2022-03-10
We in the UK have smugly assumed throughout my lifetime that our authorities prize freedom of the individual over central one-size-fits-all control by the State. Indeed we have been encouraged to believe this through the many films about the last war in which British heroes were lauded for their indomitable spirit in many situations of great adversity.
And yet we were stripped of our most basic freedoms in a trice when Covid was officially recognised as a "pandemic". Don't go to work, close your business, mask up, sign in everywhere you go, walk this way around the shop, "sanitise" your hands at every opportunity, don't visit anybody outside the officially authorised and absurdly restricted bubble, and certainly not any "loved one" within the "care" of a state-regulated institution.
Irish Judge John Philpot Curran: “It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt”
We have discovered how "indolent" we have been.
Some countries have never been free. Throughout history autocratic rulers have ruled with their own perceived interests at heart rather than the interests of their people, and the price paid by the negligent can be extremely high, as continental Europeans can attest - Europe has been riven by wars throughout the centuries.
In the UK we have habitually considered ourselves free, but that consideration has taken a profound knock, and we have realised that we are only as free as our rulers permit.
We just thought we were free.
Now we realise that if we truly want to be free then "government of the people by the people and for the people" must somehow be converted from a slogan to a reality.
Our current political system of "government" and "opposition" has been tested and found wanting - the opposition turned out to be not only toothless but supine to the point of being in cahoots with the government on that most basic of matters - our freedom to decide for ourselves provided that we don't intrude on the freedom of others. That proviso is crucial - without it, freedom itself becomes unattainable.
Yet our government had no hesitation in trampling that critical proviso "for our own good".
We now realise we have a political system of "government" and "government" trying to conceal itself under a great deal of huffing and puffing.
Nanny State knows best and is prepared to enforce her views, no matter how mistaken.
And here we get to the nub of the matter - who gets to make the "correct" judgement? Does the State know best or does the individual?
We can't know (although it's worth pointing out that the State's track record isn't brilliant).
What we can know is that loss of face is the sworn enemy of the politician.
If the State makes an error of judgement, it's inclination to admit fallibility is in inverse proportion to the perceived loss of face, and it will cling to its error long after it becomes unsupportable, to the detriment of the whole nation.
If an individual makes an error, the effect will be limited and many will be inclined to change course once they realise their mistake. Loss of face is not such a problem for those who normally act in the best interests of themselves, family, and friends. "The people" will overall self-correct.
With that in mind, UNN publishes a piece by Tina Brooker, inspired by a Canadian immigrant from Romania.
Our world needs more Tinas.
