Our freedom isn't being taken away — we never had it in the first place

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

Back in those halcyon days in the early years of the last decade, I published a blog post called Phantom freedom. If you're too busy to click on the hyperlink to read it, the basic idea was that despite today's more interconnected world (particularly in terms of travel, pre-pandemic of course), in many ways we are less free and independent now compared to our ancestors.

'Never in the field of human activity was so much damage done to so many by so few.' Indeed. (Graph from www.vox.com.)

Peak freedom

Little did I know that I was living through our time's freest period. Back then, it could be said, was peak freedom for the 21st century. Fair enough, one can excuse the current restrictions imposed on many aspects of our lives, being as they are a result of the damaging coronavirus monomania afflicting many across the globe, especially those in the agenda-setting, high-income nations.

The hope is that they'll recover soon enough and realise that there are other causes of death and destruction out there, that focusing too much on one threat results in the flourishing of others. One must try to be optimistic on this front.

However, for how long we'll be forced to prove in myriad ways that we're not a health risk to society to do just about any activity that involves mixing with others remains to be seen.

Whatever about the above, for better or for worse — and it's not at all clear which it will be — the kind of measures being proposed for the coming years in a bid for cleaner, greener living should finally — and thankfully — put an end to the crazy notion that we live in a free world. I say thankfully simply because it irks me when I hear people, particularly our rule-makers, utter that falsehood.

'It's difficult to be enthusiastic about these green new deals when those who do the most damage pay little more than lip service in terms of changing their ways.'

I must state that I'm all for living in a more efficient and greener way. In fact, I wager that if more people in the comfortable classes lived as minimalist a life as I do there would be much less of a resource drain on the planet.

Whilst it was written somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I already follow to some degree a number of the recommendations in my The Great Reset post from earlier this year.

Thus, the likes of pay-as-you-drive road taxes which countries such as the UK are proposing, that's fine by me. I don't own a car these days and it's unlikely I ever will (again, that is — I did have one for two years in Ireland when I was in my early 20s. Oh the innocence of youth).

When it comes to air travel, with carbon pricing mooted, this mode of transport looks set to become the preserve of the rich once more. Again, I've no major complaints about this. Most people — in the comfortable classes specifically — fly more than they really need to.

Road to ruin

The issue I have with many of these ubiquitous green new deals is that those peddling them, from what I can see, are inflicting greater hardship on the rest of us in a bid to reduce the harmful effects of their very own excesses.

'We all must work collectively on this' is the mantra when they've been the main culprits, the greatest polluters, the biggest producers of waste — and hypocrisy. There must be something in the air they breathe up on that moral high ground.

Somewhat paradoxically, the UK government talks of 'levelling up'. It's about improving the lot for areas of the country that have traditionally been less well-off. Yet globally, if the many forecasts are to be believed, levelling up at current consumption rates is a road to ruin.

OK, levelling up following a green path is the idea. Nonetheless, it's difficult to be enthusiastic about this when those who do the most damage pay little more than lip service in terms of changing their ways.

The cynical view is that it all simply amounts to exerting greater control over the lives of the relatively powerless. And many, sadly, are either blissfully unaware of this or seem to have no problem with it at all. The future looks rather bleak indeed.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

Negative utilitarianism in coronavirus times

@wwaycorrigan
[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.] 

Only the very naïve believe that we live in a free world. Where you have a conflict of human interests, the concept of true individual freedom is unattainable.

Lockdown life: Do such measures cause more harm than good?

Delicate balance

My doing whatever I want has the potential to negatively impact somebody else. It's why, as an interconnected species in pursuit of both personal and collective goals — or happiness if you will — we have rules and regulations in place to act as checks and balances on individual and communal wants.

It could be thought of as a sort of negative utilitarianism: aiming to inflict the least harm on the greatest number of people.

In an imperfect, unfair world, it's perhaps the best we can aspire to. The perpetual problem inherent within it, for "freer" societies in any case, is finding that balance between allowing individuals to go about their business with as little interference as possible and protecting others' rights, as well as the environment we share.

Of course, at times one's personal goals merge nicely with the collective good. Everyone's a winner, to a certain extent.

When this isn't so, an arbiter, normally the state in its various forms, is needed to decide how much give and take is allowed in a particular situation.

'If the vaccine is not a success, we're going to have to seriously reappraise the damaging containment measures we've implemented.'

Thus, said arbiter must hold the respect of the parties in dispute in any given conflict. If this is lacking, the carrot-and-stick approach can bring the warring factions onside, provided there is a genuine effort to engage as fairly as possible by the arbiter.

If one or all of the disputing sides feel this fairness is absent, if favouritism or a lack of sincerity is perceived, then we have quite the tricky situation.

The wrong way?

This is a constant challenge for our leaders and decision-makers. We've seen it very much at play in dealing with the coronavirus where there is a not-insignificant minority, this writer included (see also my interview with the renowned British author and journalist, Peter Hitchens) who question the efficacy of the various measures introduced in a bid to contain the virus.

Not only are we sceptical that they actually work, but we also highlight the consequences they are having and could have for years to come across society. Coming back to our negative utilitarianism, we are potentially inflicting great harm on a great number. It needn't be this way.

Alas, this perspective is given scant serious thought as the majority stance of doing all we can to stop this coronavirus dominates the discourse.

Perhaps the majority will be proven right — history will be the judge of that.

For now, we must hope that the vaccine is a success for those who most need protection. (I personally won't be rushing to get jabbed and I don't think it should be compulsory — more on that another day.)

If it's not a success, we're going to have to seriously reappraise the containment measures we've implemented. This is because asking people to stop living in a bid to, potentially, save some lives is not a strategy that can go on indefinitely.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz". 

Soft-touch Colombia

I’ve written before about what could be seen as the absurdity of the ‘free world’.* There are many areas where it just doesn’t hold but the one I previously focused on was in the global movement of people.

'On your return, don't bother with a visa. You'll be fine.'

Basically, anyone who has travelled to another country realises how relative any perceived freedom is. 

For sure, depending on where you happen to be born, having the liberty to move to wherever you want is easier for some compared to others. Just ask Colombians for a less-than-positive experience in that regard.

Focusing on this country, perhaps the people’s negative migration dealings have made them somewhat sympathetic to the plight of those visiting here, or more pertinently, those who want to stay on a longer-term basis. 

A case of, ‘if we continue to be welcoming, especially to peoples from the West, in time they will be more welcoming towards us.’ It’s a nice thought, if a little naïve.

Considering, broadly speaking, I am for a freer movement of people across borders with fewer restrictions and bureaucracy for those who want to settle in their non-birth country — especially if they are not a burden on their new state — the Colombian approach, in general, is quite refreshing.

However, for a state that is trying to be taken seriously among the global powers, having a modicum of sense to the system wouldn’t go astray. For judging by anecdotal evidence, the way Colombian immigration control currently operates encourages illegality.

For example, there are foreigners here who have knowingly overstayed their respective visas for a considerable amount of time, with some of these repeat offenders. When they do finally decide to ‘sort out’ their situation, what tends to happen is that they get a token fine and can get another visa with little difficulty, without a black mark to their name.

The answer is Colombia: It's easier without a visa. (Image from colombia.co.)

Contrast that with those who erroneously stay a day or two over their tourism stamp/visa and once they realise this immediately make efforts to rectify the situation. 

The fine these people get is practically the same as the knowing, long-term, repeat offenders. Plus, as luck would have it, I know of some people in this latter, law-abiding category who have then struggled to get another visa. 

Thus, there appears little incentive to do things by the book. 

Indeed, it appears you’re more likely to spend less money and have less hassle if you just hang around illegally and deal with the problem at a time that suits you, paying little attention to what’s stamped in your passport.

Now, to state again, in theory I like the idea of having light-touch regulation as regards immigration. 

Yet, what I don’t like are double standards. It could be argued that Colombian authorities are supporting lawbreakers over law-abiders. Perhaps we shouldn’t be too surprised about that.

Hats off, though, for doing their bit for a freer world. They could just try and make it more of a fairer one.
_________________________________
*Check out Phantom freedom for more on that.