There was discussion here recently on the merits of preparing a manifesto summarising the ideas that underpin this blog.
It was suggested that Franklin D Roosevelt's four great freedoms might be a starting point. He elaborated these in a speech in 1941. His aim was to provide a reason for the USA to break its isolationism. Later that year Pearl Harbour made the case in a very different way.
Roosevelt said these freedoms were the right to enjoy:
- Freedom of speech
- Freedom of worship
- Freedom from want
- Freedom from fear
I reflected on these, and powerful though that list is I felt it inadequate eighty years later.
As a result I suggest that people have the right to freedom of:
- Belief
- Speech
- Association
- Movement
- Choice
- Identity
I comment, briefly, as follows:
Belief. Important as free speech is the ultimate and inalienable right of each person is to think what they wish. This is the essence of our humanity. As such I believe it a freedom that needs to be noted. No one has the right to take that freedom away, and I think many try to do so. That is what propaganda is about.
Speech. The right to free speech is vital. Without the right to free speech there is no hope of ideas developing, changing or of influencing outcomes. This freedom includes the right to disagree, to offend and to be rightfully angry. However, it does not include the right to intimidate, persecute or prejudice. Freedom ends when another is oppressed. The right to feee speech is constrained and yet within that constraint, which is virtuous in itself, it is absolute.
Association. We are communal beings. We must have the right to congregate unless that assembly has the intention of intimidating, persecuting or prejudicing, none of which is implicit in reasoned disagreement. In association with the freedoms of belief and speech I believe this right embraces the freedom to worship.
Movement. Most humans have the ability to move. We aim to provide it to those denied that ability. That movement is innate to our being. Movement is, however, about more than that. The freedom to move is a part of our desire to be who we might be, with the persons we might want to be with, doing what it is that we wish in the place that empowers us to achieve our goals. Freedom of movement is essential to the right to achieve our well-being. It is no wonder that it is at the hear of so much that is disputed.
Choice. Freedom is about the right to decide. It is our choice to decide what is right and wrong. It is our right to persuade others of the merits of our choice. It is our right to decide when to speak, or not; and to associate, and not to do so; and when to move, or not; and of what to procure from within our means, or not; and of what to offer others in exchange. This right to choose is essential to us and who we are.
Identity. The purpose of life is hard to define, and yet most people think it has one. When considered, that purpose appears to be to find out who we are, and how as a result we are best able to identify what it is that meets our needs. There are as many answers to that question as there are people, and given that we change, probably more than that. The importance of identity is that it is our essence, and so so we must be able to choose what our identity is and be respected for doing so. Identity expresses our essence.
All this being said, freedom comes with responsibility. There can be no freedom for some that denies the freedom of others, because such a freedom represents a falsehood because it is necessarily constrained by those limits it imposes.
The responsibility that the quest for freedom imposes is the duty to ensure that no one should live in fear of:
- Want.
- Exploitation.
- Persecution, intimidation or prejudice.
Whilst either exists we cannot be free because the freedom of others is constrained.
This, however, creates a collective responsibility, because who is to be the arbiter of this? That is the role of democratic government.
Democratic government embraces the freedoms noted.
It should act as their custodian.
It assumes the responsibility to arbitrate on disputes on the boundaries of our freedoms, being entrusted to do so as a result of our freedom to choose.
Doing so, democratic government must also accept its responsibilities. As a result it must:
- Seek a mandate for its actions.
- Respect and uphold the laws it and its predecessors have enacted.
- Respect and uphold the international obligations into which it has entered.
- Provide a right of appeal against the decisions it has made, irrespective of the means of the person making that claim.
- Accept its obligation to leave office when an election result demands that it do so.
- Accept that in all it does it must ensure that, as best it is able, each person has a right to the freedoms already noted.
I have no doubt that these ideas are not fully formulated as yet.
Comments are welcome.
Saying so, please note that these are high level statements of purpose. I have yet to get to what they mean in terms of delivery. That comes next.
NB: This article was amended to add freedom from exploitation at 9.43am on 12 March. I realised its absence was a definite mistake.
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:
Thank you for a most important article!
Might one add “Education”/“Analytical Communicative Education”?
That is in the delivery section
The UK is not one of the countries that guarantees equality under the law
https://twitter.com/Mickmac45049764/status/1579882746369171456?s=20
Another area of difference from Ireland – – the now Tory-free former part of the UK that has a fairer, more equal, better educated and better off society. Any Irish citizen (not subject) will tell you it’s because of PR and EU membership, but a non-forelock tugging culture is surely part of it.
https://twitter.com/Mickmac45049764/status/1579882746369171456?s=20
I would specify some of these differently, tangible rights that people can appreciate. Partly based on Maslows Hierarchy of Needs, I would go for the following:
A right to:
⦾ Good health (mental and physical)
⦾ Food and water
⦾ A home
⦾ A job
⦾ An education
⦾ Emancipation
⦾ A vote
Those are in my delivery section, coming next
They are not freedoms but means to deliver freedom from want, in the main
You can’t have a right to good health as it’s largely chance. You can have a right to good health care.
It is not chance.
It is total arrogance to say so.
Health is heavily correlated with poverty, as is life expectancy.
Poverty is not a choice. It is imposed.
Where progressives are getting this completely wrong is the recent notion, in the name of diversity, that ‘rights’ extend to imposing one’s belief and identity on others. This ‘diversity’ ironically demands complete conformity of thought, so much so that even the most innocent question is labelled as hate speech.
So, in the end freedom to believe/identify trumps freedom of speech. This has reached insane levels of toxic self-righteousness in the gender debate, where, for example, women who defend sex-based safe spaces for females are vilified as nazis. Those who express sympathy get cancelled. The harms go on from there: the ideologically-driven prescribing of puberty-blocking hormones to children; homophobic accusations that lesbians and gays are transphobic if they are not attracted to people who identify as their gender.
The gender identity activists behind this bleat constantly about rights, but, as you rightly point out Richard “There can be no freedom for some that denies the freedom of others”. Its high time that the whistle is blown on this nonsense and that progressives who support it frankly grow up.
PS For those unfamiliar with this issue (as I was myself until quite recently) I thoroughly recommend this video of Helen Joyce (author of the book “Trans) in conversation with economist Sir Partha Dasgupta https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqZmx265N80
So my question is, have I got the balance right?
You can see I am not endorsing cancelling
I am opposing persecution, oppression and prejudice.
And I suggest a mechanism for adjudication. But is that enough?
No, the balance is too weak – Yes by all means the freedom to choose one’s identity and “be respected for doing so” seems fair and decent.
However, it is of vital importance to make it clear that such a deeply personal freedom does expressly not then extend to demanding of others that they too must also believe what that individual believes. Moreover, this freedom should not demand that anyone who happens disagree with such a self-identification is guilty of a hate crime.
Respect cuts both ways here and that seems, very sadly, to have been forgotten by far too many people who like to think of themselves as progressive.
You confuse agreeing and respecting
Disagreement is fine
Disrespecting is not
Tolerance is required
I agrees that when oppression is not implicit in disagreeing it must be mutual
Having a trans nephew and met friends of my daughters, trans man and trans woman, I believe the trans acceptance is on the whole a healthy and progressive change in general understanding of gender issues and seems to have helped them to lead a less oppressive life. It is sometimes complicated with no right answers (yet) for some things. Transphobia is real and dangerous as we recently saw with the murder of Brianna Ghey. There are reasons for puberty blockers, from my not very informed understanding it blocks puberty until an age when the person can more make a more mature decision as to whether they want a sex change which is controversial but may not be wrong . Helen Joyce is also controversial and maybe should be read or viewed along with something like https://medium.com/@notCursedE/the-guardian-is-transphobic-eebd0d5ea63a
Maybe both sides of the debate should be working out how to get to a reasonable Freedom from Fear and Acceptance of Diversity solution without screaming “YOU ARE TAKING AWAY MY FREEDOM” at each other.
Yes re trans: the debate needs to continue to create understanding
No re puberty blockers: they oppress
Trans acceptance is indeed a healthy and progressive change. However, whilst we certainly should respect the beliefs of others, we equally should not be bound by them. For instance, I can respect someone’s religious beliefs, whilst not sharing that belief myself. Moreover, both sides will be understanding of the other’s viewpoint without any rancour. In short no harm was meant and none was taken.
Yet the belief that one is ‘trans’ is somehow elevated above such an extremely basic principle.
Sorry, I can’t agree that Helen Joyce is ‘controversial’. She is the very epitome of calm reason, which no doubt is why Sir Partha Dasgupta invited her to Cambridge. It is very telling that Helen has sought to debate with trans activists for years, but none will come forward.
I have listed this, but trans debate is not an issue for this site.
FDR delivered that speech faced with specific circumstances. He spoke of…
“Freedom of Speech” – he starts his list with the “standard” freedom that nobody could object to before developing it…..
“Freedom of Worship” in the face of widespread anti-semitic (and anti-Catholic) prejudice.
“Freedom from Want” in response to the grinding poverty of the 30s (the speech was delivered in January 1941 with GDP still bellow 1929 levels)
“Freedom from fear” in the face of war raging in Europe, Manchuria and rising tensions in the Pacific.
So, what would be right for the circumstances we are in today? What has changed….. and it appears that not much!
So, rather than reflect on what changes are needed we should take time out to recall what real Leadership is about. FDR delivered radical policies in both peace and wartime in the face of bitter opposition (yes, history tends to blank out the bitter opposition he faced at every turn)…. AND won 3 elections!
Perhaps (Keir) this is the message for today.
I agree that you are right to contextualise what FDR said
Hence my updating
Have I gone far enough whilst being sufficiently general?
Richard
Prima facie nothing to argue with, all good stuff. But…………….
How are you going to deal with the science of fascism?
It’s all very well saying that one can say what one believes and also respond as one believes but………I don’t know – there needs to be a high level of expectation of HOW you say what you believe and HOW you respond.
Freedoms have to come with conditions. They have to be earnt by meeting those conditions. All of the time.
We’ve got to remember that the Nazis built a whole culture on responding to real things and then blowing them out of proportion and twisting the whole story. In Nazi Germany, it was the capitulation after WW1 (a bad war, totally manufactured by the German elite) and the ensuing economic problems caused by the Allies in the follow-on peace. Ultimately, the Nazis ended up blaming the whole thing on the Jews – a complete confection – that led to the horror of WWII.
Going forward for the species, I thought that the key was to either remove the causality of discontent that can be exploited by Fascists through social policy and peace or acknowledge the discontent and seek to mitigate it/them by talking – both political acts that to me at the moment seem beyond our very limited political culture – but nevertheless should be revived.
Win/win, accommodation and compromise or action through policy.
I can see how these elements I’m suggesting would work in the operations side of your post but I still maintain that there has to be something in terms of ‘essential behaviour’ at the higher level as an expectation or objective.
We’ve got to remember that Fascism promotes unreason, and unreason is cunning. Fascism is very clever. Let us not let our justified disgust of it fail to acknowledge that, eh?
With respect,
PSR.
PSR
There is a mighty lot of conditionality in what I have written
Sure, these are rights, but it is clear they have responsibilities attached and the requirement for democracy built in
Is that not enough?
Ignore the delivery as yet. Are there insufficient protections in this list?
Richard
Richard
We have acknowledged here countless times that we are living in a world that is dominated by a mindset that promotes individualism at the expense of the collective – society, the planet.
Is it clear that rights have responsibilities in this context? I’m not convinced – sorry. You’ve said yourself we’re in a bad place.
An overarching re-statement of the link between rights and responsibilities is needed – it’s a coverall – but especially to those vested interests who shape this ‘reality’ – the rule breakers who do not like rules, and think themselves above it all, think themselves to be the exception, those who by exception make themselves sovereign.
There we are, with no mal-intent on my part.
Noted, but I think I have addressed that.
What do others think?
At risk being annoying – I asked chatGPT for some ideas, taking account of Roosevelt and Beveridge – came up with this :
Sure, here are some key elements that could define a good society, drawing from Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” and Beveridge’s “Five Giants”:
Economic Security: A good society should provide economic security to its citizens, ensuring that they have access to basic needs such as food, housing, healthcare, and education. This can be achieved through policies like social security, unemployment benefits, minimum wage laws, and affordable healthcare.
Freedom from Fear: A good society should ensure that its citizens are free from fear, both in terms of physical safety and economic security. This can be achieved through policies like crime prevention, gun control, and anti-terrorism measures.
Freedom of Speech and Expression: A good society should protect the right of its citizens to free speech and expression, allowing them to voice their opinions and engage in political discourse without fear of persecution or censorship.
Freedom of Worship: A good society should protect the right of its citizens to worship as they choose, without discrimination or persecution.
Universal Education: A good society should provide access to quality education for all its citizens, regardless of their background or socio-economic status.
Healthcare for All: A good society should ensure that everyone has access to quality healthcare, regardless of their ability to pay.
Protection of Workers’ Rights: A good society should protect workers’ rights and ensure that they are treated fairly and with dignity. This can be achieved through policies like minimum wage laws, worker safety regulations, and collective bargaining rights.
Social Justice: A good society should promote social justice and equality, ensuring that everyone has equal opportunities and access to resources regardless of their race, gender, sexuality, or religion.
Environmental Protection: A good society should prioritize environmental protection and sustainability, taking measures to mitigate the effects of climate change and protect natural resources for future generations.
Poverty Reduction: A good society should work to reduce poverty and inequality, providing assistance to those in need and promoting economic growth that benefits everyone.
These elements draw on Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” of speech, worship, freedom from fear, and freedom from want, as well as Beveridge’s “Five Giants” of want, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness. By addressing these key issues, a good society can create an environment in which all citizens can thrive and achieve their full potential.
I then asked again and got:
Can you list what defines a ‘good coiety’, taking into account Rossevelts ‘freedoms’ and Beveredges’s ‘giants’ etc
Sure, here are some key elements that could define a good society, drawing from Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” and Beveridge’s “Five Giants”:
Economic Security: A good society should provide economic security to its citizens, ensuring that they have access to basic needs such as food, housing, healthcare, and education. This can be achieved through policies like social security, unemployment benefits, minimum wage laws, and affordable healthcare.
Freedom from Fear: A good society should ensure that its citizens are free from fear, both in terms of physical safety and economic security. This can be achieved through policies like crime prevention, gun control, and anti-terrorism measures.
Freedom of Speech and Expression: A good society should protect the right of its citizens to free speech and expression, allowing them to voice their opinions and engage in political discourse without fear of persecution or censorship.
Freedom of Worship: A good society should protect the right of its citizens to worship as they choose, without discrimination or persecution.
Universal Education: A good society should provide access to quality education for all its citizens, regardless of their background or socio-economic status.
Healthcare for All: A good society should ensure that everyone has access to quality healthcare, regardless of their ability to pay.
Protection of Workers’ Rights: A good society should protect workers’ rights and ensure that they are treated fairly and with dignity. This can be achieved through policies like minimum wage laws, worker safety regulations, and collective bargaining rights.
Social Justice: A good society should promote social justice and equality, ensuring that everyone has equal opportunities and access to resources regardless of their race, gender, sexuality, or religion.
Environmental Protection: A good society should prioritize environmental protection and sustainability, taking measures to mitigate the effects of climate change and protect natural resources for future generations.
Poverty Reduction: A good society should work to reduce poverty and inequality, providing assistance to those in need and promoting economic growth that benefits everyone.
These elements draw on Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” of speech, worship, freedom from fear, and freedom from want, as well as Beveridge’s “Five Giants” of want, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness. By addressing these key issues, a good society can create an environment in which all citizens can thrive and achieve their full potential.
—————————————————————
I then asked if we needed additions or modifications in thelight of tredns since Rossevelt etc
Yes, there have been significant changes and trends since Roosevelt and Beveridge’s time that require us to modify or add to the elements that define a good society. Here are some potential additions/modifications:
Digital Rights: As technology has advanced, there is a growing need to protect individuals’ privacy and digital rights. A good society should ensure that citizens’ personal data is protected, and that they have control over their online identities and access to the internet.
Mental Health: In recent years, mental health has become an increasingly important issue, with rising rates of depression, anxiety, and other mental health conditions. A good society should prioritize mental health services and support, including access to therapy and mental health care.
Diversity and Inclusion: There is a growing recognition of the importance of diversity and inclusion in society. A good society should strive to promote diversity and inclusion in all aspects of life, including education, employment, and civic engagement.
Aging Population: Many countries are facing an aging population, which presents new challenges for social security and healthcare systems. A good society should ensure that elderly citizens are provided with adequate support and resources to live with dignity and respect.
Environmental Sustainability: While environmental protection is already included as an element of a good society, there is an increasing urgency to address the climate crisis and transition to a sustainable economy. A good society should prioritize efforts to reduce carbon emissions, protect biodiversity, and promote sustainable development.
Technological Innovation: The rapid pace of technological innovation has brought about new opportunities and challenges. A good society should promote innovation while also ensuring that it does not have negative impacts on society, such as job displacement or increased inequality.
These are just a few examples of how the definition of a good society might need to be modified or expanded to address trends and changes over the decades since Roosevelt and Beveridge. Ultimately, the definition of a good society should be flexible and responsive to the evolving needs and priorities of society.
Richard, how do you square your calls to freedom with the fact they can all be taken away by the stroke of a single man’s pen, as seen during covid lockdowns, which you whole heartedly supported?
Do you have to add to each freedom ….except when…
Or are these freedoms subject to the whims of master controllers?
So, you have never heard of a national emergency?
Weird….
I would say that all rights are subject to context and circumstances. Free speech may be up there, but I don’t think that gives you a right verbally harass and mentally abuse someone.
Richard,
It doenst help that I am rather tired right now after visiting my oldest son at University.
My comment however might be that FDR’s 4 Freedoms and Beveridges 5 giants is that they are very short and understandable, the challenge is to try and express your ideas in possibly no more than 6 words. Clearly you will need to leave a lot unsaid or implied but I suggest that capturing the simplicity of those statements is something to aim for.
I disagree
I am seeking robustness
Bit of a mishmash, but here is ChatGPT’s summary – , here is a summary of the key elements that define a good society:
Economic Security
Freedom from Fear
Freedom of Speech and Expression
Freedom of Worship
Universal Education
Healthcare for All
Protection of Workers’ Rights
Social Justice
Environmental Protection
Poverty Reduction
Digital Rights
Mental Health
Diversity and Inclusion
Aging Population Support
Environmental Sustainability
Technological Innovation
Welcome to being a socialist!