Student sample for assessment
Written by a Year 9 student in Coburg North, Victoria, Australia.
We often talk about freedom as the absence of interference—you should be free to do what you want, as long as you do not directly harm someone else. But this idea assumes something crucial and possibly wrong: that your choices affect only you and those you directly harm. In reality, almost nothing is that simple. The question is not whether we should have freedom, but who pays for it. Position A says: freedom means the right to choose without interference, provided you do not directly harm others. This is appealing because it is clear. You can draw a line: if your choice does not directly injure another person, it is your business. This works well for simple cases. If you want to paint your house blue, your choice does not directly harm anyone. Your autonomy matters, and the principle protects us from tyranny. No one should tell you what to believe, what to read, or who to love. Position A correctly recognises that freedom is fundamental. But the principle breaks down quickly. When you drive fast, you do not directly harm anyone—unless you hit someone. But speeding increases the risk you hit someone, which increases insurance costs for everyone. When you refuse vaccination, you do not directly harm anyone—unless the disease spreads through you to someone vulnerable. But your choice affects the community's health infrastructure and the risk others face. These are not direct harms in the sense Position A means, but they are not zero-cost either. They are just diffused and hard to measure. Position B tries to account for this. It says that freedom must include responsibility for the social costs of your choices. This is more honest about how the world actually works. Your choices do not happen in isolation. They ripple outward. And if we are all living together, we need to account for how your freedom affects others' freedom. This is genuinely important. But Position B also has a limit. If every choice must account for every social cost, how much responsibility is too much? Should you feel guilty for driving to school because driving contributes to climate change? Should you avoid having children because they consume resources? At some point, demanding total accountability paralyses choice. Freedom requires some sphere where you act without constantly calculating social consequences. So the real question is not freedom versus community, but which freedoms deserve the most protection and which require the most responsibility. The freedom to love, to speak, to move—these matter deeply and the costs are worth it. The freedom to do whatever you want without any social consequence—this probably does not exist. The disagreement is really about where we draw the line.