There’s an old joke that I like to tell, when inappropriate, a blag about democracy. I’ll say that “I believe in one man one vote”, but then add “& I’m the man”. It’s one of the reasons why I dropped out of politics, it shows I’d have made a very bad political leader. Apply that joke to the concept of freedom and you immediately see a common error about freedom, an error made by many who claim to believe in freedom but who would actually destroy it, given the chance.
A new–ish example is Liz Truss, the stunningly incompetent ex–Prime Minister of the UK. She’s just one of many, but she does give a clue as to the problem of those who claim they support freedom but actually oppose it: an inability to see the consequences of their belief.
What I call the me–me–me understanding of freedom is rooted in the belief of freedom for one individual only, that person who claims to believe in freedom. An extreme example of this attitude is a belief in a freedom to kill, and never mind the consequence that the people killed have their freedom utterly destroyed.
The opposite is what I call the freedom–for–all. To maximise freedom–for–all, we deny the freedom to kill. By banning the freedom to kill we actually get greater freedom overall: someone who would otherwise be dead is alive, and thus free to be. Freedom applies to everyone, not just one person. This is my position.
In other words, to maximise freedom–for–all we have to ban freedoms that, when acted on, destroy freedom of others, when more freedom is lost than banned. Freedom–for–all denies freedoms that the me–me–me people want, such as, in the extreme case, the freedom to kill, and many other acts that harm the overall freedom of everyone else.
Some people who believe in me–me–me believe, for example, that anyone should have a gun. In practical terms, this means the freedom to kill, and lots of people get killed. For example, in the United States, massacres of school children are quite normal. Now, I’m not saying all me–me–me freedom hypocrites believe in the mass murder of infants, I’m just saying it’s a natural consequence of their belief—which is why I just called them hypocrites.
The me–me–me freedom is a root cause of fascism. Fascists claim to believe in freedom, and seem to have no problem at all with destroying the freedom of everyone but themselves, as is seen in many fascist states. If you see a country with a leadership who claim to support freedom, but uses their power to suppress those with whom they disagree or dislike, you have a fascist state. Those in control of it are deeply hypocritical freedom deniers.
Another example of those who pretend to support freedom but actually destroy it are those Brexiteers who lied that Brexit promoted freedom. In fact, it did precisely the opposite, because it destroyed freedom of movement for British citizens in the EU, and EU citizens in the UK. Brits can no longer simply move to work in an EU country, except for Ireland which is covered by a different agreement. Similarly, EU citizens can no longer simply move to work in the UK. Again, the me–me–me freedom of selfishness destroyed the freedom of movement than 300 million people.
People who claim to support freedom but actually support me–me–me freedom are, effectively, liars. They deny freedom to everyone but themselves. In their defence, they often don’t realise their errors. In the great majority of cases, I suggest, the error is not psychopathic but idiotic, a failure to understand the consequences of their belief.