Freedom as Mobility: Implications of the Distinction between Actual and Potential Travelling

This paper investigates the conceptual relationship between mobility and freedom, specifically challenging the mainstream political rhetoric that equates increased personal transport with enhanced individual liberty. The author explores the tensions that arise when mobility is treated as a fundamental right, particularly focusing on the distinction between the capacity to travel (potential) and the act of traveling (actual).

Drawing on the work of Amartya Sen and others, the author distinguishes between negative freedom (freedom from interference) and positive freedom (the capacity to achieve desired states). The study analyzes how mobility functions as both an instrumental tool for accessing opportunities and an intrinsic value associated with autonomy. The author evaluates the implications of this framework through several lenses: the conflict between individual auto-mobility and collective infrastructure capacity, the democratic challenges of balancing mobility rights, and the risks of surveillance inherent in modern transport systems.

The paper argues that equating freedom with mobility is problematic for several reasons. First, the 'potentiality' of mobility—the ability to move—is essential for freedom, but it requires a high level of actual travel to maintain the necessary infrastructure, which often leads to congestion and mutual delays that curtail the freedom of all participants. Second, the author highlights that mobility rights are difficult to reconcile with democratic principles of unanimity, as one person's movement often imposes costs or constraints on others. Finally, the paper notes that the digital and physical tracks left by mobile individuals facilitate increased surveillance, which paradoxically erodes the very freedom that mobility was intended to provide.

This research is critical for policymakers and urban planners who rely on the assumption that increasing transport capacity automatically increases human freedom. By highlighting the 'liberal paradox' of mobility, the paper suggests that current transport policies may be counterproductive, as they often prioritize the volume of movement over the actual quality of life or the autonomy of the individual. It encourages a shift in perspective from viewing mobility as an end in itself to considering the broader social and democratic costs of a hyper-mobile society.