Negative liberty
The philosophical concept of
negative liberty refers to an individual's liberty from being subjected to the authority of others. In this negative sense, one is considered free to the extent to which no person interferes with his or her activity. According to
Thomas Hobbes, for example, "a free man is he that... is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do."
The distinction between negative liberty and
positive liberty was drawn by
Isaiah Berlin in his lecture entitled "
Two Concepts of Liberty." According to Berlin, this distinction is deeply embedded in the political tradition: the notion of negative liberty being associated most strongly with the classical British political philosophers (e.g.
Locke,
Hobbes and
Smith) and positive liberty with continental European thinkers such as
Hegel,
Rousseau,
Herder, and
Marx.
The concept of negative liberty has several noteworthy aspects. First, negative liberty defines a realm or "zone" of freedom (in the "silence of
law"). In Berlin's words, "liberty in the negative sense involves an answer to the question 'What is the area within which the subject is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons." Some philosophers have disagreed on the extent of this realm while accepting the main point that liberty defines that realm in which one may act unobstructed by others. Second, the restriction implicit in negative liberty is imposed by a person or persons and not due to causes such as nature, lack, or incapacity.
Helvetius expresses this point clearly: "The free man is the man who is not in irons, nor imprisoned in a gaol, nor terrorized like a slave by the fear of punishment... it is not lack of freedom not to fly like an eagle or swim like a whale."
The dichotomy of positive and negative liberty is considered specious by political philosophers in traditions such as
socialism,
social democracy,
libertarian socialism, and
Marxism. Some of them argue that positive and negative liberty are indistinguishable in practice, while others claim that one kind of liberty cannot exist independently of the other. A common argument is that the preservation of negative liberty requires positive action on the part of the government or society to prevent some individuals from taking away the liberty of others.
One might ask, "How is men's desire for liberty to be reconciled with the need for authority?" Its answer by various thinkers provides a fault line for understanding their view on liberty but also a cluster of intersecting concepts such as authority, equality, and justice.
Hobbes and
Locke give two influential and representative solutions to this question. As a starting point, both agree that a line must be drawn and a space sharply delineated where each individual can act unhindered according to their tastes, desires, and inclinations. This zone defines the sacrosanct space of personal liberty. But, they believe no society is possible without some authority, where the intended purpose of authority is to prevent collisions among the different ends and, thereby, to demarcate the boundaries where each person's zone of liberty begins and ends. Where Hobbes and Locke differ is the extent of the zone. Hobbes, who took a rather negative view of human nature, argued that a strong authority was needed to curb men's intrinsically wild, savage, and corrupt impulses. Only a powerful authority can keep at bay the permanent and always looming threat of anarchy. Locke believed, on the other hand, that men on the whole are more good than wicked and, accordingly, the area for individual liberty can be left rather at large.
John Jay, in
Federalist Papers No. 2, stated that: "Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of Government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers." Jay's meaning would be better expressed by substituting "negative liberty" in place of "natural rights", for the argument here is that the power or authority of a legitimate government derives in part from our accepting restrictions on negative liberty.
Thomas Paine in
Common Sense distinguishes between society and government almost exactly with the distinction between positive and negative liberty: "Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices."
Thomas Jefferson says, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
Liberterian thinker
Tibor Machan defends negative liberty as "required for moral choice and, thus, for human flourishing," claiming that it "is secured when the rights of individual members of a human community to life, to voluntary action (or to liberty of conduct), and to property are universally respected, observed, and defended."
* Isaiah Berlin:
Four Essays on Liberty (especially
Two Concepts of Liberty)
* Isaiah Berlin:
Freedom and its Betrayal*
Positive liberty*
Real freedom*
Negative and positive rights*
Positive and Negative Liberty from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
