The Health Secretary has Covid. The Prime Minister and Chancellor are meant to be in isolation as a result, but as usual have bent the rules to suit their own self interest (Barnard Castle, here we go again). And tomorrow is supposedly ‘Freedom Day', although that's now downplayed by everyone except the media who were pump-primed to repeat it ad nauseam before the witless who have supposed responsibility for Covid related issues realised just how dangerous a message that was.
The question I asked myself was what does freedom mean in this context? The Cambridge Dictionary appears consistent with others in its definition (and is shorter than the Oxford version). It says that freedom is:
the condition or right of being able or allowed to do, say, think, etc. whatever you want to, without being controlled or limited.
The definition in that dictionary and others accepts that there are many nuances to this, but an essence of this idea is captured by that phrase. And who could object to what freedom represents if that is how it is defined?
Actually, I have to say that I can. That definition appears like many others to be intensely egotistical in its interpretation of freedom. It is written solely from the perspective of the individual. There is no consideration of the possibility that there may be very good reason why the freedoms of some may be restricted.
I very definitely restricted the freedom of my children when they were young. I make no apology for doing so. It was for their own protection. We all know that is reasonable.
I also think there is a role for prison to protect society from some people. Freedom can be removed with good reason in that case.
Some other freedoms, whether to abuse, or pollute, or constrain economically, may appear to be freedom to some, but they are most definitely oppressive to others. This is not some random opinion: vast swathes of legislation are based on the idea that these constraints are justifiable, and that is accepted as fair within society at large.
The right to ‘freedom' is in that case always constrained. This is the lesson that the government and its far-right anti-lockdown supporters seem not to understand. Their perspective is that which the dictionary appears to promote, which is the individual's right to do what they wish without consideration for others is the definition of freedom. But it is not. The right of the individual does not extend to the right to abuse others. Infecting a person without a serious illness by being indifferent to the risk of contaminating them fits within the definition of abuse in my view, but as far as it would seem, not that of the government.
Is tomorrow ‘freedom day' in that case? It clearly is not. It is in fact more reasonably ‘abuse day'. And we already know what the consequence of that abuse will be. There will be hundreds of thousands of additional Covid cases that could be avoided. There will be many deaths and large numbers with long Covid. Choosing that is not a definition of freedom, unless the definition of freedom used by those making the choice includes the right to impose serious harm.
The ‘freedoms' permitted tomorrow are not freedoms at all. They are the exact opposite. This government has revealed its moral bankruptcy with this definition, motivated solely by its hatred of the state. It is morally bankrupt. We will pay a very high price for that, and that price does not represent one for freedom.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Tomorrow is Freedom Day – for the virus – when it’s released to do its worst (for us), without having to get around all those constrictions…
But for us…
Might Mr. F.D. Roosevelt’s premise that there are « Freedoms to » and « Freedoms from » be worth bearing in mind?
Might tomorrow be more accurately labelled as « Freedom to Infect Others Day »?
I like it
This distinction between two types of freedom goes back at least to Kant, who also pointed out that the notions are in conflict with one another in the an increase in one can lead to a decrease in the other.
Catchy! 🙂
“Freedom to Infect Others”.
We may think of the definition of Neoliberalism as in essence, the “Freedom to Misuse Others”.
The Financial Crash, Brexit, Covid-19 and Climate Change should now have finally stripped from the public’s eyes the veil of deception practised by Neoliberalism; which has failed catastrophically to cope with any of these crises without of necessity abandoning ALL the essential principles of proclaimed by Neoliberal vested interests. Neoliberalism is a failed economic theory and wholly destructive political ideology.
Has the public noticed?
Thank you, Richard, for this piece.
I understand that the Prime Minister is thought to be something of a classicist. Maybe a little more time on the Stoics with a refreshening in Virtue Ethics, rather than his disjointed application of Epicurus, after all, Epicurus advised not follow politics!
It is certainly a common theme.
Freedom is to be able to pay someone less than a living wage.
Freedom is to avoid paying one’s share of tax.
Freedom is to cut corners with safety standards and get away with it when fires break out.
Freedom is to seek greater influence than those with less money than yourself.
Freedom is to supply sub-standard protective clothing.
Freedom is to procure sub-standard protective clothing using state money.
This list could get very long.
What freedom is not is being on the receiving end of all of the above with absolutely no way of standing up to them. On the issue of pay ,for example, the neoliberal might say that the individual doesn’t have to accept the job and the pay. Freedom to go hungry them.
Re. Yourcommennt about parenting When I was doing my counselling training my Irish supervisor told us, ‘good parenting starts when you have to say ‘ no’.
It was an aside, not part of the teaching, but it remained with me.
Actually, asides are often remembered. A number of times clients said ‘you said something brilliant last week. I have been thinking about it all week.’ I have thought, ‘who me?’ did I say that? It. Would turn out to be what I thought was just a comment.
Possibly, Professor, some of your students have had a similar experience.
That’s enough irrelevant philosophy for a Sunday. Have a good day.
Thanks
It is purely performance art or presentation, nothing to do with reality:
Get Brexit Done
Levelling up
Strong and stable
Freedom
All meaningless gibberish which works, which is the sad commentary.
“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any members of a civilised community, against their will, is to prevent harm to others.” – JS Mill, On Liberty
Yes to the J.S.Mill quote, and assuming you were at UEL with me, good to see you also follow Richard Murphy!
There’s a view that infections have flattened and turned downwards in Scotland due to being eliminated from the football in the first round and schools breaking up earlier for the summer.
The zany theory going around is displace that 3 weeks to allow for the Euros ending and English schools closing and the same turnover of the curve will happen here. Crazy music man.
Remind me – did Scotland release all restrictions three weeks ago, while infections and hospitalisitions were increasing?
I assume “freedom say” is a tiny typo. unimportant for the general sense. But what you argue is so important there shouldn’t be anything to slow the logical flow.
I will change
Freedom is an analogue quantity: you can have more or less of it. It is also not a zero-sum game, and there is no limited supply, but one person’s freedom can impinge on the freedom of another. Which is where balancing rights and responsibilities comes in.
Like “leveling up”, “freedom” is ambiguous until you say exactly what kind of freedom you mean. The OED starts with freedom from slavery or imprisonment, or from spiritual or contractual bondage, through liberty and independence from despotic or autocratic control, to liberty of action without encumbrance, hindrance or restraint, and self-determination, and then lists the following freedoms: freedom of will, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom of association. You could add freedom of the market – itself an illusion, because there is no market at all without common rules.
As a minimum, we could start with the Roosevelt’s “four freedoms”:
1. Freedom of speech
2. Freedom of worship
3. Freedom from want
4. Freedom from fear
So how are we doing on freedom from fear, and freedom from want? For millions of vulnerable people, “freedom day” is a cause for fear as the outside world is no longer safe for them. Millions will be looking at their precarious benefits or employment and facing imminent want.
These freedoms nudge up against Beveridge’s “five giants”: want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness – which you could analyze as poverty, health, education, housing, and employment. Again, how are we doing at tackling these?
It seems to me the present government is entirely happy to create want (threatening to remove the £20 universal credit uplift, for example), disease (threatening the collapse and dismantlement of the NHS), ignorance (the atrocious way teachers and students have been treated in the last two years), squalor (you could start with Grenfell, and then the dark and airless hutches being created out of converted offices), and idleness (unemployment is bound to shoot up as furlough is withdrawn).
There is the horrible narrative that there is no alternative. Well, dammit, there are many alternatives. But how do we get there? Where is the opposition?
This is now heading to be a post in it’s own right
Thank you
Might there be a possibility of the continuance of anti-Covid precautions by a majority of the public becoming a form of salutary revolt against a callous government?
I hope so
I am deliberately wearing a mask now
The abuse of language by this Tory Party is what marks it out from previous iterations. I have never seen it before and the most amazing thing is that it has such a strong Orwellian tint to it.
I think something momentous has been happening to our politics – who would have thought that it would be a right wing Libertarian party using language like this. It was supposed to be hard left wasn’t it?
We’ve spent decades worrying about a hard left bogey man.
And instead it is the Right and the rich who have actually delivered an authoritarian regime with pretensions towards totalitarianism.
I do wonder what old George would make of all this.
Incredible.
Indeed
I’m reading Ezra Klein’s book “Why We’re Polarized” and speculating on how far something similar seems to operate in the UK. Or at least among people I know or read, who I once considered political allies. Some are friends with whom certain topics are now angry no-go areas. No more: “let’s talk more and see where we might agree.”
I wondered where Johnson fits into this. And how he gets away with it?
Then got to musing about the figure of the Joker or Trickster. Across cultures and through history and in different religious traditions. (I can’t be the first to have such an appalled thought.)
How far does Johnson’s cruel, asocial, irresponsible, shape-shifting performance art include elements, for example of:
Puck; or Anansi; or Coyote, or Br’er Rabbit; Juha; Loki, or even Batman’s foe the Joker?
It’s widely known and shown that Johnson is a habitual liar. That he tells endless tall stories. That he has no real respect for conventions, and breaks them with impunity. This is not simply known but apparently widely tolerated. And even celebrated.
The implication? That like Trump, it seems Johnson is impervious to any fact-checking and rational argument. Nor is he damaged by humour and ridicule. Immune also to embarrassment.
At a time of deadly crises our system has brought forth something which slouched towards Downing Street. And should make us shudder and our thumbs prick wildly.
Superb, PSR. Right on.
[…] comment was posted by regular commentator Andrew on the blog in response to my comment on freedom this morning. I […]
So amongst the madness released today our inglorious leaders have ended the scheme for businesses to get free lateral flow tests for staff. If the business is already registered in the scheme they have until midnight today to order more tests. My employer didn’t register so can’t get any free.
Okay, in normal times business have money to buy stuff and buying tests would be just another expense but these aren’t normal times.
Get that straw off the camel quick!
It gives me no pleasure in saying so, but nearly 100 COVID deaths were reported today. A government minister would reflexively say with false sincerity “sadly died” 🙁
The weekly total reported by ONS from death certificates has jumped from a little over 100 per week through most of May and June (that is, around 1,000 people in those 8 weeks) to over 200 in the week to 9 July. It could be over 300 by last week already. Sadly. 🙁
Hospitalisations have jumped up too: over 700 people admitted on each of 12, 13, 14 July. Over 4,500 people now in hospital with COVID. Over 600 on ventilation. So sad. As if this was unavoidable.
All the numbers were getting better and better until mid to late May.
This is where we were then: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57050860 “Allowing indoor mixing was always the step that concerned experts the most … Modelling earlier this year warned there could be a deadly summer surge – but that now looks overly pessimistic. … now the vaccines are going to take the load. … From the evidence gathered so far, they are more than up to the job in combating the dominant virus in the UK. … Some scientists are even suggesting the UK could be on brink of reaching herd immunity.” Fat chance!
Clearly the unlocking steps then – indoor hospitality, household mixing, foreign travel – went too far, too fast. But rather than pulling back, we have charged ahead. We are in for a torrid time over the summer. And then a resurgence of influenza and pneumonia in the autumn and winter.
Agreed