Some on the left tell us that talk of freedom is hypocritical and one-sided unless it deals with 'real' freedom such as freedom from hunger and the freedom to work.

There is a profound difference between freedom, which involves the lack of coercion by other persons, and power over circumstances. Freedom involves people making their own decisions without having the views of others imposed upon them. This includes freedom of speech, of expression, freedom of enterprise, freedom to buy and sell, and freedom of movement.

To be 'free' from hunger means having the resources with which to eat. To be 'free' to work means having a job available. Neither of these involves arbitrary restraints or subjection to the will of others. It may be that the power over circumstance is important and necessary, but is rather devalues language to call it freedom.

There is a difference between not being able to take a train ride because you cannot afford the fare, and not be able to do it because the state forbids it. In the former case you can hope to raise the fare, or to rearrange your priorities so you can afford it by cutting down on other things. You have those choices. Where it is state power which prevents it, you have no such options.

It may be argued that a free society should be a humane one, and that people should voluntarily relinquish some freedom of spending power in order that poorer people can enjoy decent living standards. This is a legitimate argument, and people may well make such a decision. They are trading freedom, though, not serving it.