Act I: The cry of freedom (with a background and much histrionism). From the Argentine pampas, with a mixture of revolutionary fervor and reality show show, we get the slogan of the moment: Long live freedom, hell! A vibrant, electrifying, almost heroic motto, which resonates with special force in a context where the State has been, for years, the main protagonist of all scenarios.
In the libertarian vision, freedom is simple and without ornaments: it is about eliminating any hint of state interference in the lives of individuals. Everything that smells like regulation is an obstacle. The market, of course, is the only allowed orchestra director.
Javier Milei, the terrible enfant of liberalism, has turned the definition of Alberto Benegas Lynch into his personal mantra: “Liberalism is the unrestricted respect of the life project of the neighbor, based on the principle of non -aggression and on the defense of the right to life, freedom and property.” In this narrative, the villain is clear: the state, that insatiable leviathan that devours everything. What defends itself is what political philosophy calls negative freedom: being free means that no one, especially the State, gets into what does not correspond to it.
Act II: The other face of freedom (because not everything is a shout of battle). However, there are those who dare to think that freedom is somewhat more complex than the simple absence of restrictions. And, as in every civilized society, if we are going to talk about freedom, it is convenient to listen to other philosophers who have had something to say about the subject.
After the shock that generates a good shout of battle (Long live freedom, hell!), It is convenient to pause, breathe deep and ask ourselves: what do we talk about when we talk about freedom? Because, although some imagine it as a highway without tolls where everyone goes at the speed he wants (and if he clashes, then take care), others see it as something a little more sophisticated.
Three knights of political and economic thought that invite us to abandon the slogan foam and immerse ourselves in the depths of reflection are in the scene: John Rawls, Amartya Sen and Philip Snyder. Three names that, without the need for stridency, present us a less rudimentary idea of freedom.
Rawls: It is not enough to open the cage if some are still without wings. If John Rawls had to be summarized in a single image, it would be that of an obsessed referee with which all players begin the game in fair conditions. For him, freedom is not just about the absence of interference, but to ensure that everyone has the means to exercise it on equal terms.
His proposal is quite simple, but radically transformative: justice as equity. His famous mental experiment of the “veil of ignorance” invites us to imagine that we are going to design a society without knowing what position we will be born. Would we choose a world where a few enjoy full freedom while others barely survive? Probably not. Rawls argues that, in a fair society, freedoms must be guaranteed for all, but the extreme inequalities that prevent many of them to exercise those freedoms in a real way must also be corrected.
Therefore, if Rawls had to respond to the libertarian cry, he might say: “Freedom without justice is a luxury for the lucky ones.” And no, I wouldn’t do it to the screams.
AMARTYA SEN: It is not enough to say “you are free”, you have to make sure you can be. If Rawls made us reflect on equity, Amartya Sen takes us one step further: freedom is not only absence of restrictions, but the real ability to make decisions and act on them. Because, of course, if someone says that everyone is “free” of opening a restaurant, but you have no education, capital or access to financing, then that freedom is an illusion.
Sen introduces the concept of capacities, which is basically the difference between being able to do something and have the theoretical freedom to do so but without the real means. A hungry person is not really free if he does not have access to food, although no one legally prevents him from eating. Freedom, according to Sen, implies ensuring that people have the effective ability to live the life they value.
So, if we invited him to a debate on the “unrestricted respect of the life project of the neighbor”, Sen would probably answer: “Perfect, but first ensure that everyone has a true menu of options and not only crumbs disguised as freedom.”
Philip Snyder: Freedom with responsibility, because we do not live alone in the world. If Rawls is the equity theorist and sen that of capacities, Philip Snyder is the philosopher who reminds us that freedom, without responsibility, is only selfishness with good marketing. For him, freedom is not simply a right, but a task: if we want a free society, we need citizens prepared to exercise it consciously and solidaryly.
Its proposal is an interesting synthesis among the above: yes, it is necessary that individual freedoms be protected, but also that people are educated and empowered to use them in a responsibility. Freedom is not a consumer good that is taken and enjoyed without consequences; It is an implicit contract with society.
So, if Snyder were in a libertarian manifestation and someone shouted, live the freedom, hell! He is likely to add with a smile: “And do not forget to educate themselves so as not to turn it into a simple individualistic whim.”
Epilogue: freedom as a piano. If freedom were a piano, we could say that the libertarian version is limited to delivering it without more: “Here you have, now it’s time.” It doesn’t matter if you have never learned to read scores or if you are missing a hand. It is your problem.
Rawls, on the other hand, would ensure that everyone has access to basic classes and an instrument in similar conditions. I would verify that you also have the time and resources to practice, because the piano is of no use if you cannot sit down to touch it. And Snyder would remind us that touching the piano implies not only individual ability, but respect for the harmony of the whole.
Because, in the end, true freedom is not a soloist playing for himself, but an orchestra where everyone has the opportunity to interpret their own melody. And for that, gentlemen and ladies, more than shouts of battle are needed.
So, dear reader, you decide: freedom as a war cry or as shared responsibility? A hymn to individual independence or a symphony of justice and equity?
*Gonzalo Chávez A., economist
