Is having speed limits a violation of your freedom?
For most people, not being able to drive 130km/hr in a residential zone isn’t experienced as an authoritarian imposition.
But why?
After all, if you were to break the rules you’re opening yourself up to police violence? Who is the government to say what you can and can’t do with your car?
For most people it’s because we understand the reason for having speed limits - namely the carnage that would likely result if there weren’t any. When you buy in to collective efforts, the existence of rules doesn’t feel like a violation of freedom.
Indeed, laws give us freedoms - they ensure we aren’t going to be taken advantage of by thugs when we scold them for putting our kids lives at risk on a suburban street. There’s a certain group solidarity in having reasonable laws when we all scoff at the anti-social idiot who fails to follow them.
It’s important to note that buying into a law is very different from justifying the status quo by saying “the law is the law”. We are often raised by this argument, but it’s not a very good one.
Asking people to always obey the law, even laws that they can’t see any reason to exist, is not how governance should operate. Indeed, we need charismatic and strong leaders to provide good reasons for laws - or else we won’t be able to collectively agree on anything.
When you ‘buy in’ to collective efforts, you support laws even if you’re not convinced of all the specifics. For example, you might think some speed limits are too low and some too high, but you generally agree there’s a good reason they exist.
The laws are an extension of your decision to live in a particular kind of advanced, industry society.
Occasionally you’ll meet some libertarian weirdo who does find speed limits to be a subtle form of tyranny.
He will complain that people should be able to sort out their problems without the role of government. He will say that government propaganda has terrified us about speeding, and that actually if everyone took responsibility for their own lives, we’d be fine!
This kind of thinking reflects a wilful lack of buy in to the collective project of government.
From this perspective, the State is constantly trying to encroach on our autonomy. The libertarian sees most of society as existing with no reference to the State, so any law passed is necessarily a violation of this pristine well functioning self-governing society.
Whilst there are many critiques of the libertarian mindset, I think the most important is that it fails to take into account qualitative features of freedom.
Libertarians tend to be bad at reading social norms, viewing any buy in to a collective project as being “duped” by the State. But following the speed limit, even when I physically have the ability not to, is an expression of my freedom - it is a choice to support a certain social arrangement.
There is no such thing as a completely ungoverned community. If a drunk, obnoxious idiot is in my home - I’m going to kick him out for violating the rules of etiquette. This is not me “violating his freedom” - this is me asserting the norms of my household and the rights of my fellow guests.
Freedom is a collective effort.
Of course this is all a long-winded way to talk about the anti-lockdown protests that happened yesterday.
For the anti-lockdown protestors, public health orders are an imposition on their freedom. There is no ‘buy in’ to the collective effort of limiting deaths from COVID-19. There is no sense that our wilful self-sacrifice for the public good is an expression of our freedom.
Why this has happened is likely the result of a myriad of factors.
Our political leaders are not exactly the best communicators on why certain laws have been imposed. Indeed, at times they rely far too heavily on “the law is the law” justifications. Not to mention mistakes have been made by government and public health bodies during the pandemic, tainting the idealised image of “the experts are in charge”.
There is also a question of technology.
The internet has led to an extreme form of atomisation to the point where people do not feel part of a nation-state. Social media bubbles mean people can live in complete parallel realities from the public discussions happening in Australia. Indeed, at the anti-lockdown protests many seem to be drawing on talking points from American conspiracy theorists, rather than more relevant Australian anti-lockdown critiques.
Finally, many in the protests appear to be trying to reclaim a sense of self-control following a year and half of hardships and humiliations. Some would have lost their jobs, others may have been trapped in homes without connection and many would have been forced to undertake the kind of painful self-reflection that only comes from solitude.
It’s no surprise then, that a narrative of “rebellion” can help ease the pain - but turning against your country is only going to add to feelings of isolation. The hardships of lockdown can only be eased if you feel you’re part of something larger than yourselves - the wellbeing of your fellow Australians.
Ultimately, there’s no quick solution to anti-lockdown protesters, they are a feature of our strange political times.
As a caveat, I do think we should collectively allow for protest, even during lockdowns, if it is done right and appropriate COVID-safe protocols are in place. I’d also caution against getting too much glee from police crackdowns on protesters. People buy in to collective projects if they are reasonable, and you can’t be reasonable if you’re a hypocrite.
Ultimately though, we need to shake off this trope of personal freedoms as existing outside the State rather than being part of a collective project that we all uphold.
Speed limits aren’t tyranny, and neither are public health orders.