Show Notes
In this episode of Policy Provocations, Gene Tunny and I discuss liberty or freedom in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. As I argue, one can think about liberty in the way most of the demonstrators against lockdowns and vaccine or mask mandates did. They asserted their right to be free to make their own decisions. But I think that's freedom as licence. It's important that we not be needlessly constrained. So it is certainly important for people to raise those issues. But the ability to impose constraints is actually fundamental to liberty.
If you think of the London Blitz, imposing blackouts was necessary for preserving liberty. In this case, liberty from German bombing!
My point is not just that we impose some constraints on people because not doing so imposes harm on others. It is that what really matters to our liberty is the legitimacy of law-making. In that regard what is remarkable is that there are any number of relatively easy ways our constitution can be subverted by would be authoritarians. You'd expect the champions of liberty to be concerned with this. If they were concerned with liberty wouldn't we be making sure that governments don't appoint the Director of Public Prosecutions? If the US Republicans or the Democrats are really concerned about liberty, wouldn't they be bringing plans to the next election to reign in the presidential pardon power. This is as one presidential candidate openly talks about giving himself a pardon from gaol!
The blogpost I mention is here.
If you prefer watching the video, it's here.
00:00 Trailer 01:03 Liberty and Policy during the Pandemic 02:01 Contempt of Parliament 05:27 Government powers and safeguards 07:32 Government actions and citizen involvement during the pandemic 10:15 Government's reliance on opinion polling and the need for citizen juries 11:19 Pandemic policies: Scrutiny and overreaction. 15:02 Discussion and compromise in politics 17:35 Institutions to improve political discussion 20:09 Housing policy and crisis management 22:04 Crisis and the presidential Pardon power
More from Uncomfortable Collisions with Reality
Welcome to another edition of Uncomfortable Collisions with Reality, where Gene Tunny and I react to a UN report on AI that invested me as the intellectual godfather of the phrase "digital public goods". I have been mulling on the quWelcome to another edition of Uncomfortable Collisions with Reality, where Gene Tunny and I react to a UN report on AI that invested me as the intellectual godfather of the phrase "digital public goods". I have been mulling on the question of public goods since well before chairing the Government 2.0 task force, realising that many of the public goods of the twenty-first century are digital. Most people haven't noticed yet, but the Ostroms' quadrant in which a public good is both non-rival and non-excluded is no longer good enough as a definition. It denies public goods as a problem solved. But Wikipedia is a public good and it's excludable. It's just that its founders wanted to open it and could raise the funds to do so as a charity. Likewise, just as free-to-air TV figured as a public good in some 1950s and 60s textbooks, so Google, Facebook and Twitter(X) are public goods even though they're funded by advertising. (And of course you're free to think that X or any of the other social networks are public BADs, but that means they're just public goods that generate negative value. We then go on to explore ways in which social media could contribute to social mobility - something I wrote about hereAnd Gene asks me some questions about AI. I think it's obviously intelligence. Chatting with Claude and ChatGPT reveals a mysterious, shape-shifting intelligence that can easily beguile us without being truly conscious. By launching careful pilots and managing the risks, we can ensure this alien technology serves its ultimate purpose of improving our real lives.The UN report mentioned is here.
Are we suffering from an austerity of the imagination? Why does modern political and policy reform feel completely stuck in a rut?In this episode of Uncomfortable Collisions with Reality, I sit down with Luca Tiratelli to diagnose the exhaustion of the modern policy landscape. We explore why radical solutions seem impossible today, distinguishing between the Overton window of vested interests and the Overton window of imagination. We unpack the creeping careerism infecting academia and the public sector, where producing content and appeasing stakeholders has replaced frank, fearless advice.Luca shares his thoughts on the necessity of utopian thinking and having a clear vision to drive reform, whilst I argue that mapping out an unknown future often distracts from making difficult trade-offs in the present. Finally, we discuss why our current electoral democracy encourages risk aversion and competitive misrepresentation, and how alternative governance models like sortition might break the gridlock and breathe new life into our institutions.
Greg Smith has a well thought out, deeply compelling and scary take on the world we suddenly find ourselves in. I thought you should hear from him and so have just recorded this conversation. I strongly recommend you check it out. (Note: this was recorded in March but only hoisted on YouTube until now - early October. But it's still very much current.
What if technology stopped keeping us apart and started bringing us back together?
Why, in an age of constant connection, are so many of us lonelier than ever?