The Limits of Freedom
Where Politics Meets Reality
I have recently made some provocative post on my Instagram feed. I’ve questioned to motives of those who are against mask wearing, lockdown, and vaccinations. The counter arguments against some of my post do not seem to be grounded in evidence but a set of assumptions. These assumptions include that public health recommendations and mandates impede on individual freedom, so they’re wrong.
This argument about “freedom” doesn’t really address whether one is making a reasonable choice to not wear a mask or become vaccinated but seem to be a means to give that person carte blanche irrespective of consequence. Nevertheless, we need to address the foundational question, what is meant by freedom?
In discussions with these individuals it seems as if they’re talking about freedom in society. The society in which they live in permits personal freedom to do as they see fit, but even in societies such as the USA there are inherent limitations to “freedom”.
Perhaps a more descriptive interpretation of the word “freedom” is the concept of liberty. Liberty is the ability to do and say as one pleases without restriction, so it is often synonymous with our understanding of freedom. If liberty is meant by freedom then we would have to discuss the philosophical and legal nuances of liberty. In this discussion we will go over some of the limitations of liberty and different considerations for this concept.
Liberty is a defining characteristic of liberalism, a philosophical and political position which seeks to maximize one’s liberty in a society. While there are different renditions of liberalism in the modern sense we are discussing more classical ideas. Nevertheless, liberty is a main idea coming from liberalism.
There is a distinction between negative and positive liberty. Negative liberty is the absence of obstacles, barriers, or constraints. Positive liberty is the possibility of acting or acting in such a way as to take control of one's life and realize one's fundamental purposes. Liberalism usually emphasizes negative freedoms which would include reducing the powers of the state to maximize a persons liberty (ironic I know). However, removing barriers does not take into consideration self determination and realization which we would consider important for maximizing one’s freedom. Removing constraints of the state does not necessarily mean a person can do something they would like to do. Therefore, to maximize positive liberty there might have to be state intervention and collective action.
However, philosopher Isaiah Berlin suggested the chance positive liberty can carry the danger of authoritarianism. There might be ways to rationalize oppression in the name of liberty for both minorities and majority by appealing to a persons desires. Negative liberty theorist reject this by denouncing the idea there is a relationship between freedom and desire, in their view being free means being unhindered in doing things even if that includes what you DO NOT desire to do.
Strangely, a person can become free by contending with their situation, but we wouldn’t necessarily think of a slave being free even if they’re content being a slave. But what if someone feels free even when in bondage? Who is to say freedom is some external given property? The Stoics and Buddhist tend to argue for inner freedom but we often don’t consider this to be “freedom” so there must be another way.
Another issue with the negative liberty theory is that by removing obstacles this doesn’t guarantee something like autonomy and self realization as other agents (people) are in the picture. There are other potential ways to view liberty outside of a totalitarian regime and a minimized state. One potential alternative is republican liberty (no not the USA political party) where freedom depends on status as a citizen and a set of guarantees for non-interference by the state you know like a constitution and a Bill of Rights. Yet, this concept runs into problems as well because non-interference does not guarantee autonomy and self determination. A slave can have a master that doesn’t interfere with their lives much, but that doesn’t mean the slave is free. A way to circumvent this issue is with status, as status as a citizen should prevent interference of any kind. However, status still needs to be agreed upon in a given society, there is an assumption non-interference safeguards freedom, and there are other people we have to deal with.
One of the first to defend freedom of speech and freedom of character was philosopher John Stuart Mill. His treatise, called On Liberty, outlines the argument for free speech and freedom of character. Mill is in favor of limiting interference by the state on peoples ability to speak their opinion and develop themselves, so we can frame him as a negative liberty theorist. However, even Mill has to admit to particular times where interference is necessary.
“the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” (Liberty, XVIII: 223; cf. Liberty, XVIII: 292)
This concept of preventing harm is known as Mill’s harm principle. This principle entails government intervention to only be necessary when a person can actually harm someone. The problem lies with what we mean by “harm”. Mill meant physical harm and bodily injury but the growing body of literature from the cognitive sciences informs us there is such thing as “psychological harm”, we treat war veterans for psychologically inflicted harm on a consistent basis.
If we define harm not only in a physical sense but also in a psychological or emotional sense we still would have to prevent harm. We know drinking alcoholic beverages impairs ones ability to drive a car which can lead to an accident causing bodily harm to another person. So, lawmakers prevent the harm in the first place by limiting drinking and driving. But doesn’t this impede on my freedom to drink while I drive? Considering that freedom violates another persons freedom to not die from an unnecessary car accident… my freedom to drink while I drive is nullified by the harm I can possibly cause. Notice I said “possibly” as we cannot definitively prove drinking vast amounts of alcohol while driving a vehicle will cause an accident but it greatly increases the odds.
Similar logic can be deployed when talking about vaccinations, mask wearing, and COVID-19. Consider the infectiousness of the SARS-COV-2 delta variant more people are at risk for contracting COVID-19 which is a major health risk to many individuals both health and with underlying conditions (considering those with underlying conditions make up millions of people in the USA alone). Those who are unvaccinated have an increased chance of severe infection compared to those who are vaccinated because they’re more likely to become infected. Wearing mask and getting vaccinated are strongly supported interventions for preventing COVID-19 infection and its spread. Getting the vaccine is wayyyy less risky than the virus itself and there is no compelling evidence wearing a mask causes detrimental risk.
We also have evidence refusing to get vaccinated against preventable disease can lead to resurgence of that disease and possible death. Deciding to not get vaccinated, similarly to deciding to drink and drive, is an individual decision which can harm another person. Not being vaccinated can increase levels of infections which can lead to physical harm being perpetuated in the short and long term. This harm is in line with the original rendition of Mill’s harm principle, individual actions which causes physical harm to other violates their freedom as well leading to the need for state intervention.
The conceptual basis of freedom needs to be question in line with what is meant by it. If freedom pertains to liberty there needs to be open discussion in terms of positive (internal) liberty and negative (external) liberty. We also need to mention the constraints of liberty or freedom as a society cannot function with everyone doing whatever they please. Mill makes the case constraints should be seen in terms of harm and reducing harm done to other. COVID-19 harms other people, vaccinations and face mask reduce this harm, and deciding to not get vaccinated can increase this harm in greater proportion than being vaccinated. Using the excuse of “freedom” in order to not get vaccinated or wear a mask is insufficient as an argument.