🇸🇪 Svenska · 🇬🇧 English · 🇪🇸 Español

I sometimes imagine a political party that takes human freedom seriously. A party that does not automatically defend the market when it gives companies power over us, and does not automatically defend the state when it takes our money or limits our choices.

I would like to see such a party.

Freedom includes keeping more of what we earn and deciding for ourselves how to spend it. Every public expense needs a justification. I do not want to be made to fund a project simply because a politician finds it worthy or enlightening. Culture, research and public agencies should all be able to answer the question: What are we getting for the money, and why should we pay for this together?

But freedom is also about power. When a service becomes so dominant that it is hard to leave, calling the relationship voluntary does not help much. People using social media should be able to choose a chronological feed, switch off personalisation and easily erase their history. The EU’s Digital Services Act already gives users of very large platforms an option for recommendations that are not based on profiling. That is a step in the right direction, but control over our own data should be easier to exercise in practice.

The same principle should apply to the state. Cameras can help investigate crime, but recordings of people who have done nothing suspicious should not be kept longer than necessary. I would start with deletion within 24 hours, with clear exceptions when footage is needed to investigate a specific incident. Today, the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection says retention should be determined by purpose and kept as short as possible; it gives three days as a rule of thumb.

We also need the chance to leave the past behind. Why should a paid debt, an old conviction or an illness that has been treated keep following someone after the information is no longer needed? The answer is not to erase everything immediately. Healthcare needs records to provide safe treatment, and the justice system needs information for legitimate purposes. But the need to retain sensitive information should be reassessed regularly. A right to erasure already exists, though there are exceptions, and entries in Sweden’s criminal-record register are removed under specific rules.

Freedom also requires us to distinguish a real choice from a decision that merely shifts responsibility. It is easy to say that patients and pupils should choose for themselves. It is harder to choose the right doctor before knowing what is wrong, or the right school before knowing what sort of teaching one needs. Politics should ensure quality and understandable information, rather than placing every difficult decision about a system on the individual.

And when shared natural resources create great wealth, we should ask who benefits. Norway’s oil fund is an example of a deliberate effort to let the proceeds from a natural resource benefit both current and future generations. Sweden’s forests, minerals and energy resources are not oil, but the underlying question is the same: How do we ensure that the value of shared assets also benefits the public?

Finally, a society must leave room for people to be human. We should be able to discuss laws on drugs and sex without pretending that prohibitions alone solve vulnerability. We should be able to express uncomfortable opinions without having an old remark define us forever. Freedom means taking responsibility for what we do, but also having the opportunity to change.

I do not know whether such a party would be called right-wing or left-wing. I only know the questions I would want it to start with: Who has power over my time, my money, my data and my life? And when someone wants to take that power from me, do they have a good enough reason?