Brief Summary
This lecture explains the distinction between positive and negative liberty, concepts popularized by Isaiah Berlin. Negative liberty is defined as freedom from external interference, while positive liberty is the freedom to act upon one's will. The discussion covers historical examples, philosophical perspectives from John Stuart Mill and Booker T. Washington, and the modern libertarian view.
- Negative Liberty: Freedom from external interference.
- Positive Liberty: Freedom to act upon one's will.
- The concepts are explored through historical examples and philosophical perspectives.
Introduction to Positive and Negative Liberty
The lecture introduces the concepts of positive and negative liberty, drawing from Isaiah Berlin's essay "Two Concepts of Liberty." Negative liberty is defined as freedom from outside interference, while positive liberty is defined as freedom to act upon one's will. The distinction lies between being free from obstacles and being free to achieve one's goals. In the context of negative liberty, one might say, "I am no one's slave," whereas in positive liberty, one would assert, "I am my own master." Negative liberty is often framed in terms of natural rights, while positive liberty is associated with entitlements.
Negative Liberty: Freedom from Interference
Negative liberty involves a zone of non-interference, where freedom is the ability to operate without external obstruction. Religious freedom can be viewed through both lenses: negative liberty protects freedom from interference in religious practice, while positive liberty is the freedom to practice the religion of one's choosing. An example of positive liberty is Cyrus the Great providing resources for the Jews to rebuild their temple, enabling them to worship as they wished. The rights in America, particularly constitutional rights, are typically understood in terms of negative liberty. The Declaration of Independence, with its emphasis on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, reflects this concept. John Stuart Mill's liberalism also aligns with negative liberty, emphasizing individual freedom as long as no harm is done to others. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, protecting freedom of expression, is written in the language of negative liberty, ensuring non-interference from the federal government.
Positive Liberty: The Freedom to Achieve
Negative liberty is limited when individuals lack the resources to attain their goals. Booker T. Washington's "Up from Slavery" illustrates this point, as newly freed slaves, though free from a master, lacked property, money, and skills. This raises the question of whether society should provide things like education, healthcare, and employment. In a state of nature, these are not rights, but civilized societies may recognize them. Newton's first law of motion is used to illustrate that those with property, money, and education are free to stay in motion, while those without these resources are not free to achieve their goals.
FDR's Four Freedoms and Modern Libertarianism
While Jefferson symbolizes negative liberty, FDR's Four Freedoms (freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear) include both negative and positive liberties. Freedom of speech and worship are negative liberties, while freedom from want and fear are positive liberties, considered entitlements in a civilized society. Modern libertarians, like Ron Paul, reject positive liberty, arguing that it requires taking from one person to give to another. Implementing positive liberty necessitates redistributing wealth and resources, which libertarians view as compromising individual freedom. However, without redistribution, a portion of the population remains unfree due to a lack of resources. Liberty is complex, leading to ongoing discussions between Jeffersonian negative liberty and the 20th-century Roosevelt concept of positive liberty.
