Importance of negative freedom to liberalism - Essay Example

?Importance of negative freedom to liberalism Definition of positive and negative freedoms: Thomas Jefferson said that the God, who has given us life, has given us liberty. Freedom is an inborn right of an individual to make decisions about his life and everyday affairs. Discussing from the liberalism point of view, there are two types of liberties i.e. positive freedom and negative freedom. Negative freedom is the form of freedom that is based on the concept of liberty from interference by others. Sir Isaiah Berlin is the greatest proponent of negative liberty. He defines negative freedom in the book “Two Concepts of Liberty” as, “absence of interference from a person’s sphere of action” (Rothbard, 2007). This liberty is dubbed as negative because it demands that everyone should abstain from aggressive attitudes and should not involve in invasive or pushy conducts. Another thinker Tibor Machan, who is also a great proponent of Liberalism defends negative liberty as “it is required for moral choice and, thus, for human flourishing, it is secured when the rights of individual members of a human community to life, to voluntary action, and to property are universally respected, observed, and defended” (Machan, 2006). So, the negative liberty or negative freedom is based on the concept that the people should be free to make choices and establish decisions. Individuals should not be restricted by the state unless a person becomes harmful for another person’s liberty and free decisions. In comparison to negative liberty, positive liberty is totally different. It includes the use of coercion or force by institutions of society or society itself or by the state to improve the lives of the individuals. Positive liberty justifies using force in order to manage the lives of people so that they could live with in true selves (Brennan, 1991, p.4). Liberalism: Liberalism comes from a Latin word, “Liber” that means free. Over the period of time, the liberal ideas of freedom drastically changed as the formal economies conquered most of the works that people were used to do themselves, including the most obvious decisions that people were used to make and enjoy themselves. In the concepts of classical liberalism, positive freedom has importance. In this sort of freedom, the people can handle their own issues like business affairs, growth of kids, and formulation of their own communities. Later, laissez-faire and modernist liberals took place. Both are of the view that negative freedom is important. In negative freedom, the government does not interfere with the choices of the people and it does not intervene with the behaviors of the public. So, the concept of negative freedom has great association with the liberalism in eras of eighteen and nineteenth century. Negative liberty in modern liberalist approach got great significance because people felt greater liberty in management of their affairs which was not supported in classical liberalism (Siegel, 2011, p.11). Negative Freedom: The Core of Liberalism: Negative freedom has great significance for liberalism; in fact it is the key concept that matters in liberal approach. Negative freedom as described by Berlin is the core value of liberalism because as negative liberty requires belief in non-interference so does the liberalism. Liberalism is of the views that the people should have an area of non interference or liberty from intervening factors. This sphere is called negative freedom by Isaiah Berlin that helps in understanding the true meaning of a liberal state (Brennan, 1991, p.4). Negative liberty thrives on the assumptions that when people make personal choices, they affirm to the humanitarian requirements. The following statement totally confirms to the classic liberal ideas where liberals demand that the person should be free in all personal choices because this is the essence of life and this is what makes life worth living. There ought to exist a certain minimum area of personal freedom which can on no account be violated, for, if it is overstepped, the individual will find himself in an area too narrow for even that minimum development of his natural faculties which alone makes it possible to pursue, and even to conceive, the various ends which mankind holds good or right or sacred (Brennan, 1991, p.4). John Stuart Mill, an important liberal scholar also deems negative freedom as a key factor for liberalism. He believes that individual’s freedom is likely to extract maximum individual thoughts in a good way when they do not face any restriction from society. Liberalists like Mill and Berlin do not see that positive freedom can be a core value of liberalism because positive liberty believes that the humans are imperfect and there should be a power to curb the ultimate freedom of the people to make the society perfect for living. So, Berlin believes that the true freedom is negative freedom while in positive freedom, “societal decisions about the common good are given to misinterpretation and are fraught with the potential for tyranny of the majority, or even dictatorship by a few” (Brennan, 1991, p.5). With these concepts of liberalism, people may not have legal power to decide about the various aspects of the state but they are assumed totally free in the society unless anyone, either a person or state interferes with the particular behaviors of individuals (Hees, 2000). So, it shows how important is the negative freedom for liberalism and for the proponents of the liberal ideas. Negative freedom is a key for liberalism because it can help in gaining greater potentials of the individuals working in the free environment which is not possible otherwise. Liberalism has many implications for society when negative freedom is taken into account. Liberals demand that the individuals should be controlled neither for state’s benefit nor for society’s. According to classical liberals, any interference by the state that does not intend to stop the harmful effects does not benefit any individual liberty. Another implication of liberalism and the associated negative liberty is that any interference by the state in individual’s affairs may restrict the overall potentials of the individuals. Unrestricted liberty is more likely to let the individuals reach their potentials. Liberalism also believes that individuals should not enforce their beliefs on others and it should let everyone enjoy their freedom in true meanings. Every person should be sovereign but he/she should not infringe on the rights and liberties of other individual (Chau, 2009). Liberalism is the concept that has gone through many phases, ranging from classical to laissez fair and modern liberalism. Classical and modern liberals had distinctions in their ideologies as the former supports the positive liberty while latter supports the negative liberty. Classical liberals were of the view that there should be self governance, freedoms for individuals and the voluntary groups independent of any government control. But they gravely insisted that there should be laws enacted by the governments so that the civil rights and liberties of the weak and less powerful groups could be protected from coercive forces. These classical ideas were a production of Aristotelian era and onward. In that era, theories of natural rights based on natural laws were produced but when the modern liberalism (that supports negative freedom) started to take place, those theories of liberalism that support positive liberty started to diminish. After the classical liberalism, laissez fair liberalism took place which was of the view that there should be absolute freedom for individuals unless they hurt other’s freedom. But in the twentieth century, a narrow view of liberalism took place due to technological advancements and centralized organizations. Modern liberals thought that the concept of negative freedom should restrict only to the personal behavior of the people because the technological economy took all of the work of society like protection of health, education of kids and elimination of poverty, so people should only make choices about their personal behaviors, not about the decisions that are state’s authority. This whole discussion gives a clear idea that Berlin’s concept of negative freedom is more associated to the modernist view of liberalism than classical liberalism which supports the positive freedom where government should intervene in the personal affairs or choices of the people (Siegel, 2011). So, Liberalism is mainly centered upon two principles i.e. liberty and individualism. Individualism puts an individual at heart of the society and the social order is constructed around him. Second function of a society is to allow the individuals to such a position where they can be, what they want to be and give them full liberty to achieve whatever they desire (Chau, 2009). Negative freedom is definitely an important kind of freedom for liberalism because it supports the modern liberal ideas like individuals should be free to make their own choices, no interference in personal affairs etc. It does not support to limit choices available to the individuals. Liberalism’s “negative freedom” is the freedom that is bestowed on the individuals. Modern liberalism and negative freedom share same connotations and key concepts of individual liberty to take decisions free from state or society’s interference. That’s what makes negative freedom a core value for liberalism and this is why negative liberty is thought as the most significant concept in liberal views. References Brennan, A.T. (1991). Just doctoring: Medical ethics in the liberal state. California: University of California Press. Retrieved March 6, 2013, from the http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft9w1009qr&chunk.id=d0e154&toc.id=d0e101&brand=ucpress Chau, R. (2009). Liberalism: A political philosophy. Retrieved March 6, 2013, from the http://www.mannkal.org/downloads/scholars/liberalism.pdf Hees, V. H. (2000). Negative freedom and the liberal paradoxes. Rationality and Society. 12(3). Retrieved March 6, 2013, from the http://www.rug.nl/staff/martin.van.hees/2000ratsoc.pdf Machan, R. T. (2006). Negative v. positive rights. Retrieved March 6, 2013, from the http://tibormachan.rationalreview.com/tag/negative-v-positive-rights/ Rothbard, N. M. (2007). Isaiah Berlin on negative freedom. Retrieved March 6, 2013, from the http://mises.org/daily/2648 Siegel, C. (2011). Classical liberalism. California: Preservation Institute. Retrieved March 6, 2013, from the http://www.preservenet.com/classicalliberalism/ClassicalLiberalism.html#Ch01 Read More