The president of the community of Madrid, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, defended freedom this Friday with a song by Calamaro before decorating the Argentine head of state, Javier Milei:
Those who lost her know her
Those who saw it up close, go far away
And those who found her again
The prisoners know her
Freedom
It is a good excuse to ask ourselves what kind of freedom they defend.
In hidden business, a highly recommended film, tells the story of Senay, an illegal immigrant who works in a hotel in the slums of London, whose situation becomes critical when the immigration authorities begin to suspect her illegal status and put pressure on her. With no other alternative, she agrees to her boss’s proposal to sell one of her kidneys in exchange for a fake passport. That scene reflects an extremely relevant debate for philosophy: Would you say that this decision was made with her consent or not?
Milei would definitely say yes. What’s more, in an interview (before being elected) they asked him about this issue and he answered the following: “Whoever decided to sell you the organ, how did it affect the life, property or freedom of others? Who are you to determine what he has to do with his life? Although this answer may be shocking, it is perfectly consistent with his libertarian conception of economics, the most extreme version of liberal thought.
But, to understand it, we have to investigate the very concept of “freedom”. This concept, which ranges from freedom of expression, to elect a government, to freedom of movement, has been the subject of philosophical, political and social debates throughout history. This led to it being understood in various ways, with the notions of “negative freedom” and “positive freedom” being the most prominent in modern liberal theory.
These two notions were elaborated by Isaiah Berlin in his famous lecture “Two Concepts of Freedom.” Negative freedom refers to the absence of obstacles, barriers or restrictions imposed by third parties. In this sense, a person is free to the extent that he is not subject to the interference of others. On the other hand, positive freedom implies the ability of a person to be fully aware of what he wants and act based on that, that is, to act based on his own will and with autonomy. This implies the ability to make informed and voluntary decisions, free of both external and internal coercion.
Returning to the example of Senay, from a negative conception this decision would be considered made with complete freedom, given that there is no type of impediment or restriction imposed by a third party that forced her to do so. On the other hand, from a positive conception of freedom, Senay would not have acted in accordance with his own will because there is an internal coercion that limits his real autonomy. If the only way a person sees to survive is to sell an organ, his or her ability to choose is significantly restricted. In this sense, the decision is not completely free because it is not an option made under conditions of equality and equity, but rather under the extreme pressure of the basic need for survival.
Now we are in a position to decipher Milei’s positioning. The libertarian approach is based on the belief that there is no one better than the individual himself to make his decisions. Thus, any attempt to regulate or restrict this choice by the State not only constitutes a violation of individual rights, but will lead to a worse outcome (in economic terms). For Milei, there is no case in which the State’s intervention is positive, not even in the case of a person who does not even have enough to eat. Therefore, the way to enhance individual freedom is through the shrinking of the State.
But is it really like that? The problem with any radical position is that it forgets the other part of the library. The positive conception of freedom is just as crucial for human well-being and development. The mere absence of restrictions is not enough to guarantee true freedom. A person who as a child was not well fed or who did not have access to education will have their ability to make decisions severely affected, restricting their autonomy and, therefore, their freedom. There is ample evidence that good nutrition is essential for brain development and cognitive abilities (see, for example, the review by Cohen et al), not to mention education.
True freedom must be understood not only as the absence of restrictions, but also as the ability to act with full autonomy. This demands a balance between positive and negative freedom, as well as between the role and degree of intervention of the State, given that the lack of access to basic resources – such as food, health or education – threatens against people’s ability to fully develop and, therefore, restrict their effective freedom.
For these reasons, the adjustment measures applied by Milei, especially those linked to cutting education and social assistance, although they can be seen as an attempt to reduce state intervention and promote freedom, are actually undermining it.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_
#freedom #Milei #defend