Liberty

Liberty is a highly contested concept and remains at the heart of much of today’s political debate. It is such an important concept there are pressure groups (such as LIBERTY) that are focused purely on the promotion of its cause.


Liberty may be defined as the absence of restraint, interference of impediment – many people then contest exactly what does constitute a ‘restraint or impediment.


NEGATIVE LIBERTY
Individuals should be free from coercion by the state or others. The state should play a minimal role in legislating individual action
Based on Mill’s HARM PRINCIPLE
Over himself, the individual is sovereign
Should this commitment to negative liberty be based on the intrinsic worth of negative liberty or in seeking a utilitarian outcome?
Is any action entirely self regarding?


POSITIVE LIBERTY
Freedom from internal constraints of the irrational and immoral self
Internal liberation, moral freedom bringing about collective freedom
Obedience to the state is freedom
Forced to be free
Does this not create a paradox where coercion = freedom?
Is this just not the step toward a totalitarian state where everything is viewed as a collective?


SOCIAL / WELFARE LIBERTY (AMERICAN LIBERALISM)
Freedom from poverty, want, disease, squalor, ignorance
Collective state provision of these goods
The idea is that these ‘5 evils’ provide a restriction to freedom and thus must be combated by the state
Even if you think social liberty is good – is that liberty?
Rawls argued that they merely affect the worth of liberty.
This is not liberty but merely the conditions for its effective exercise


ANARCHY
Complete absence of rules and restraints
Every law is an infraction of liberty (Bentham)
Autonomy is an absolute right
Could this be the only true version of liberty?
The empirical outcome of anarchy is not a ‘good’ one – should it therefore be rejected?


LIBERTY OF ANCIENTS
Active and constant participation in collective power
Tyranny of majority


[edit]Is all liberty negative?
TRADTIONAL VIEW
The conception of positive freedom, for instance from Rousseau where we need to stop our immorality, irrationality and stupidity.
This is the freedom to do something by removing our inner constraints
Welfare liberty may also be viewed as freedom to do something because positive restricts the ability of someone to do something
Negative liberty is associated with freedom from
The individual is sovereign, and freedom is associated with the lack of coercion.
Mill wanted freedom from external constraints.
Is this distinction valid?
X = agent
Y = restraint
Z = possible action
X IS FREE FROM Y TO DO Z (McCallum)
Does this not indicate that any action can be deduced to a freedom from?


Critics have argued that maybe all freedom is positive, often citing mill’s commitment to a utilitarian outcome – but his utilitarian commitment is not intrinsic to the concept of liberty
The argument by Callum falls on the basis that he fails to take into account the different viewpoints entirely. The positive libertarian has the view point that it is the actuality of action (be that civic or whatever) that brings about freedom. However, the negative libertarian is only concerned with the possibility of action.
Someone staying in bed all day; a positive liberty approach is concerned with him doing something, while a negative liberty approach is concerned that is has the possibility to do something.
The issue concerning welfare liberty is that if they actually in count as a limit on liberty. Welfare liberals argue that things like poverty are a restriction on the ability to act freely. Are you actually free if your poverty stops you from buying a cup of coffee?
Again, I think this argument fails to really capture the heart of the issue. The ‘5 evils’ merely affect the range of possibilities that are actually open to you to enact your freedom. However, that is not what freedom is – it is merely having the possibility in the first place. There is a distinction to be made between intentional and impersonal restraints on actions.


[edit]Limitations on liberty
Any restrain can be placed on freedom – the question is what ought to be restricted on freedom.


External – competing concepts such as democracy and equality.
Internal – it depends on your definition. Anarchists think nothing, Classical on the harm principle etc


Read more...