The debate surrounding the two concepts of liberty, as identified by Isaiah Berlin, seems, to me, to be extremely confused. For those who are unfamiliar, here is an outline of the two concepts:
1. “negative liberty” - is freedom from external coercion; that is, one is free to the extent to which no person interferes with his/her activity.
2. “positive liberty” - is freedom to achieve certain ends; one is free to the extent that he/she can act to fulfil his/her own potential.
There has been much debate, by supporters of the two sides, as to which theory is correct.
Positive liberty supporters, such as Charles Taylor, claim that negative liberty theories fail to consider internal controls, or the inability of some people to recognize their full potential, and will therefore never be free.
Negative liberty supporters, such as Isaiah Berlin, have a problem with positive liberty in that it may cause government to force, or coerce, people into being ‘free’, since, as positive supporters say, some people are unable to recognize their potential. Therefore, positive freedom isn’t really speaking about freedom at all. Some positive liberty supporters even accept this.
But I have a problem with positive liberty supporters suggesting that INTERNAL CONTROL from freedom is actually a problem that requires coercion from the government. Because positive liberty theories aim at the full potential of the individual, it encourages equal rights, in education and employment…to me it seems that providing these opportunies are as far as any positive theory could, or should, go. If the individual does not choose to accept what is taught in the education system, but is always provided with the chance to learn maybe down the road, i feel that the individual, in choosing not to learn is acting freely according to his/her own potential at that time.
Eliminating the need to address internal controls, or hold ups in reaching one’s own potential, the distinction between positive and negative theories fades away, and the two become one…once again, the definitions:
- “negative liberty” - is freedom from external coercion; that is, one is free to the extent to which no person interferes with his/her activity.
But what are these actions? I suggest that they are the ability to be one’s own master, pursue one’s own life path, and fulful one’s potential in one’s own mind (as argued for by positive liberty theories).
- “positive liberty” - is freedom to achieve certain ends; one is free to the extent that he/she can act to fulfil his/her own potential.
But what would prevent one from achieving these ends? What would prevent one from fulfilling his/her own potential? I suggest that it would be external coercion, or interference from either government or society.
Therefore, it seems to me that the two concepts of liberty, when ignoring internal hang-ups, or inabilities, are actually arguing for the same exact thing: freedom as the ability to fulfil one’s potential in his/her own mind without the interference of external coercion. It seems that the definitions of the two concepts are simply too narrow, but when corrected become the same thing.
As opposed to a false dichotomy in which it is argued that there are only two possible options when there are in fact more, the debate concerning liberty seems to be a reverse false dichotomy, in which it is argued that there are two possibilities when there is in fact only one.
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts about the negative/positive liberty debate. Let me know your position on it.
Thanks.