Discover

|
|-
|
|}
'Positive liberty' was first explicitly stated by Isaiah Berlin in 1958. It refers to the opportunity and ability to act to fulfill one's own potential, as opposed to ''negative liberty'', which refers to freedom from restraint. For example, one may have the negative liberty of "freedom of the press," but if he does not own a printing press or printer, then he lacks the positive liberty to take advantage of his negative liberty. Or, one may have the negative liberty of "freedom of speech" but if he lacks vocal cords, then he lacks positive liberty.
The positive notion of liberty plays a crucial, yet almost always implicit, role in many major political philosophies, such as republicanism, socialism, and communism. For example, according to republicanism, one is free insofar as one participates in self-government.
In contrast to negative liberty, which in its largest scope applies to individuals, positive liberty has often been applied by collectivist philosophies to whole segments of society or to a nation's society as a whole.

Contents

Overview

Criticism

Bibliography

See also

External links

References

Overview

''Positive liberty'' is often described as personal ability to achieve certain ends, while ''negative liberty'' is described as freedom from being forcibly prevented from achieving those ends. The idea of positive liberty is often emphasized by those on the left-wing of the political spectrum, whereas negative liberty is most important for those who lean towards libertarianism. However, not all on either the left or right would accept the positive/negative liberty distinction as genuine or significant. For example, Gerald MacCallum believes Berlin is in error and that, "Whenever the freedom of some agent or agents is in question, it is always freedom from some constraint or restriction on, interference with, or barrier to doing, not doing, becoming, or not becoming something" and that what Berlin is referring to as freedom is not freedom at all.
Among the right-wing, some conservatives also embrace some forms of positive liberty. For example, Puritans such as Cotton Mather often referred to liberty in their writings, but focused on the liberty from sin (e.g. sexual urges) even at the expense of liberty from the government. Many anarchists, and others considered to be on the left-wing, see the two concepts of positive and negative liberty as interdependent and thus inseparable; contrarily, those in the libertarian camp assert that the provision of positive liberty to one requires the abridgement of the negative liberty of another.

Criticism

While he described the concept of ''positive liberty'', Isaiah Berlin argued that the unbridled pursuit of positive liberty could lead to a situation where the state forced upon people a certain way of life, because the state judged that it was the most rational course of action, and therefore, was what a person ''should'' desire, whether or not people actually did desire it.
David Kelley argues that positive liberty requires that persons be guaranteed positive outcomes which often requires the coercion of others to provide it. Meaning, positive rights "impose on others positive obligations to which they did not consent and which cannot be traced to any voluntary act" ^[1] Kelley notes that positive liberty evolved out of economic and natural risks such as poverty and old age. ^[2] Rising living standards contributed to a visible difference between those improving their life and those left behind. Economic progress increased population size and allowed many to live who otherwise would have died, including many who could now live into old age.^[3]
Kelley, among other critics of positive liberty, argues that positive liberty's concept of coercion is also misapplied. Positive liberty attempts to correct ills from economic and natural risks, but Kelley argues that these do not constitute coercion. Kelley states, "Advocates of positive freedom have exploited [concepts of coercion and freedom], insisting that lack of a certain opportunity deprives a person of the freedom to choose that opportunity." ^[4] Kelley notes that a person's inability to run a five-minute mile does not remove the person's freedom to do so, it is simply a fact of nature, nor is one's freedom restricted by a more limited menu at a dinner, or a woman's refusal to accept a marriage proposal a limitation of the man's freedom to marry her.^[5]. Advocates of positive freedom also insist that threats to health require the provision of positive freedom, but critics assert that disease and old age are inevitable features of human life, not a restriction of freedom.^[6] Kelley notes that this concept of positive freedom is "a notion that makes sense only if we assume that individuals in some new sense "ought" to be able to choose their fates in complete disregard of the facts."^[7]
According to Kelley, positive freedom attempts to defy economics by providing for individuals without the need to produce. ^[8] He argues that production is a natural requirement for consumption and a lack of production, for reasons of inadequacy or unemployment are not coercion and they do not leave you worse off. ^[9] Kelley concludes that, "the concept of positive freedom arises from an invalid attempt to ignore the distinctions...by insisting that the presence of certain options among one's alternatives is equivalent to freedom of choice among one's alternatives and that the absence of an option is equivalent to coercive interference with one's freedom" and that "the price of positive freedom is the sacrifice of genuine liberty.^[10]
From a socialist perspective, it is important to distinguish between production deriving from personal labor and production deriving from capital, or the investment of wealth. Some people are able to provide for themselves while engaging in little productive labor, by investing wealth either come upon by chance, or passed down from previous generations, or both. Sometimes, this intergenerational transfer takes the form of inheritance, but it is more often in the form of subsidization of the education of children and their establishment in professions or businesses. In this view, production deriving from the investment of capital always results from the contractually purchased labor of other people, and is therefore outside the boundaries of personal liberty. As such, freedom from government interference should be extended only to individuals, not to families, businesses, or other corporate entities formed by contracts.
Defenders of ''positive liberty'' say that there is no need for it to have totalitarian undertones, and that there is a great difference between a government providing positive liberty to its citizens and a government presuming to make their decisions for them. For example, they argue that any democratic government upholding positive liberty would not suffer from the problems Berlin described, because such a government would ''not'' be in a position to ignore the wishes of people or societies. Also, many on the left see ''positive liberty'' as guaranteeing equal rights to certain things like education and employment, and an important defense against discrimination — here, ''positive liberty'' could be the right of (for example) a woman to be considered on equal terms with a man in a job interview.
From an anarchist perspective, positive liberty means every individual having the right to fully develop themselves, their abilities and exercise their freedom. This means things such as the right for workers to own and control the means of production, the right to democratic decision-making power within the workplace, the right to equal decision-making power in a self-management and direct democratic regime and the right to equal condition. To anarchists, positive liberty does not the mean the right to bind others to obligations against their will or the need for a government to step in and provide rights since anarchists believe that liberty can only come from below rather than from above (and anarchists believe government action would violate negative liberty). Anarchists would argue that any freedom handed down from a government is not liberty but an allowance from established power which also has the power to take those same allowances away should it change its mind.

Bibliography

★ Isaiah Berlin: ''Four Essays on Liberty'' (especially ''Two Concepts of Liberty'')

★ Charles Taylor: ''What's Wrong With Negative Liberty''

See also

★ Negative liberty

★ Real freedom

★ Negative and positive rights

External links

★ ''Positive and Negative Liberty'' from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

References

1. Kelley, David E. 1998. A Life of One's Own. Cato Institute Press. p 23-24
2. ibid, 32
3. ibid. 33-34
4. ibid. 68
5. ibid. 68-69
6. ibid, 71
7. ibid, 71
8. ibid, 72
9. ibid, 74-75
10. ibid, 69, 75