Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose

In graduate school, I read Isiah Berlin's essay about liberty.  Here's the crux of it:

As Berlin showed, negative and positive liberty are not merely two distinct kinds of liberty; they can be seen as rival, incompatible interpretations of a single political ideal. Since few people claim to be against liberty, the way this term is interpreted and defined can have important political implications. Political liberalism tends to presuppose a negative definition of liberty: liberals generally claim that if one favors individual liberty one should place strong limitations on the activities of the state. Critics of liberalism often contest this implication by contesting the negative definition of liberty: they argue that the pursuit of liberty understood as self-realization or as self-determination (whether of the individual or of the collectivity) can require state intervention of a kind not normally allowed by liberals.

According to those of us who are to the left of the political center, we need an active state that would watch out for the under-privileged who do not have the same opportunities to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that the privileged few take for granted.  This is why we support public education, for instance.

During this global pandemic, we are also the people who look to the state for a coordinated response that would address public health.  Thus, we support the government when it requires us to practice social distancing.  If the government says that wearing masks when in closed public spaces, we do it even if it fogs up our glasses, dammit! And when our fellow citizens suffer from loss of jobs and more, we want our government to help them and for which we are also willing to pay our share.

Our version of freedom differs from the twisted understanding of freedom that is championed by those on the other side of the political center.  Especially those who are far, far away on the extreme side.

This difference in the interpretation of freedom shows up in how we respond to "essential workers."  We people on the left side are the ones who demand that people doing the essential services--teachers, grocery store workers, agriculture labor, food industry workers, ...--ought to be paid more.  As this essay points out, “Essential” turns out to be not an honorific but an obligation."

What is "essential"?  Turns out that like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder.  Even baklavas can be essential!

Our differing understanding of freedom shows up in public policy:

In short, the question is now squarely put whether the full force and power of the state will be deployed behind those who can wield the economic compulsion of threatening to fire you if you won’t work in a life-threatening workplace, or whether our laws and government will stand with those who are the objects of such compulsion.

Do those essential workers have the freedom that we think they have?

Ultimately, the point of reopening is not to free voluntary workers but to place more into the category of “mandatory worker”: If your workplace is now reopened, you must return to it, or lose your job. Sure, plenty of people are dying to get back to work–once the reopeners have their way, however, many more will be dying from getting back to work. But—and here’s where the real issue of “freedom” comes in—they will have no real choice.

In November, we will decide, once again, which interpretation of freedom that the country prefers.