The question of freedom is often looked upon through the lens of un-freedom, defining the term not in terms of the positive but that of the negative, of what its lack implies. But there is an alternative approach to the question, framing freedom as being given the space — the nothingness — to thrive, evolve and grow. To let some-one or some-thing free is to let it go, to create an emptiness around them that they can choose to fill howsoever they wish, taking away the guardrail of concrete that chafes and injures the very thing it claims to protect. Ironically, it is the desire to protect and do good that is the source of all un-freedom. It is weakness that props up the proponents of un-freedom, whether it be a cry of help to save oneself or save the children or save the wretched. Morality is the fount of un-freedom, inviting the sludge that ossifies the spaces around us, driven relentlessly by judgment that hearkens to the call, coming for one and all of us. Conversely, a moral vacuum is the friend of freedom. To suspend judgment, to invite evil into the world without allowing it to consume the world and convert it into its own image, to embrace the void — this is what it means to cherish freedom. At every critical juncture, we must make this very choice: do we wish to play the game of morality and judgment, or do we ally ourselves with freedom?