Snyder explores five forms of freedom—self-determination, adaptability, movement, truth, and collective responsibility—and examines how democracy, social mobility, and truthful speech sustain them. He also identifies the threats that undermine freedom, from wealth consolidation and misinformation to flawed ideologies and restrictive policies. This guide covers Snyder's framework for understanding what freedom really means and how we can protect and expand it in modern society.

(continued)... In Talking to Strangers, Allen explains that the practice of democracy requires citizens to recognize that their own well-being is tied to the well-being of others, even those they don’t know personally. This means being willing to make sacrifices for the common good and to trust that others will do the same. Allen’s emphasis on the importance of recognizing and addressing the vulnerabilities of others helps explain why Snyder focuses on the physical experiences of people at the ballot box. By imagining the bodily discomfort and fear that others experience when trying to vote, we can develop the empathy and sense of shared responsibility that are necessary for a healthy democracy.)

For white individuals, this might feel like a forceful assertion. There's an easy way to confirm its fairness. The philosopher John Rawls invented a reality check called the "veil of ignorance." It prompts you to set aside your knowledge of your social position using this "shroud," to view things with greater objectivity and improve policy. Charles Mills, the philosopher, observed that to understand what knowledge of ourselves is pertinent, we must know certain fundamental facts about the society in question.

(Shortform note: The veil of ignorance was a product of its time. In In the Shadow of Justice, Katrina Forrester explains that Rawls’s work emerged from a mid-20th-century context of New Deal liberalism, postwar welfare states, and the civil rights movement. Rawls’s veil of ignorance was a tool to justify fairer basic rules, but Mills and others later showed how those rules had long ignored the realities of white supremacy.)

One example is identity based on race. Consider being aware that African Americans face obstacles to voting. Now imagine being behind a curtain of ignorance where you're unaware of the social reality of your race in America. What would you consider about voting regulations at that point? Would you be more concerned that voters are being suppressed if you imagined that you suddenly found yourself to be Black? If you say yes, which is likely, that indicates whiteness has dulled your sensitivity to a fundamental freedom-related issue. Happily, being free allows us to reconsider our views and embrace truth.

System Justification

Research supports the idea that members of racially advantaged groups are more likely to underestimate or deny the structural barriers faced by disadvantaged groups. This phenomenon, known as system justification, leads individuals to rationalize the status quo and overlook systemic inequalities. For example, studies have shown that white Americans are statistically more likely to believe that racial discrimination is no longer a significant problem, despite evidence to the contrary. This cognitive bias can lead to a lack of awareness or concern about issues like voter suppression, which disproportionately affects minority communities.

Next, we will explore the relationship between freedom and movement, and how freedom gives us the opportunity to select and blend values.

Embodiment and Experiencing Freedom

Freedom is connected to movement and the capacity to encounter others. Snyder explains that it involves understanding what matters to you and making it a reality. This relies on your abilities, which are determined by others. For people to be free, they must feel secure, especially as children. They need opportunities to learn about each other and their environment. Then, as they become free people, they decide what risks to take and for what reasons.

Existentialist Perspective on Freedom

Snyder’s view of freedom as dependent on movement, others, and a secure childhood contrasts with the existentialist perspective, particularly that of Jean-Paul Sartre. In Existentialism Is a Humanism, Sartre argues that freedom is an inherent part of human existence, independent of external conditions. He explains that even in situations where movement is restricted, security is lacking, or social connections are limited, individuals still possess the fundamental freedom to choose their attitudes and responses. Sartre’s view suggests that freedom is an internal condition that persists regardless of external circumstances.

Ethics and the Sustenance of Freedom

The ability to choose freely is the central value that lets us select and blend other values. Snyder claims that our freedom stems from our ability to select and integrate different values. The more we exercise our freedom, the better we can combine values throughout a lifetime or in the development of a country.

(Shortform note: Snyder doesn’t provide evidence for why free choice is the central value or why it improves our ability to combine values. However, research on self-determination theory (SDT) supports his claim. SDT researchers Ryan and Deci explain that when we act from autonomous choice, we gradually organize our motives into a more coherent, mutually supportive pattern.)

However, the misleading belief that having to choose is a tragedy limits our freedom by forcing us to decide between values. This belief makes us think that once we choose a value, we must forever reject the other. It prevents us from seeking new values or new combinations of values, leading us to believe that just one value matters. This is a common American belief that limits the realm of values and reduces our freedom.

To sidestep the illusory dilemma of choosing, refrain from giving up a value simply due to it being currently unattainable. You might eventually figure out a way to merge values. An apparent contradiction could simply require picking one path first and a different one afterwards. At times, we just have to discover the perspective that allows us to perceive how multiple values can be fulfilled.

Isaiah Berlin and the Tragedy of Choosing Between Values

The idea that “having to choose is a tragedy” is a central theme in the work of philosopher Isaiah Berlin, who argued that the clash between values is an inescapable part of the human condition. Berlin’s theory of value pluralism holds that there are many different values that are equally valid, but they often conflict with each other. In The Crooked Timber of Humanity, he explains that “the necessity of choosing between absolute claims is an inescapable characteristic of the human condition; our world is one in which we are faced with choices between ends equally ultimate and claims equally absolute, the realization of some of which must inevitably involve the sacrifice of others.” Berlin’s view suggests that the feeling of tragedy when choosing between values isn’t an illusion to be sidestepped, but a fundamental aspect of human freedom.

Conditions and Threats to Freedom

The right to express your views is threatened by those who misuse it to spread lies and propaganda. Snyder argues that it's not just about taking down obstacles for people who already have control over the dissemination of information. It aims to convey the reality to those in authority. However, the powerful use it to spread lies and propaganda, pretending to be victims when challenged. This gives it an appearance of being meaningless and diverts our attention from its real purpose.

(Shortform note: In Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, Cass R. Sunstein argues that the traditional, laissez-faire ideal of a “free marketplace of ideas” fails in conditions of concentrated private power. He contends that well-financed speakers can saturate public discourse with strategic communications and disinformation, so that what is protected under the banner of free speech is not democratic deliberation but the ability of the powerful to dominate agenda-setting and evade accountability.)

True freedom of expression requires protection for those who speak the truth at their own risk. Snyder explains that it’s a freedom of action, not a freedom from restraint. It's an entitlement to truth, not lies, and a guarantee to address authority with honesty, not to incite violence or hate. This positive freedom requires that truth is confirmed as a virtue and that institutions are established to safeguard truth-seekers. Journalists lead the way, asserting our freedom daily. We should accommodate and protect them, ensuring that their careers are secure and appealing. This helps create a free nation.

(Shortform note: Snyder’s argument that freedom of expression is an entitlement to truth, not lies, and that institutions should be established to safeguard truth-seekers, raises concerns about the potential dangers of institutionalizing truth. While protecting those who speak truth to power is essential, there’s a risk that such institutions could become gatekeepers of an official orthodoxy, suppressing dissenting voices that challenge the status quo. This could stifle the very freedom of expression Snyder seeks to protect, as what’s considered “truth” may shift with political winds. A robust marketplace of ideas, where even unpopular or controversial opinions can be aired and debated, remains crucial for a healthy democracy.)

Free speech depends on institutions that can't be established by any individual free speaker. Journalists are our modern-day heroes, and we should protect and praise them. The ability to express ourselves freely depends on having as many people as possible share their ideas openly. These individuals are independent, able to make their own decisions; they have the freedom to move, capable of perceiving and taking risks; they're unpredictable, allowing them to embrace how facts test their beliefs. They take risks on our behalf and help us understand what's happening globally.

(Shortform note: While journalists are often seen as heroes, the institutions they work for can sometimes limit the information we receive. For example, media outlets owned by large corporations may avoid reporting on stories that could harm their business interests. This can lead to a situation where important truths are hidden from the public. By relying too heavily on these institutions, we risk creating an environment where only certain perspectives are heard, potentially undermining the very freedom of speech we value.)

It isn't a torrent of online information; it's validated by quality over quantity, and its attributes are truth and risk. Freedom to speak doesn't involve riding the wave of fleeting emotions. Elites and technology can easily control people's emotions and what's happening in the present. It's broader and founded on modesty and danger. Lies aren't threatened, nor are the platitudes people wish to hear. Regardless of whether speech is protected by law, there's an unrestricted flood of trite sayings and propaganda. If I say you should prevent someone from voting or shooting someone, I'm not using my right to free speech. If a dictator claims a nation doesn't exist, that's a genocidal form of hate speech that must be countered.

Counterpoint: Hate Speech Should Remain Protected

Former ACLU president Nadine Strossen disagrees with Timothy Snyder’s view that advocating to prevent someone from voting or denying a nation’s existence isn’t an exercise of free speech. In HATE, she argues that even expression that most people understandably find hateful, bigoted, or deeply wrong should generally remain protected under the First Amendment so long as it does not fall within a narrowly and clearly defined exception such as intentional incitement of imminent lawless action, a true threat, or targeted harassment. She contends that empowering government to punish speech based on its viewpoint or offensiveness inevitably ends up entrenching those already in power and is especially likely to be turned against dissenters and members of vulnerable or marginalized groups rather than to protect them.

Next, we will explore the external threats to liberty and the internal vulnerabilities that undermine it.

External Threats to Freedom

Snyder warns that external threats can exploit a nation’s internal weaknesses to undermine freedom. For example, the US’s overconfidence about its own liberty and its belief in freedom from interference made it vulnerable to Russian disinformation. Russia used social media to spread misinformation regarding Ukraine and Americans themselves, influencing the 2016 presidential election and helping a candidate with oligarchic ties win.

The US’s response to 9/11 also undermined its freedom. The attacks were presented as a new kind of threat that required sacrificing freedom for security. This led to increased surveillance and the invasion of Iraq, which left the US with more debt, less safety, and diminished trust.

The Effectiveness of Russian Disinformation

While it’s clear that Russia attempted to influence the 2016 US presidential election, it’s less clear how effective these efforts were. In 2023, researchers found that Russian disinformation on Twitter had little to no effect on Americans’ political attitudes or voting behavior. The researchers found that only 1% of Twitter users accounted for 70% of the exposure to Russian disinformation, and these users were already highly partisan. The study also found that exposure to Russian disinformation was concentrated among users who were already strong supporters of Donald Trump, suggesting that the disinformation campaign was unlikely to have changed their voting behavior.

Next, we will explore the political and military threats to liberty.

Governmental and Military Threats

Snyder argues that prison gerrymandering and large-scale incarceration undermine liberty and democratic values. Prison gerrymandering involves tallying inmates as if they live in the prison's district instead of their original one, which affects the allocation of legislative representation. This increases the political power of the non-incarcerated people living near the prison, who often vote for politicians who support building more prisons.

This practice is reminiscent of how enslaved people were included to increase the influence of slaveholders. Mass incarceration and prison gerrymandering are inconsistent with freedom because they form areas in cities where hope is lacking and deny people a voice in their political future. Incarcerated people can't vote, and their bodies are used to increase the political power of others. This is a betrayal of living truthfully.

Custodial Citizenship

Snyder’s argument that prison gerrymandering and large-scale incarceration undermine liberty and democratic values builds on earlier work by scholars like Amy Lerman and Vesla Weaver. In their 2014 book Arresting Citizenship, Lerman and Weaver argue that the expansion of policing, surveillance, and criminal-justice supervision has created a form of “custodial citizenship.” This term describes how people who are routinely subject to stops, searches, probation, and parole come to experience the state mainly as punitive and controlling rather than protective or representative. Lerman and Weaver show that this form of citizenship teaches people to see government as distant and threatening, and it incorporates them into the polity as heavily governed but politically marginalized second-class citizens. Their work provides a broader framework for understanding practices like prison gerrymandering.

Internal Vulnerabilities to Freedom

Snyder explains that ideologies centered around destiny, timelessness, and calamity endanger liberty. The ideology of inevitability refers to the belief that what's to come is predetermined and that progress is inevitable. The eternity politics perspective is the view that earlier times were preferable to now and that we should return to them. The concept of catastrophe refers to the view that what lies ahead is doomed and that we should prepare for the worst.

These beliefs harm freedom in different ways. The inevitability narrative causes passivity and dampens the fighting spirit of individuals. Eternalist politics rejects facts and fosters a longing for previous times and feelings of bitterness. Catastrophic politics fills the remaining time with fear and despair.

To reclaim freedom, we must reestablish social mobility and avert the impending catastrophe. We should ground our understanding in historical and scientific perspectives to steer toward a more promising future.

The Concept of Catastrophe Can Also Inspire People to Exercise Their Freedom

While Snyder argues that the concept of catastrophe can lead to catastrophic politics, climate change communication researchers have found that the concept of catastrophe can also inspire people to exercise their freedom. In one academic article, the authors argue that when people are presented with the concept of catastrophe in a way that’s relatable and actionable, they’re more likely to take action. The authors argue that when people are presented with the concept of catastrophe in a way that’s relatable and actionable, they’re more likely to take action. For example, when people are shown images of climate change that they can relate to, such as images of their local area being affected by climate change, they’re more likely to feel a sense of agency and take action. This suggests that the concept of catastrophe can be a powerful tool for inspiring people to exercise their freedom, as long as it’s presented in a way that’s relatable and actionable.

Next, we will explore the mechanisms that undermine liberty and the factors that erode opportunity and agency.

Mechanisms of Control and Restriction of Freedom

Snyder argues that when wealth is consolidated, it results in political and social control. When wealth is held by only a few people, it threatens democracy and freedom. The ultra-rich use their money to preserve their wealth, which harms other citizens. They control the government and the economy, making it more difficult for others to improve their lives. They also spread propaganda and misinformation, undermining accuracy and the public good.

Additionally, they evade taxes, which reduces funds for government programs and social initiatives. They attempt to escape the problems they create, such as climate change and social inequality, by investing in fantasies like space travel and immortality.

The Billionaire Mindset

In Survival of the Richest, Douglas Rushkoff argues that the tech billionaires he has spoken with are guided by a “Mindset” in which accumulating vast fortunes is primarily a way to gain enough power and insulation to opt out of the very society on which their wealth depends, using their money to secure remote compounds, private infrastructures, and influence over technological development so that they can protect themselves from the social and economic consequences their own systems may trigger, instead of investing their resources in making the shared world more resilient for everyone. He explains that this Mindset leads them to prefer fantasies like space travel and immortality over confronting climate change and social inequality.

Libertarianism and the free market ideology hinder freedom and social mobility. Snyder explains that libertarianism can't coexist with any kind of freedom. It demands predictability from us, turning us into robots who follow basic formulas. The ideology of the free market demands that we extend the law of necessity deep into our lives and minds. Libertarianism stops us from asking how people gain freedom, which impairs sovereignty. It prevents us from considering the frameworks required to make people sovereign. It opposes parental leave policies and public education that foster freedom for youth, including entrepreneurs, as well as labor unions and health coverage that help workers achieve mobility.

(Shortform note: Snyder’s claim that a libertarian view of markets can’t coexist with any kind of freedom is likely an overstatement. In Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman argues that economic freedom is a necessary condition for political freedom. He contends that voluntary exchange and private property rights provide a check on government power, allowing individuals to pursue their own goals and support causes they believe in. Friedman points to historical examples like the Soviet Union, where the absence of economic freedom led to the suppression of political and civil liberties.)

In reality, capitalist markets hinder people from advancing their social status. By categorizing wealth redistribution, social welfare, and politics overall as unacceptable meddling in the economic system, the libertarian philosophy ensures the success of massive companies and the amassing of wealth, making social progress increasingly challenging. Libertarians assert they support freedom, but they develop societies where young people lack opportunities. Libertarians promote logic while also disseminating the fossil-fuel industry's unscientific messages. By doing this, they contradict the facts. By rejecting government policy changes to current energy markets, libertarian ideology ensures a future with deadly climate change.

(Shortform note: While Timothy Snyder argues that capitalist markets and the libertarian philosophy prevent social advancement, some economists argue that these systems can be used to reduce pollution and create opportunities for people. In Free Market Environmentalism, Terry L. Anderson and Donald R. Leal argue that when property rights are well defined, people have strong incentives to prevent pollution and invest in conservation. They argue that market exchange and entrepreneurship can turn environmental quality into a valued asset rather than a free dumping ground. This suggests that libertarian ideas are not a guaranteed obstacle to social or climatic progress.)

The essence of libertarian philosophy opposes solidarity. It advises constant self-interest, comforting by suggesting that such actions will benefit everyone. Competing can be beneficial when conducted under a framework of norms and regulations. However, Adam Smith, perhaps the most renowned market theorist, recognized that competition operates based on virtues it doesn't inherently create. Freedom comes from people, not the market; and if it doesn't originate from people, the market won't function well. Libertarianism causes us to be pessimistic about these virtues and convinces us that intentional goodness is impossible.

(Shortform note: Snyder’s description of libertarian philosophy doesn’t apply to all forms of libertarianism. For example, in Free Market Fairness, John Tomasi argues for a “market democracy” that combines economic liberties with a commitment to social justice. Tomasi argues that citizens are “self-authenticating sources of valid claims” who also have reciprocal obligations to each other. He believes that strong economic liberties are justified only if they’re part of a system that allows everyone, especially the working poor, to participate in society as free and equal members who care about each other’s well-being.)

But it is possible for us. We are liberated within a realm of uncertainty, a human space between reality and ideals. Ideologies deny our freedom when they claim the two are indistinguishable or that some higher power is closing the gap. Like the principles of scientific socialism, the tenets of free market economics claim that present circumstances can evolve into optimal ones because of overarching economic theories. Reinstating or abolishing private property will fix everything. In each scenario, the rhetoric starts as a revolutionary fantasy—liberate the market! unite the working class!—and concludes with the unpleasant certainty that there's no genuine truth, that nothing has meaning, and that the status quo is the only option.

What Is Scientific Socialism?

Scientific socialism is the idea that socialism is a science, not a utopian ideal. Marx and Engels believed that socialism was a natural result of the laws of history, not a product of human imagination. They argued that socialism was based on objective facts about how society works, not on what people want society to be. This idea was a big part of Marxist thought and was used to justify the idea that socialism was inevitable. However, critics argue that this approach ignores the role of human agency and imagination in shaping society. They say that by treating socialism as a science, Marxists overlooked the importance of ideals and values in creating a better world.

Diminished Opportunity and Agency

Snyder argues that inadequate policies and infrastructure obstruct opportunities and moving between social strata. The ability to move between social classes and create new lives is social mobility. It’s enabled by policies that support families and workers, such as parental leave, paid time off for illness, subsidized childcare, and holidays. These policies allow families to feel secure and enable them to move up in society. Social mobility is also enabled by infrastructure that allows people to move freely in and between cities, such as buses and trains. The United States lacks these policies and infrastructure, which makes it difficult for individuals to progress socially.

(Shortform note: The United States does have policies that support families and workers, but they’re less robust than those of other wealthy democracies. For example, the US is the only wealthy democracy that doesn’t guarantee paid parental leave. The US also has public transportation, but it’s less extensive than in other countries. For example, the US has 1,000 miles of high-speed rail, while China has 26,000 miles. The US’s lack of robust policies and infrastructure is due to its history of prioritizing individualism and limited government intervention.)

The United States also has a labor market that doesn't center on people and their liberty. The market is distorted by monopolies, which benefit property owners and shareholders over people who establish new companies and take risks. The United States also lacks labor unions, which support workers' rights and democratic ideals.

(Shortform note: Snyder’s argument that the US labor market doesn’t center on people and their liberty, and that the US lacks labor unions, echoes the work of economist John Kenneth Galbraith. In his 1952 book American Capitalism, Galbraith argued that the US economy was dominated by large corporations, which had too much power over workers and consumers. He believed that the only way to balance this power was through strong labor unions and public institutions.)