Freedom & Collective Security/Safety
In my book Conservative Essays for the Modern Era, I introduced the term collective security and or collective safety. Many readers requested a further examination of collective security in the context of that writing. Therefore, given the current situation, it is prudent to provide a brief examination of collective security and individual freedom. It is worth noting that the terms collective security or collective safety are used interchangeably within the context of this writing.
“General freedom in this sense is nevertheless impossible, for the freedom of each would founder on the unlimited freedom, i.e., the lack of restraint, of all others.”[1] ~ Fredrick Hayek.
The term collective security is predominantly used within the realm of international relations, as a global or regional political arrangement in which each country within the system accepts that the security of one country is the concern of all the member countries. This principle is also seen within the microcosm of a single country, state, or locality. This reduced vantage point permits individuals to assert that the security of one citizen is the security concern of all citizens. Therefore, collective security, in this perspective as defined in this essay, primarily takes on the definition of “public good” that pushes for reducing risk, responding to threats, or protecting society at large against harm.
In reviewing the concept of collective safety, one must also understand the fundamentals of freedom. Webster’s Dictionary defines freedom as the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action. While this definition is that of a pure construct of individual freedom, one can argue that in civil society, true individual freedom, as defined above is not possible. Adam Smith, famed philosopher, and economist stated that “Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way.”[2] Further, Adam Ferguson, Scottish philosopher, and historian echoed Smith’s statement, “Liberty or Freedom is not, as the origin of the name may seem to imply, an exemption from all restraints, but rather the most effectual applications of every just restraint to all members of a free society whether they be magistrates or subjects.” As we can see, given Smith’s caveat of “not violating the laws of justice,” and Ferguson’s “most effectual applications of every just restraint” there is a level of coercion or constraint in choice or action on freedom. This precursor for true individual liberty is imperative, albeit demanded by most within civil society. This request from the civil society, with respect to limiting individual freedom or accepting the coercion or constraint on one’s choice, centers on safety or freedom from harm.
For example, while an individual would have the freedom to drive a vehicle, an individual would not, and some would argue should not have the freedom to drive that vehicle while ignoring all traffic lights, as it may result in a severe vehicular accident causing possible injuries or death. One could also use this analogy, while an individual would have the freedom to move their fist in any direction they desire, does that individual have the freedom to plant said fist into another person’s face? In essence, should your freedom or liberty to do as you desire, supersede another’s freedom to be safe from harm.
I believe this safe from harm concept is fundamental and is ingrained in all humans. A noted psychologist identified physiological needs or basic biological requirements for human survival, e.g., air, food, drink, shelter, clothing, warmth, sex, sleep to be some of the most important as all basic human needs. In addition, predictability and control in one’s life is also an essential safety need according to Maslow and his research.
Recognizing the research of Maslow and the reflections of noted economists, it is clear that individuals desire to be safe from harm. Furthermore, it is also reasonable to acknowledge that such safety can be understood to be political, financial, and physical safety. This alone is the actual manifestation point of collective safety. Collective safety is revealed at the point at which individual liberty is lost and societal safety is perceived. Under this perceived collective safety or “public good,” military, police, social programs as well as legislation, regulations, and other egalitarian myopic causes are created.
“They put up with their servitude…because they found some good in it: the slave is relieved of concern for securing his daily bread, for the master is obliged to provide him with the necessities of life.”[3] ~ Ludwig von Mises
Further, it is at this manifestation point where in times of crisis, individuals permit greater collective security and a larger relinquishment of individual freedom for what they believe to be a more significant societal common purpose. Such crises push the leaders of the day to ask citizens to sacrifice more of their freedom for a false sense of unity and security. We can clearly see this in times of war, national pandemics, and weather disasters.
Hungary’s government granted sweeping new powers to its Prime Minister, Viktor Orban. The Hungarian Parliament voted to accept Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s request for the power to rule by decree during the coronavirus emergency. According to local polling, 90% of Hungarian citizens agree with the governments’ demands for more power, highlighting Ludwig von Mises’s mindful statement, “They put up with their servitude…because they found some good in it: the slave is relieved of concern for securing his daily bread, for the master is obliged to provide him with the necessities of life.” The Prime Minister’s response after becoming a defacto dictator was to promise to use the extraordinary powers he has been granted “proportionately and rationally.”
Leaders capitalizing on collective security and relinquishment of individual freedom to consolidate power in a crisis. This consolidation is not limited to foreign countries. USA’s radical left-wing leaders are pushing for more authoritarian measures to be taken by the president and are upset that he is not doing so. “Coronavirus would be the perfect opportunity for an autocrat. Trump isn’t taking it,” stated John Harris of Politico.
Moreover, invoking a crisis or war metaphor is often used by politicians and advocates of identity politics, to that end. Using the “war on drugs,” a crisis of race or sexual orientation, or even a national pandemic to push a socialist agenda is not uncommon. Representative James Clyburn (D-SC) encouraged his party leaders to exploit the coronavirus stimulus bill to push his socialist vision stating that the legislation is “a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.” Additionally, Rahm Emmanuel, former chief of staff to President Barack Obama and Mayor of Chicago, stated that “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
Given that invoking a crisis or war metaphor to advocate for subjective myopic causes tends to be artificial, such claims do not stand up under scrutiny nor within the backdrop of an actual crisis. Feminism, racism, or any number of phobias the left-wing advocates have created are no longer an issue in a disaster, as all expect assistance or basic collective safety no matter the race, gender, or sexual preference. The authoritarian nature needed in the crisis and the demands from society at large, push such causes and claims into relative obscurity. While some causes do get bogged down due to the priorities of leaders and the situation, some are rendered obsolete given that authoritarian conquest was the intended goal all along.
Conclusion
As we have established, it is very natural to want to protect oneself from harm. Individuals have an innate desire to seek collective safety to remain safe from harm, and that desire for collective safety will always lead to reduced individual freedom. Moreover, given some individuals will always choose collective safety and security over freedom, that reduction in freedom will inevitably lead to a gradual, if not, the immediate realization of socialism even in the freest societies. Ludwig von Mises, a prominent economist, noted in his book Liberalism, those without freedom sought out servitude or the lack of freedom because they found good in it. He went on to say that those without freedom were free from the concern of security. [4]
References
[1] Friedrich Hayek, “The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism”, University of Chicago Press, 1988, p.63
[2] Adam Smith, “Wealth of Nations”, vol. I, p. 325 (Book II, Chap. III).
[3] Ludwig von Mises, “Liberalism: A Socio-Economic Exposition”, Foundation for Economic Education, 1985, p.20
[4] Ludwig von Mises, “Liberalism: A Socio-Economic Exposition”, Foundation for Economic Education, 1985, p.20
