London Daily

Focus on the big picture.
Saturday, May 31, 2025

Are Covid passports a threat to liberty? It depends on how you define freedom

Are Covid passports a threat to liberty? It depends on how you define freedom

The pandemic is once again causing governments to pit incompatible ideas of freedom against each other
Now that the UK’s vaccination programme is beginning to offer an escape route out of lockdown restrictions, despite some hitches, attention is focusing on so-called domestic vaccine passports. Important details remain uncertain but the idea has already been criticised as potentially “divisive and discriminatory”, as well as going against “British instinct” – presumably because Covid passports are reminiscent of compulsory ID cards, the absence of which many regard as a hallmark of British liberty. The desire for freedom is, of course, pretty universal – but there are many, and incompatible, ideas of freedom.

The British philosopher Isaiah Berlin famously distinguished two from more than 200 senses of the word he claimed had been recorded by historians of ideas: “negative liberty”, or freedom from interference; and “positive liberty”, or freedom understood as self-mastery and self-determination. The former ensures that others don’t hinder your choices, while the latter aims to create conditions that give you options and make your choices truly yours and genuinely free.

Although they may seem like two sides of a coin, Berlin was suspicious of the idea of positive liberty, especially as a social or political aim. He argued that, historically, it had tended to spawn oppressive institutions and regimes: through twisted reasoning, these regimes ended up justifying not merely the suppression of most negative liberties but even arbitrary incarceration, killings and torture as lesser evils needed to bring about true individual or collective liberation.

Berlin was right about the dangers of distorted ideas of positive liberty. But it would be a mistake to conclude, as some libertarians do, that we could or should think about political freedom without it. The value of negative liberty, of freedom from interference is, at least partly, that it allows me to choose for myself the projects, relationships and pursuits that will shape my life. But if lack of access to education, healthcare and so on means that I don’t really have any worthwhile alternatives to pursue, negative liberty alone surely isn’t worth having.

Negative liberty is freedom from the kinds of interference that – by whatever means – prevent or compel action. Having it doesn’t mean that you are free to do whatever you want, however unimpeachable. Your lack of talent may prevent you from becoming a great singer. But when others coerce you to do things or not to do things, then they curtail your negative liberty. And that is precisely what governments everywhere, and in many cases to an extraordinary degree, have done during the current pandemic.

Often using emergency legislation, they have imposed curfews and lockdowns of varying stringency that interfere with freedom of movement and of association in every aspect of life: from family and friendship to work and religious practices. They have impeded or restricted access to trade and commerce, as well as entertainment, culture and sports. They have mandated the use of face coverings.

Lockdown and related measures haven’t taken away our ability to do all the things that constitute ordinary life but have deprived us of the opportunities to do them, whether by the threat of sanctions or by active prevention. Some people have questioned whether this massive curtailment of negative liberty is justified.

More than 160 years ago John Stuart Mill argued that in a “civilised community”, the only justification for government coercion is the prevention of harm to others. In the UK, and many other countries, long before Covid, coercive state measures, from taxes to car seatbelts, were pervasive and accepted on grounds that go beyond Mill’s justification, or at least involve a very broad interpretation of his harm principle.

The extensions include harm to oneself, justified possibly on the grounds that where there is a welfare state, certain harms to yourself indirectly harm others – and the idea that harm can be caused by omission as well as by commission. And freedom from interference is often sacrificed for the sake of other values, such as equality, prosperity, fairness and security – which may in turn enhance positive liberty.

But coercive lockdown and related Covid measures can be justified on Mill’s terms – the prevention of harm to others – without much stretching. Of course, in some countries, the situation has been opportunistically exploited to concentrate unchecked power in the government, and for the long term. But in most, including the UK, measures are confined to reducing the spread of the virus, thus preventing many more deaths and acute cases, and the ensuing collapse of health services.

Some have questioned whether the restrictions have been proportionate, given the demographic of actual and potential deaths, the long-term costs to the economy, which will affect the young disproportionately, and to the physical and mental health of the whole population – to say nothing of future burdens building up for health services. Those are important considerations but it matters that the Covid threat is, by the consensus of experts, grave, credible and imminent.

No doubt there have been mistakes, inconsistencies and exaggerations in the details in different places, some due to unavoidable ignorance or uncertainty, others to ineptitude, political expedience and opportunism. The proper assessment of these will take time, and the assembly and analysis of much complex information.

It is currently far from clear how Covid domestic passports could help achieve significant protective aims. If it turns out that they can, measures to mitigate risks of unfairness or invasions of privacy will be needed. Are they, in themselves, a threat to freedom? It is hard to see why – but perhaps it depends on which of those 200 concepts one has in mind.
Comments

Oh ya 4 year ago
It should be if you want to take the jab you are most welcome and if you believe the jab is going to protect you from the virus then don't worry about me if I choose not to get the jab. Because lets be honest you do not care if i get covid and die from it the same as i do not care if this experimental biological agent you took kills you. You and I are mever going to change each others mind about this so called vaccine

Newsletter

Related Articles

0:00
0:00
Close
Satirical Sketch Sparks Political Spouse Feud in South Korea
Indonesia Quarry Collapse Leaves Multiple Dead and Missing
South Korean Election Video Pulled Amid Misogyny Outcry
Asian Economies Shift Away from US Dollar Amid Trade Tensions
Netflix Investigates Allegations of On-Set Mistreatment in K-Drama Production
US Defence Chief Reaffirms Strong Ties with Singapore Amid Regional Tensions
Vietnam Faces Strategic Dilemma Over China's Mekong River Projects
Malaysia's First AI Preacher Sparks Debate on Islamic Principles
White House Press Secretary Criticizes Harvard Funding, Advocates for Vocational Training
France to Implement Nationwide Smoking Ban in Outdoor Spaces Frequented by Children
Meta and Anduril Collaborate on AI-Driven Military Augmented Reality Systems
Russia's Fossil Fuel Revenues Approach €900 Billion Since Ukraine Invasion
U.S. Justice Department Reduces American Bar Association's Role in Judicial Nominations
U.S. Department of Energy Unveils 'Doudna' Supercomputer to Advance AI Research
U.S. SEC Dismisses Lawsuit Against Binance Amid Regulatory Shift
Alcohol Industry Faces Increased Scrutiny Amid Health Concerns
Italy Faces Population Decline Amid Youth Emigration
U.S. Goods Imports Plunge Nearly 20% Amid Tariff Disruptions
OpenAI Faces Competition from Cheaper AI Rivals
Foreign Tax Provision in U.S. Budget Bill Alarms Investors
Trump Accuses China of Violating Trade Agreement
Gerry Adams Wins Libel Case Against BBC
Russia Accuses Serbia of Supplying Arms to Ukraine
EU Central Bank Pushes to Replace US Dollar with Euro as World’s Main Currency
Chinese Woman Dies After Being Forced to Visit Bank Despite Critical Illness
President Trump Grants Full Pardons to Reality TV Stars Todd and Julie Chrisley
Texas Enacts App Store Accountability Act Mandating Age Verification
U.S. Health Secretary Ends Select COVID-19 Vaccine Recommendations
Vatican Calls for Sustainable Tourism in 2025 Message
Trump Warns Putin Is 'Playing with Fire' Amid Escalating Ukraine Conflict
India and Pakistan Engage Trump-Linked Lobbyists to Influence U.S. Policy
U.S. Halts New Student Visa Interviews Amid Enhanced Security Measures
Trump Administration Cancels $100 Million in Federal Contracts with Harvard
SpaceX Starship Test Flight Ends in Failure, Mars Mission Timeline Uncertain
King Charles Affirms Canadian Sovereignty Amid U.S. Statehood Pressure
Trump Threatens 25% Tariff on iPhones Amid Dispute with Apple CEO
Putin's Helicopter Reportedly Targeted by Ukrainian Drones
Liverpool Car Ramming Incident Leaves Multiple Injured
Australia Faces Immigration Debate Following Labor Party Victory
Iranian Revolutionary Guard Founder Warns Against Trusting Regime in Nuclear Talks
Macron Dismisses Viral Video of Wife's Gesture as Playful Banter
Cleveland Clinic Study Questions Effectiveness of Recent Flu Vaccine
Netanyahu Accuses Starmer of Siding with Hamas
Junior Doctors Threaten Strike Over 4% Pay Offer
Labour MPs Urge Chancellor to Tax Wealthy Over Cutting Welfare
Publication of UK Child Poverty Strategy Delayed Until Autumn
France Detains UK Fishing Vessel Amid Post-Brexit Tensions
Calls Grow to Resume Syrian Asylum Claims in UK
Nigel Farage Pledges to Reinstate Winter Fuel Payments
Boris and Carrie Johnson Welcome Daughter Poppy
×