What Does Getting Vaccinated Have To Do With Freedom?
How did getting vaccinated for Covid-19 get mixed up with freedom? I was pondering that as I read a piece in The Hill about Trump’s recent interview on Fox News. “I would recommend it to a lot of people that don’t want to get it. And a lot of those people voted for me, frankly,” Trump said, before going on to add, “We have our freedoms, and we have to live by that. And I agree with that also.”
The Hill went on to quote Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, as saying “As long as we still live in a free country, then we can make those individual decisions.”
But, while some people insist on their fundamental freedom to refuse vaccination, others answer, “You might have the freedom to get your bad knee replaced or not, but you don’t have the freedom to refuse the Covid vaccine because you don’t have the freedom to infect me.” Seems like there are two completely different ideas of freedom here, no? How does that work?
Part of the problem, I think, is the English language’s inadequate vocabulary of freedom. While I was thinking about this, another item popped up in my inbox — a link to an article from the Russian opposition news outlet Meduza. Written by the philosopher Nikolai Plotnikov, it bore the title “How Russians See ‘Freedom’ Differently.”
Russians, as Plotnikov pointed out, have two words for freedom, volya and svoboda. Having lived several years in Russia myself, I was aware that those two words existed, but I had never thought much about their political implications. Volya, the older of the two words, means roughly “free will.” It calls to mind an unconstrained life on the open steppe, perhaps the image of the folk hero Stenka Razin, leader of a seventeenth century Cossack uprising against the Russian nobility. In Plotnikov’s view, whereas volya is something inherently Russian, svoboda is something Western, a concept of civic freedom. Svoboda, he says, “is inconceivable without respect for others’ freedom.”
In Russian popular usage, volya and svoboda don’t always quite line up with Plotnikov’s somewhat academic version of their meanings. You have, for example, svobodny clothing, meaning comfortable, and volny clothing, meaning a bit indecent. But this isn’t a Russian language lesson. What matters here is the usefulness of Plotnikov’s distinction for understanding the American vaccination debate. When an American like Rep. Biggs asserts his freedom to remain unvaccinated, he is thinking volya. His neighbor who says, “No, you don’t have the freedom to infect me,” is thinking svoboda.
To be sure, English also has two words, but our “freedom” and “liberty” don’t line up like that. As far as I can see, they are synonyms that both mean svoboda. When Americans need to make Plotnikov’s distinction, they either have to use circumlocutions or risk being imperfectly understood.
I’ve seen American libertarians struggle with this problem, hampered by the limits of our language. Orthodox libertarians definitely think in terms of civic freedom, svoboda. Their touchstone is the nonaggression principle – the maxim that it is impermissible to initiate physical harm against another person. Use of force is permissible only in self-defense. To refuse the vaccine and then sneeze in your neighbor’s face is clearly a violation of the nonaggression principle. Yet, others who call themselves libertarians glory in the right to be rude and crude, the right to hate, the right to do whatever they want whatever social standards say. Some of them don’t scruple at embracing Naziism, white supremacy, and other unsavory ideologies that, historically, are anything but nonviolent. Writing for the orthodox libertarian Foundation for Economic Education a few years ago, Jeffrey Tucker struggled for a term and came up with “brutalist libertarianism” – a good try, although it never caught on. Plotnikov makes it clear, though, that Tucker’s brutalist libertarians differ from the orthodox in that they think in terms of volya more than svoboda.
So, next time you are confused when some of your neighbors assert their right to forego vaccination in the name of freedom, while others, also invoking freedom, insist that everyone has a duty to be vaccinated, you can blame it on our English language. Even though, by some counts, English has more words than any other language, it lacks a clear distinction between volya and svoboda. But then, English is a free language in that, unlike French, has no Académie anglaise to tell us what words we can and cannot use.
Who knows, maybe volya and svoboda will catch on yet, as have other Russian terms like sputnik and kompromat.
Use Hobbesian and Lockean as prefixes. Hobbes’s conception of liberty was as simple lack of constraint. When there are no constraints at all (regardless of whether or not it would be good to have constraints), people are free to do anything including injure and kill each other.
Locke’s conception of liberty was as ordered liberty. It was moralised (i.e. defined in such a way that having liberty was always a good thing. The bad stuff just didn’t’ count as liberty)
With Locke’s outsize effect on the American founding, the American vernacular is infected with Lockean overtones. So, Hobbesian/Lockean is one way to go.
Descriptive/Moralised is another way to go.Report
Not bad, but it requires an understanding of Hobbes and Locke most folks don’t have. If you took a survey of Americans regarding who Hobbes is, they’d tell you he’s a fuzzy striped tiger from the newspaper comics.Report
Clearly you don’t follow the Fast and the Furious franchise.
But if the terminology is the best to convey the meaning, then it’s worth promoting. Most people haven’t studied Joseph Overton, but his work gradually became a reference within the limits of acceptable conversation. Besides, the kind of people who discuss vaccines in terms of different kinds of freedom probably have heard of Hobbes and Locke. And the term Jacksonian became useful during the Trump era.
For me, I don’t know either of them well enough to be sure that this is the best terminology. I’ll have to think about it.Report
Hobbs of “Hobbs & Shaw” is not meant to mirror Hobbes (Watterson specifically named the tiger after the philosopher).Report
Oh dear, you are familiar with the franchise. I stand corrected.Report
It’s got epic bald man Vin Diesel, and epic bald man Dwayne Johnson, and epic almost bald man Jason Statham.
Of course I’m a fan!Report
Statham can hear the clock running on that front.
Unrelated to this thread, I just brought him up in the “Best of 2020” comments as one of the actors who makes everything better. I remember a bank heist movie (that may have been named “The Bank Heist”) that didn’t hold my attention, but otherwise he’s reliable for picking the right projects and bringing 100%. I just recently saw the movie “Safe”, which I’d never heard of, but I trusted him and it was worthwhile.Report
Hobbes is a hallmark of a social science error that has haunted human kind. The thought that social constructs will end the war of everyone against everyone is a huge blunder. Social constructs have just made the wars that kill more efficiently, in larger numbers.
One measure of freedom is the ability to maximize the exercise of individual subjective values. The soviet/Marxist experiment failures tend to confirm that measure, even though we have considerable chunks of the population willing to repeat the failures.Report
One failure of that measure of freedom is it makes organized societies difficult if not impossible to sustain.Report
Societies aren’t sustainable.Report
Yeah, the question comes down to who/what exists in service to what/who.
Does the society exist to service the individual?
Does the individual exist to service the society?
(And, yes, this is not a toggle of 1 vs 0 but a gradient. So you can draw the line and say that it’s okay for society to have this set of opinions about this set of things, but it’s not okay for it to have an opinion at all about this other set of things.)
But if people exist in the service to the society, it’s okay to demand vaccination. Get the shot. It’s for the collective.
But the individual thing is important too, beyond what the nutball libertarians think. We know that it’s okay for people to refuse to get the shot for a small list of reasons. Like, we could come up with theoretical reasons right now. “Does the person experience anaphylaxis in the presence of Gadolinium?” Okay. If so, I could, theoretically see how this person might be allowed to refuse to get the shot.
But I wonder how much of the refusals to get the shot are a manifestation of the argument about how a person ought to be allowed to refuse to get it. If we could get 90% of the refusers to agree to take the shot by agreeing with them that they should be allowed to refuse to get it, then we should agree wholeheartedly… and then give them the shot.Report
To your last point I think one of the more challenging things about late capitalism/liberal democracy is that the technocrats have lost the ability to make the case for themselves. Even beyond that I think a lot of them find it shockingly offensive that it’s even expected. Which isn’t to say that there can’t be some justified eye rolling about people who don’t know their a–holes from a hole in a ground challenging someone with real subject matter expertise on a particular topic. But it’s part of the game and the best way to lose is to decide you’re too good to play.Report
I don’t see this at all. I see experts and popularizers trying to explain the case for the expert consensus all the time. I’ve seen dozens of explanations of the case for masks, social distancing, and vaccines over the past year. Some people just don’t want to listen.Report
I agree with you that there is a subset of people out there who have made a decision not to be convinced and probably can’t be.
However, while I see cases out there that convince me, I am not sure those same cases would be effective at convincing the unconvinced, but convince-able.Report
I’ve seen dozens as well, but I’ve also seen a lot of the… laziness of argument I’ve been critical of before. Where the person making a case for X can’t be bothered to try and understand the point of view of someone who is unconvinced, in order to better refine their argument. If their argument fails, they assume the listener is just too dumb/partisan/whatever to accept the beauty/cleverness/truth of the argument.
See here (at about 51 minutes in).Report
So this post right here illustrates the difficulty. As a scientist, I won’t say we have 100% certainty of vaccines or anything else related to this, because we don’t. Some people, feeding their priors, will conclude that if “Science” can’t say 100% regarding this then why listen to science? I have yet to see anyone present a coherent strategy to telling me how to overcome that. Its not how my profession works. I can’t refine my way out of that.Report
Very true, and that unfortunately takes us back to the reality that far too many have a very poor understanding of how science and probability/stats work and what they mean. Which means arguments suddenly have to start at a very different place. And to be honest, when faced with those who are ignorant of the basis your argument is foundational upon, it may simply be the case that you don’t have time or the energy to correct that fundamental ignorance.
That said, understanding the opposition to your idea is still a requirement. Assuming a person is too stupid, etc. to understand your idea only further cements their opposition to it.Report
I believe that a big part of the problem is that the scientific appeal doesn’t work for everyone because of the reasons you state. In addition to the scientific appeal, we needed an ‘it’s the right thing to do’ appeal, and maybe even an ‘it’s the patriotic thing to do’ appeal. You’ll never convince the guy with the Gadsden flag on his truck and a bug out shelter but I bet it would go far enough to be meaningful. Though maybe March is right in his comment below and it will go far enough anyway.Report
I’ve tried a lot of the the “its the right/Christian/responsible” thing to do arguments regarding much of the CCOVID response over the last year. Best case who ever I’m talking to goes silent. Worst case i get an ear or keyboard full of ranting about liberals taking away freedoms, without any willingness to own responsibility. No one seems to want to engage with the Christian morality issue of loving your neighbors by getting vaccinated. The patriotic appeal also falls flat around here as too many people buy the idea that lockdowns and masks and social distancing and now vaccines are being forced on them by some “other” who isn’t American so resisting these things is patriotic.Report
I’ve tried the “right/Christian/responsible” argument too, to limited success. This topic has just gotten too polarized and tribal. An entire tribe has lined up around the party line that being an exemplary member of the team means objecting to anything which limits spreading COVID. Anthropologists and sociologists should be having a field day studying this.
I fully support the “right” or freedom of anyone to not get vaccinated. And I fully support the right of any business or organization (specifically including schools) to deny normal service to those not vaccinated.
This will, of course, just further amp up the polarization.Report
A mandate isn’t so simple. It creates hairy ADA and Title VII issues. The existence of people who have a legitimate reason not to get it makes it really challenging to impose, no matter what the EEOC says. Nothing is worse than a question of fact.Report
Masks are a communitarian problem, vaccines less so.
The mask is the classic prior-restraint of my liberties so that your liberties my flourish, and thereby mine as well.
Vaccines are efficacious for *my* protection, so a rational libertarian position would be to get one and damn the others.
The edge case… which everyone is prematurely arguing… is what happens if we have really good vaccine uptake, but not perfect uptake. Do we care if 90% are vaccinated? 80%, 75%, 65%? Is coronavirus a smallpox event that requires eradication or a rubella event which suggests mitigation? At which point we’re looking at further edge cases of herd-immunity with the possibility of folks who can’t take the vaccine… what level of communal risk are we associating with that?
With millions lining up for vaccinations daily, over 33% vaccinated to date, and insufficient doses for the population wanting them… it’s too soon to go full frontal on an (over-)aggressive vaccination policy that is better served by making the simple non-communitarian argument that it is in *your* best interest to get vaccinated. Get vaccinated, get back to life. The odd hostage taking I’m seeing in the public vaccination discussion is disturbing.Report
I think in the end there will be unintended consequences in attempting to solve biological problems with social tools.Report
Sure… I think the pandemic has exposed some interesting issues in work/society. I suspect that some of what is happening with Schools and Teachers is a reckoning with a deep alienation between K-12 Teachers and the Profession of Teaching.
Not that Teachers don’t like to teach, but that K-12 Teaching has become somewhat burdensome as an institution, and the hardship of remote teaching is somewhat less than the exposed hardship of institutional teaching.
Similar too with work vs. remote work. Not that folks don’t miss some aspects of the community of work, but that working from home has exposed an unexpected level of alienation from work, in general.
But those would be examples of trying to solve social problems with biological tools.Report
These sorts of questions become paradoxes because the starting premise is that the relationship between the individual and the collective is a zero-sum equation where an increase in power by one is a loss for the other.
So they end up searching for some non-existent compromise position which leaves both worse off.
The individual right, even the right to wander freely across the landscape, is created by the collective, and can’t exist without it.
In a pure state of nature like a castaway on a deserted island, “rights” don’t exist. The forces of nature don’t respect our autonomy or right to nonaggression; the microbes and parasites and predators are indifferent to our desire to be left alone. The right not to be aggressively attacked by cholera only exists when the collective creates a safe water supply and enforces it.
Notice how in these imaginative illustrations, the free person, let’s say a cowboy roaming the prairie, isn’t desperately racing to escape predators and bandits? Why is that?
Because the imagined landscape is safe and tamed, free of danger. Whoever laid claim to that land, lets say the Native Americans, is rebuffed and their claims to the land are nullified by coercive force by the collective, allowing the free person to roam.Report
You’re thinking about the right to wander safely, which is a freedom from, not a freedom to.Report
I don’t think it should be too controversial to state that human beings have a variety conceptsof volya and svoboda that they use on a sliding scale depending on context, their own personal background, and convenience/ulterior motive if you want to be cynical. There is a lot of negative partisanship right now and then though Democrats are catching up, I think the studies indicate right-leaning people/Republicans have much more negative partisanship. There is a lot more money to be made in various “own the libs” stunts over anything else. Biggs could be grifting for campaign donations.
FWIW as one of the diehard Democratic partisans on OT, I can’t wait to be vaccinated. I want life to get back to normal. I want to go on vacation, eat in restaurants, go to bars, be able to go do stuff on a whim and not have it involve excessive planning and reservations, etc.
There do seem to be some people on my side who are overly cautious regarding the virus as a reaction to people who think you can macho yourself out of a pandemic. But I also see libertarians make statements like “I would rather choke than wear a mask forever” that sounds like it comes from a fever dream. No one has ever said anything about wearing masks forever.Report
From The Upshot:
I’m pleased to have my shot, though. (I can’t wait for two weeks after the second dose!)Report