The debate surrounding the definition of freedom has been going on for centuries. Now more than ever the restrictions put in place due to the pandemic are calling into question whether there has been increased undermining of our civil liberties; prompting scrutiny of the government’s validity in transgressing upon our freedom.
An anti-lockdown protest on the 23rd of February run by a group of musicians inspired me to write this article. They performed songs such as ‘I want to Break Free’ on Acton Green, claiming to be celebrating freedom, their breach of Covid regulations a symbol of their defiance of infringement on their fundamental rights. They finally left after many police officers asked them to leave, yet it was reported that no fixed penalties were issued.
Philosopher Isaiah Berlin notably made a distinction between negative and positive liberty. The possession of negative liberty means an individual is not enslaved by external forces and obstacles and is free from interference of others. Constrastingly, positive liberty is an ‘exercise-concept’ - the individual has the capacity to act upon their free will but is internally restrained by weakness, fear etc. This distinction is useful when examining ideas of freedom during the global pandemic.
The central tenet of our legal system lies with the protection of negative liberty. Legislature in Human Rights Acts and Constitutions prevents the state from interfering with our freedom, this a significant part of the foundation of liberal democracies. However, traditionalist rhetoric of anti-maskers and anti-lockdown protestors invoking the reclamation of their freedom and ethos of liberty are failing to recognise the nuanced definition of liberty. Ostensibly these protestors claim to defend freedom - they state lockdown is taking away our right to spend time with many people and go wherever we like, however this argument can only be applied to personal rather than collective freedom. This begs the question, are advocates for no restrictions during the pandemic justified in their pursuit of individual freedom?
Social irresponsibility is thriving in this pandemic. If all we wanted was freedom to meet up with many households and not wear facial protection without being fined or punished, then this question would be a matter of negative freedom; however the disregard for the welfare of others raises a much more morally relevant question. Liberty operates on social values of acceptance, empathy and inclusivity. People’s defiance of government guidance and thus abandonment of civil responsibility to protect the lives of others demonstrates their possession of positive liberty- they have no internal restraint from doing what they want. This freedom is not inherently good. Ultimately collective freedom, which does not deem momentary losses of trivial freedoms as morally reprehensible, indicates liberty is not ipso facto a noble ideal and can perhaps give grounds for violations of freedom.
It can be said that democracy, rather paradoxically, is often justified in its restraint and coercion. Author Astra Taylor wrote recently in an article that ‘coercion, while often lamentable, is a democratic necessity, and choice, while it sounds desirable, is not necessarily an unalloyed democratic good.’ Therefore, the argument supporting the state's restrictions can be taken even further by defending it’s political legitimacy to prohibit certain behavior for the greater good. Additionally, often the government can only provide guidance for prohibiting certain actions in order to protect national health, this guidance often not backed by legislation. Awareness of restrictions and the implications of not following them, rather than pure coercion from the state, create a culture of moral disapprobation as social pressure becomes a salient instrument for adherence to new social norms. Such community self-policing can indicate that the state, even during a health emergency when it has a responsibility to protect its citizens, does not rely solely on draconian reductions to our freedom.
Even the strictest government measures often rely on positive liberty rather than forceful coercion, are backed by broad democratic support and are faced by continual scrutiny by representatives and the press. So even if these restrictions significantly impede our individual freedom, how much value does it really have in the absence of collective well-being, safety and happiness?
