Freedom and freedoms: the I and the we

The Covid-19 pandemic has acted as a collective trauma, bringing the theme of freedom to the center of public and philosophical debate. While common sense invokes individual self-determination as a bulwark against the interference of power, philosophy questions the complexity of a freedom that cannot be understood as isolation, but as a web of relationships. As Hegel suggested, philosophy must be "one's own time apprehended through thought": our task today is to restore rigor to the concept of freedom in order to decipher the challenges posed by the health emergency.

1. The Dialectical Tension between "I" and "We"

The debate on freedom is pervaded by a perennial dialectic that Benjamin Constant summarized in the distinction between:

• The freedom of the ancients: Active participation in the life of the community ( polis ), where the individual finds fulfillment in the "we".
• Modern Freedom: The Protection of the Private Sphere from State Intrusion, the Primacy of the "I."

While liberal thought has historically emphasized freedom as individual independence, the democratic tradition has sought to rebalance the relationship, recalling that freedom is not a legal vacuum, but a condition that always occurs within a social dimension. Socrates and Epicurus embody two archetypes that remain relevant today: the philosopher "of the public square," immersed in social life, and the sage of the "Garden," who seeks freedom in detachment and privacy.

2. Freedom as a Limit: The Paradoxical "Obligation" to Be Free

The liberal tradition, from John Stuart Mill to John Rawls, makes clear that individual sovereignty is not absolute. According to Mill's harm principle , public interference is legitimate only to prevent an individual's action from harming others. In a just society, the freedom of each individual must be compatible with that of all: this implies that freedom can—and must—limit itself to preserve the very conditions of its existence. As Rousseau noted, law sometimes has the duty to "force men to be free," since true freedom is obedience to laws that we, as a community, have prescribed for ourselves. Isaiah Berlin, while warning against simplifications, also recognized that negative freedom (the absence of coercion) must constantly be measured against other fundamental rights—peace, health, security—which require necessary compromises.

3. Constitutional Foundations and Solidarity

The balance between individual rights and collective duties finds a synthesis of clear precision in the Italian legal system:

• Article 32 of the Constitution: Health is protected as an individual right and a collective interest. The State may impose compulsory medical treatments, provided it is required by law, balancing the right to refuse treatment with the protection of public health.
• Article 2 of the Constitution: The principle of solidarity acts as a counterweight to inviolable rights, legitimizing the intervention of the welfare state when the preservation of the common good is at stake.

European case law (ECHR, judgment 116/2021) also confirms this approach: in a democratic society, limitations on individual freedoms are legitimate if they are provided for by law, if they respond to an "urgent social need," an