What? There’s More Than One Liberty?

If such a scenario had unfolded, the inquisitor could have been Isaiah Berlin, a Russian-born British philosopher. In 1958, he published a seminal essay, Two Concepts of Liberty, introducing the ideas of negative and positive liberty.

Berlin suggested that coercion strips a person of their freedom. But he raised an essential question: what exactly is freedom? Traditionally, it has been perceived as the ability to act without constraints from others. However, this notion becomes complex when considering the freedoms of others in society. What happens when my freedom encroaches upon yours?

Before Berlin’s influential essay, the balance of “my freedom versus your freedom” had not received serious scrutiny. There seemed to be an unspoken assumption that freedom was a right exclusive to certain individuals, typically the ruling class.

Negative Liberty

Berlin characterized negative liberty as the ability to act without coercive interference. He did not regard natural limitations, like the inability to jump great heights, as coercive. Coercion specifically refers to deliberate actions by others that restrict one's free choices.

This form of liberty connects closely with individualism and personal autonomy. Advocates of negative liberty desire to minimize governmental regulations that hinder their behavior.

At first glance, negative liberty appears to be an ideal for a free society. However, it’s essential to remember that in the early American Republic, this freedom was predominantly enjoyed by white male property owners, benefitting the landed gentry.

Negative Liberty: Humanizing or Dehumanizing?

Negative liberty isn't inherently dehumanizing if those involved in conflicting freedoms are committed to mutual respect. If my actions hinder your freedom, we can engage in dialogue to find a compromise.

Negotiating conflicts assumes equality between parties, whether they are nations, industries, or individuals. Yet, negative liberty can become dehumanizing when power imbalances exist.

For instance, if you hold 60% ownership in a business and propose a risky expansion that I oppose, the balance of power could lead to inequitable solutions. If you decide unilaterally to proceed without my consent, you assert your ownership at the expense of our partnership.

Thus, negative liberty can foster humanizing interactions if disputes are resolved equitably, but it often leads to dehumanization when power disparities are present. Historical hierarchies often utilize negative liberty in ways that marginalize those with less power.

Positive Liberty

Conversely, positive liberty encompasses the freedom to shape and direct one’s life. While negative liberty focuses on external constraints, positive liberty emphasizes overcoming internal limitations to discover one’s path.

A society grounded in positive liberty provides individuals with the resources and opportunities necessary to realize their potential. Berlin suggested that societal support, including education and resources, might be essential for individuals to achieve their aspirations.

Rebranding Negative and Positive Liberty: “Me First” versus “We Together”

Negative liberty’s resistance to social constraints contrasts with positive liberty’s encouragement of communal resources to support individual growth. By differentiating these perspectives, Berlin illuminated the divide between conservative and liberal ideologies.

The Great Divide Between “Me First” and “We Together”

Consider a thought experiment that encapsulates the contrast between these two value systems. The COVID-19 pandemic serves as a poignant example, highlighting the clash between individualism and collectivism.

As nations grappled with the virus, lockdown measures were enforced, leading to significant social and economic repercussions. Shortly after, a vaccine emerged, but opinions diverged sharply along ideological lines. Individualists argued against government mandates for isolation and vaccination, while collectivists maintained that such measures were necessary to protect public health.

The pandemic underscored a crucial divide: conservatism versus liberalism, negative liberty versus positive liberty, Me First versus We Together. Each side holds a fundamentally different view of freedom and its implications for society.

Can Two Flavors of Liberty Co-Exist?

The notion of democracy founded on a singular understanding of liberty is increasingly challenged. Conservatives accuse liberals of undermining democracy through coercive regulations, while liberals argue that regulation is vital for resource management.

In theory, the two viewpoints should coexist. Ideally, representatives from both sides would recognize mutual interests and work toward compromises. However, contemporary society often sees a breakdown of such negotiations.

For instance, in Germany, the rise of the ultra-conservative Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has sparked protests among those who advocate for a collective approach to liberty. Unfortunately, compromise is frequently perceived as a weakness.

What Would You Do?

As I conclude this exploration, I find the discussion has taken on a more academic tone than I intended. The complexities surrounding the clash of liberty perspectives carry significant implications for our societal framework.

To make this topic more relatable, consider your role in this debate. Imagine you are in charge of your nation's government.

You have come across alarming reports indicating a significant rise in measles infections, alongside a growing resistance among parents to vaccinate their children. As the leader, what actions would you take? Is it a parent’s right to refuse vaccination, or should your government prioritize the protection of public health?

Your decision will reflect your stance on the balance between Me First and We Together, revealing much about your leadership philosophy and the type of liberty you endorse for your citizens.

References

Berlin, I. (1958). Two concepts of liberty. In Liberty Reader (pp. 33–57): Routledge.

Deneen, P. J. (2018). Why Liberalism Failed.

Slack, K. (2023). War on the American Republic: How Liberalism Became Despotism.