HEINLEIN'S "COVENTRY": WHY ABSOLUTE FREEDOM DOESN'T WORK?

I recently reread Robert Heinlein's novella "Coventry," and it turned out to be a truly gripping work. This story is one of those that leaves you staring at the ceiling for a long time and asking yourself questions like "What is freedom anyway?" and "Can you force someone to be happy?".

The plot is roughly as follows: events take place in the future, where for any violence you are either banished beyond an energy barrier to live "by your own rules" in a special zone called Coventry, or you agree to psychocorrection, as a result of which, in essence, you receive biologically enhanced morality and become incapable of initiating violence. Faced with such options, the main character named David McKinnon chooses exile, saying that harsh but honest freedom is better than a sweet and toothless dictatorship of good.

Only then it turns out that there, behind the barrier, there is no freedom at all. Instead of heavenly libertarianism, gangs await him who ruthlessly rob and oppress everyone who is weaker, fanatical theocrats who believe in their own exclusivity and absolute truth, as well as wild lands where complete anarchy reigns in its worst manifestation and only the "right of might" works.

David immediately learns a harsh lesson when he is robbed almost at the entrance to Coventry, depriving him of all the things he hoped to use to survive. Finding himself completely helpless, he quickly falls into the trap of local political intrigues. Soon the hero learns about a conspiracy aimed at breaking through the protective barrier and attacking the peaceful, civilized society that David had recently abandoned.

This becomes a turning point for him. The hero not only begins to think about the path he has taken, but also understands that true freedom is impossible without adhering to the elementary principles of coexistence and mutual respect. As a result, it is David who becomes a key figure in preventing this attack and saving the very world from which he so brazenly left.

As a result, the hero, having drunk to the brim of the local "will", understands that the absolute freedom he dreamed of actually turned out to be a jungle, where there is no place for either freedom or human dignity. And he suddenly realizes that morality is not a meaningless relic, but a necessary condition for any society where one wants to live, at least theoretically.

Heinlein seems to be winking at us here: if you want freedom - please agree to at least a minimum of rules, for example, that you cannot initiate violence. And if you don't want to - well, go behind the barrier and try to build libertarianism there. It won't work, it's been proven!

And here is an interesting conclusion for my ideas about the future society: in essence, the author proposes the idea of bio-enhancement of morality. And not external coercion to it, mind you, but voluntary acceptance of therapy to strengthen the inhibitor of violence.

This is not a prison or a dictatorship. This is a completely natural thing that any aggressor comes to sooner or later, if he is even capable of thinking and learning. It's just that instead of painful trial and error through fights and injuries, a person immediately gets a chance to build this morality into his own "operating system". Agree, it's better to install an antivirus right away than to rake up the consequences later.

Heinlein understood the risks of violence and predicted the idea of bioenhancement of morality more than half a century ago. Perhaps it is time for us to understand this and stop being afraid of bioethics. After all, it is the conscious limitation of oneself from violence that is true freedom. The freedom of an adult, conscious person, and not a teenager with a knife who demands the right to “do whatever I want, or I will slaughter everyone.”

P.S. Voluntary acceptance of bioenhancement of morality to some extent resembles consent to attachment to a partner for the sake of preserving relationships and the ability to live together comfortably, although everyone understands that activation of the neurobiological mechanism of attachment (through oxytocin, vasopressin and dopamine) leads to a strong change in personality, much stronger than from the reinforcement of the inhibitor of violence. However, in the mainstream this is considered normal. So why do skeptics of bioenhancement of morality still remain?