Negative liberty
There are several senses of political liberty. Of these, two seem to be central.
The distinction between Negative Liberty and Positive Liberty was drawn most acutely and famously by Isaiah Berlin in an article entitled "Two Concepts of Liberty." As Berlin notes, the distinction is deeply embedded in the political tradition: the notion of negative liberty being associated most strongly with the classical English political philosophers (e.g. Locke, Hobbes, Smith, and Mill) and positive liberty with thinkers such as Hegel, Rousseau, Herder, and Marx.
Stated most simply, negative liberty means absence of coercion from others. In this negative sense, I am considered free to the extent to which no person or person interferes with my activity. According to Hobbes, for example, "a free man is he that...is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do."
This usage of negative liberty has several noteworthy aspects. First, negative liberty defines a realm or "zone" of freedom. In Berlin's words, "liberty in the negative sense involves an answer to the question "What is the area within which the subject---a person or group of persons---is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons." Philosophers have disagreed on the extent of this realm while accepting the main point that liberty defines that realm in which I may act unobstructed by others. Second, the restriction implicit in negative liberty is imposed by 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."
Negative Liberty and Authority: Hobbes and Locke
The ability to act undeterred by another's will is undoubtedly one of the primary meanings of liberty. Freedom from coercion (i.e. negative liberty) is a value most of us would recognize as indispensable for leading a successful and worthy life. It is then natural to ask, "How is men's desire for liberty to be reconciled with the need for authority?" This is one of the central questions of political philosophy and its answer by various thinkers provides a fault line for understanding their outlook not just on liberty but also a cluster of intersecting concepts such as authority, power, and justice.
For whatever cause or reason, men live in society. And this clearly seems to mean that a life of absolute negative freedom, where each is able to will and act without any coercion, is incompatible with living a life with others. A solitary creature is by definition negatively free and can be so absolutely. But as soon as we introduce society, we also introduce the possibility of conflict.
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 delineated where each individual can act unhindered according to their tastes, desires, and inclinations. This zone defines the sacrosanct space of personal liberty. But no society can survive without authority, its purpose being to prevent collisions among the individual ends of members. Where Hobbes and Locke differ is the extent of the zone. Hobbes, who took a rather dim view of human nature, saw that a strong authority was needed to curb men's intrinsically wild, savage, and corrupt impulses. Locke believed that men on the whole were more good than wicked and, therefore, the area for individual liberty could be left much larger than with Hobbes.
Bibliography
- Isaiah Berlin: Four Essays on Liberty (especially Two Concepts of Liberty)
- Isaiah Berlin: Freedom and its Betrayal