Who'll defend freedom?

In the last few days we’ve seen rightists attempt to bully Greta Thunberg out of the public sphere rather than engage with her arguments; Tony Blair’s demand for ID cards and that immigrants have a duty to integrate; and rightists (backfiring) efforts to shame Diane Abbott for drinking on a train. These all have something in common. They show that the right and centre are enemies of freedom*.

These are not the only examples, nor the worst. New Labour created thousands of new criminal offences, a trend continued by the Tory government such as in its ban on legal highs, its counterproductive porn block and its "hostile environment" policy. Very many Tories and Cuks voted last year against legalizing cannabis. Chuka Umunna, following the centrist Emmanuel Macron, wants to reintroduce forced labour. And of course demands to end freedom of movement and restrict immigration are by definition demands to curb freedom.

The only reference the Cuks made to freedom in their launch statement (pdf) was that: “our free media, the rule of law, and our open, tolerant and respectful democratic society should be cherished and renewed.” This looks a little like valuing the freedom of corporations more than that of individuals.

To people of my vintage, this illiberalism looks odd. In my formative years anti-leftists claimed to cherish freedom, and attacked the Soviet Union for denying it to their people.

Which poses the question: why, then, are they so opposed to liberty today?

Partly, it’s because they always have been. Many cold warriors were not sincere libertarians, but only appealed to freedom as a stick with which to beat the USSR. Many of them supported Pinochet and apartheid, and the criminalization of homosexuality. The freedom they valued was the freedom to exploit others.

Another reason is that the enemy of freedom is fanaticism. Friedrich Hayek wrote:

Since the value of freedom rests on the opportunities it provides for unforeseeable and unpredictable actions, we will rarely know what we lose through a particular restriction of freedom. Any such restriction, any coercion other than the enforcement of general rules, will aim at the achievement of some foreseeable particular result, but what is prevented by it will usually not be known....And so, when we decide each issue solely on what appear to be its individual merits, we always over-estimate the advantages of central direction. (Law Legislation and Liberty Vol I, p56-57.)

The more confident you are about your own beliefs, the more weight you’ll attach to the individual merits of any infraction of freedom and the less weight to unforeseeable actions. So you’ll be more inclined to curtail freedom. Although centrists think of themselves of moderates, this is often mere self-love: you can be a fanatical centrist just as much as you can be a fanatical leftist or rightist. Fanaticism and extremism are different things.

There’s something else. Centrists and rights have long been naïve about power. Many have been over-optimistic about the extent to which it will be used benignly, no doubt in part because it has traditionally been exercised by jolly good chaps like themselves. It is for this reason that they have long been too relaxed about the coercion that occurs within corporate hierarchies. But the same thinking – or lack thereof – extends to political power. If it is people like you who will exercise power, and minorities or working class people who’ll be on the dirty end of it, you’ll be relaxed about arrogating power to the state.

Which brings me to a forgotten fact. Before the 20^th century, freedom was a leftist ideal: think of Tom Paine, John Stuart Mill, the young Marx, Adam Smith’s jaundiced view of the “rich and great”, or the first word of the motto of the French revolutionaries.  There was a simple reason for this: they all knew that restrictions of freedom helped the rich and powerful and hurt the poor and powerless. It is time for the left to reclaim the value of freedom – because, let’s face it, nobody else will.

* Of course, rightists are quick to claim to value free speech. But Dawn Foster has a point: the infringements of freedom of which they complain are often no such thing but are instead the hitherto voiceless merely answering back.

Comments

[Dipper]

"In the last few days we’ve seen rightists attempt to bully Greta Thunberg out of the public sphere rather than engage with her arguments;"

That's right. Because unelected people taking actions that disrupt ordinary peoples lives, going on television issuing lists of demands, are not engaging in arguments. They are enforcing their views on people against their will.

There has been plenty of discussion around the UK's success in lowering carbon emissions and increasing use of renewable energy, most of which the XR people refuse to acknowledge.

[Dipper]

... and Dawn Foster is the price we pay for Free speech. Long may she continue to write rubbish.

[Dipper]

"If it is people like you who will exercise power, and minorities or working class people who’ll be on the dirty end of it, you’ll be relaxed about arrogating power to the state."

Brexit in a nutshell.

[Ralph Musgrave]

The basic flaw in Chris’s argument is that restrictions on freedom for some exist so as to enhance the freedom of others. The London Underground ban on alcohol which Dianne Abbot ignored exists so as increase the freedom of ordinary Underground passengers to enjoy their journeys free from larger louts, vomit and drunken brawls.

And restrictions on immigration enhance various freedoms of the native population: e.g. the freedom to buy houses at a reasonable price, and the freedom to go for walks in the countryside rather than see more of the country disappear under concrete. Restrictions on immigration also tend to increase the freedom of the native population being able to buy meat from animals slaughtered in a humane way, rather than via Halal methods.

[Staberinde]

Fair points, Chris. But you'll forgive others for pointing out that the Left's record on freedom is no less problematic. Plenty would like to outlaw private schools and healthcare, police the language people use and force social mixing through housing policy, to give just a few examples.

I appreciate you write as a decentralising Marxist, but equally, you represent a niche within the Left and one might say that similar niches exist within the Right and Centrism which agree with you.

Alternatively, the debate becomes definitional. What Left and Right mean by 'freedom' are different, but no less intellectually valid. Perhaps we need different words for them? Freedom from want vs. freedom of choice seems to be the usual dividing line, no?

[Scratch]

"... and Dawn Foster is the price we pay for Free speech. Long may she continue to write rubbish."

At the risk of lowering the tone, her headshot in The Guardian reminds me of Hancock's self portrait in The Rebel.

[Anarcho]

"Because unelected people taking actions that disrupt ordinary peoples lives, going on television issuing lists of demands, are not engaging in arguments. They are enforcing their views on people against their will."

But unelected bosses giving orders that pollute the planet and so disrupt ordinary peoples lives is fine? I guess, for the right, profit always wins out against individual rights (or do externalities not count as violations of an individual's property rights?)

And, surely, the protesters are also "ordinary people"? How do we class people as "ordinary"? In-so-far as they do not act to improve their conditions? In other words, have a slave mentality?

As for "not engaging in arguments," well, we have been arguing over pollution since at least the 1960s (see Murray Bookchin's classic works, for example). The science of the issue is proven beyond reasonable doubt. So people have been winning the argument for decades -- and nothing much has changed, thanks in part to bosses of corporations ("unelected people") funding think tanks and pressurising government not to act.

And, finally, the right have a long history of supporting fascism. von Mises and von Hayek happily supported fascist regimes:

Propertarianism and Fascism
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/propertarianism-fascism

Particularly to crush the labour movement because, you know, they are "unelected people taking actions that disrupt ordinary peoples lives" -- you see, rebel workers are not "ordinary people" and the State should crush them...

I guess this shows that the right are not interested in liberty -- unless it is the "liberty" of the capitalist class to do what it likes...

[Jan Wiklund]

It's all about who is at liberty of causing nuisance to others.

There will always be laws, even in an imagined perfectly egalitarian society. And laws imply restriction of some people's freedom. In an inegalitarian society you will have some laws restricting liberty for all for the benefit of all, but also laws restricting liberty of the poor to the benefit of the rich.

The trouble is distinguishing which is which.

[georgesdelatour]

@Jan Wiklund

If you want to put and keep people in a state of homeostatic perfect equality, you’ll have to apply massive amounts of coercion. Relax the coercion even slightly and inequalities will quickly reemerge.

[Dipper]

@ Anarcho

'unelected' bosses (apart from by the shareholders) generally act in a completely predictable way, in that they maximise the profit for the shareholder within the legal and financial framework set by governments. Those 'unelected bosses' have delivered significant reductions in CO2 output in the UK, and have delivered renewable technologies.

Governments have engaged in debates, have moved to recognising the science behind climate change, and brought about legislation and taxation that encourages renewables....

[Dipper]

... and amongst all the hysteria I missed the policy recommendations from XR. So, please could someone point me to the list of policies they are advocating?

[georgesdelatour]

Chris

The really interesting question, which goes beyond left-right bifurcation, is whether democracy and freedom are automatically compatible.

I think they’re only compatible if the former is embedded in a well-defended cultural preference for the latter.

On the eve of the (failed) Arab Spring, a Pew Global survey revealed that 86% of Egyptians believed the state should execute people who leave Islam. It was obvious that a democracy operating under such a cultural preference was very unlikely to increase freedom. Rather, it was virtually certain to reduce it.

This is why the issue of de-platforming people like Germaine Greer from addressing UK Universities is worrying. These de-platformers exhibit a strong cultural preference against freedom, and they’ll be setting the national agenda soon enough.

[cjcjc]

Greta Thunberg does not have “arguments”.
She has hyperbole.

[georgesdelatour]

“Before the 20th century, freedom was a leftist ideal: think of … the first word of the motto of the French revolutionaries.”

The French Revolutionary terror killed more people in five years than the Spanish Inquisition did in 200. The War in the Vendée alone killed around 200,000 people.

[Dipper]

This whole Greta Thunberg is nonsense.

She is not the only 16 year old with opinions. the EDL have a strong youth contingent. Should we listen to 16 year-olds who support the EDL? If not, why not?

On whose guidance should I rely in my choice of 16-year old political gurus? And if I am having my 16-year old leaders pre-selected, then I'm not really listening to 16 year olds, am I, I'm listening to adults using 16-year olds as human shields for their opinions.

Why not just limit voting to people aged 16?

[Ralph Musgrave]

Scratch,

Shame on you for drawing attention to Dawn Foster's ugly mug. Surely the real problem is her pea sized brain and the pea sized brains of other broadsheet journalists?

[Scratch]

Heh. I think it's the colour palette with the red background rather than any particularly outstanding personal unsightliness.

But yes, the standard of broadsheet (and other bourgeois outlets) commentators has gone through the floor, you're fundamentally going out your way to be obviously lied to/at.