From the moment a new immigrant steps onto Ellis Island, America sells itself as the land of limitless possibility—an intellectual blank slate where beliefs are meant to be forged in the fires of reason rather than inherited bloodlines. Yet beneath that aspirational veneer lies a potent creed, one that demands its own form of ideological conformity.

In theory, the United States should be a paradise for freethinkers: a nation whose founding documents exalt individual liberty, skepticism of authority, and the Enlightenment’s valorization of reason. The First Amendment’s protection of speech and religion seems tailor-made to shelter those who question dogma, tradition, and entrenched power.

But ideals are one thing, lived reality another. Americans often find that straying too far from the “official” creed—whether by challenging unfettered markets or criticizing founding myths—invites swift social sanctions. In practice, deviance from accepted narratives can brand you as unpatriotic or even subversive.

This tension stems from America’s identity as a creedal nation rather than an ethnic one. Where many countries lean on shared ancestry or cultural homogeneity to forge national unity, the U.S. leans on a shared set of principles. And principles, as it turns out, can be policed just as rigorously as lineage.

So does America really want freethinkers? The short answer: it wants them up to a point. Freethinking that reinforces prosperity, innovation, and technological progress is celebrated—think Silicon Valley iconoclasts or academic mavericks. But freethinking that threatens political stability, economic orthodoxy, or the consumerist consensus is often met with suspicion or outright hostility.

Contrast this with countries that couple strong social safety nets and broad social equality with robust protections for dissent. In Scandinavian democracies—Norway, Sweden, Denmark—high levels of trust in public institutions and minimal fear of economic ruin create a much lower cost for intellectual risk-taking. You’re free to challenge the consensus without fearing that you or your family will lose health care or education.

Even within Europe, places like the Netherlands and Germany carve out distinctive space for the freethinker. A German public sphere that still wrestles with its authoritarian past often treats rigorous debate as a civic duty, while Dutch “pillarization” historically allowed multiple ideologically distinct communities to coexist under one national roof.

Yet social equality does not guarantee economic equality. Scandinavia’s cradle-to-grave welfare systems come with high taxes, and Germany’s regulated capitalism can feel stifling to entrepreneurs. But freethinking thrives when your basic security—health, housing, education—isn’t at the mercy of market whims. In America, by contrast, economic precarity forces many minds into survival mode rather than exploration mode.

Moreover, true freethinking requires not only legal protections but cultural encouragement: parents who model questioning, schools that reward curiosity over rote learning, media that tolerate nuance instead of peddling outrage. Here, too, countries with strong public broadcasting and civic education programs often outperform the U.S., where sensationalism can drown out subtle analysis.

That said, America remains fertile soil for certain kinds of intellectual rebellion. From the Beats of the 1950s to the cyber-utopians of today, freethinkers have found in the U.S. both their mission field and their megaphone. The challenge is to expand that rarefied pocket of tolerance into the broader culture—so that freethinking isn’t just the province of elites or countercultural enclaves.

In the end, the question isn’t merely whether America can nurture freethinkers—it’s whether Americans will embrace the discomfort of radical doubt. Other nations may offer greater structural support, but the spark of freethought still needs fuel: personal courage, community backing, and a national willingness to dwell in uncertainty. Until we enlarge our definition of loyalty to include honest dissent, we’ll remain a country that preaches freedom of mind but polices freedom of belief.

I stopped for pancakes at a diner just off Route 9 in Plattsburgh, NY (ZIP: 12901, for my fellow map nerds). It’s one of those places where the menu hasn’t budged since about 1983—and neither have the prices, bless their hearts. As I drowned my short stack in syrup, I overheard the table next to me stumbling through their breakfast order in hesitant French, earning bemused smiles and gentle confusion from their very-much-English-speaking server.

Here’s the kicker: Lacolle, Quebec, is a breezy 40-minute drive north. Cross that line, and French flows effortlessly—c’est naturel. But in Plattsburgh, French feels oddly out of place, like cowboy boots at a vegan potluck.

Contrast that with Texas, where you can be miles and miles from the Rio Grande and Spanish is as comfy as old denim. Of course, Texas spent a significant chunk of its formative years as part of Mexico—history has deep roots, deeper even than pecan trees. In fact, there's still a quiet undercurrent among some Texans who feel the border never quite landed right, culturally speaking. Texas is practically its own country—Tex-Mex traditions, bilingual street signs, and communities where crossing linguistic boundaries happens every day without a blink.

Why the stark difference in Plattsburgh, then? Historically, the border between the U.S. and Canada was largely shaped by treaties between distant governments rather than by cultural or economic tides. The northeastern U.S. border, once delineated, hardened into an identity line. Economics played its role too: trade, jobs, and daily life largely stayed separate, preventing cultural blending.

Meanwhile, the U.S.-Mexico border region remains fluid, economically intertwined, and culturally overlapping. Families and businesses sprawl comfortably on both sides. The flow of goods, people, and especially language has softened that border into something more porous, more natural—more human.

America’s borders are funny like that. Sometimes they split cultures cleanly; other times, the lines blur beautifully. And as I wiped up the last sticky bits of syrup, I thought about how borders are drawn in ink—but lived in pancakes, language, and the raised eyebrows of a diner waitress.

Until next time, keep braking for historical markers.

I’ve never taken the LSAT, but I have taken a lot of breaks in diners. Waffle House, Huddle House, Joe’s Diner, Lena’s Diner, Friendly’s when they still had the booths with jukebox buttons. Once, I watched a man in Alabama write his resignation letter on a napkin while drinking five cups of coffee and eating a slice of lemon meringue pie he didn’t seem to enjoy. He looked calm. Maybe calmer than I’ll ever be.

(For context: tech entrepreneur Alexis Ohanian famously decided to abandon law school plans after walking out of the LSAT and heading straight to a Waffle House. Reddit was born soon after. I’m just saying.)

There’s something about diners. They’re less judgmental than cafés, less chaotic than Sheetz, and more permanent than fast food. They sit still while the world spins around them—open late, open early, and open to everyone. And if you sit long enough, maybe over hash browns and an existential crisis, you start to realize that diner menus aren’t just food lists.

They’re records.

Notebooks of regional identity, economic history, culinary defiance. Why does this place serve grits with everything? Because it’s the South. Why is there still liver and onions on the menu? Because someone out there still wants it. Why are the prices in Comic Sans? Because nobody told them not to. And why do so many menus feel like a mash-up of grandma’s handwriting, local tradition, and a mid-’90s Photoshop experiment? Because that’s exactly what they are.

In a world that often erases itself and rebrands every two years, diner menus are holdouts of American self-definition. They’re imperfect, sincere, and strangely trustworthy.

And maybe that’s why tech founders have epiphanies at Waffle House. Not just because of the hash brown bar (although, bless it), but because diners make space for ideas. For overheard conversations. For being alone in public. They’re like coffeehouses, minus the pretense, plus biscuits.

And here’s something else: diners don’t try to manipulate you. You can sit there for hours with a black coffee and a side of scrambled eggs, and no one’s pushing neon ads for triple-bacon stacks or discount cigarettes in your face. You’re a guest, not a target. That matters.

Philosophy majors should hang out in them more often.

Until next time, keep braking for historical markers—and laminated menus.