Summary Theory of Politics: Liberty, contraints upon liberty, poverty

Summary on Liberty
Fred Spierings

Factors on which discussion about liberty are based
 Often the conception of a constraint (Miller)
 The relative importance that is ascribed to the concepts of opportunity and exercise
 The conception of the individual

Isaiah Berlin’s question of liberty in the political sense
 Essay of conceptual analysis
 engagement with historical ideas
 Relationship between political theory and moral philosophy
- through the discovery and/or application of moral notion in the sphere of political
relations
- RAMMIFICATION: to understand historical conflicts of a political nature, requires us to
understand the underlying (philosophical/moral) ideas or attitudes (p. 168)
 (p. 168) the question about obedience and coercion, i.e. the question of political liberty, has
long been the “central question of politics” -> Berlin argues that two distinct central senses
of liberty underly the conflicting political responses to this question:
 argues for the negative liberty as the political complement to the human capacity for free
choice
 provides an account of the perversion of positive liberty into a warrant for such claims

Negative Liberty
 Answers 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 any interference by other persons?’ (Berlin, p. 169)
 “I am normally said to be free to the degree to which no man or body of men interferes with
my activity.” -> Political liberty in this sense: “the area within which a man can act
unobstructed by others.” (Berlin, p. 169)
 Negative Liberty = state in which the individual’s actions are not obstructed by (results from)
external agency -> may be defined as
- non-interference (Berlin)
- an opportunity-concept (Taylor)
 Perhaps traditionally most common conception of freedom
 HUMAN SOURCE RESTRICTION: Negative liberty in the political sense can only be interfered
by OTHER HUMAN BEINGS -> Berlin: “Coercion implies the deliberate interference of other
human beings within the area in which I could otherwise act. You lack political liberty or
freedom only if you are prevented from attaining a goal by human beings. Mere incapacity
[i.e. because of scientific or physiological factors, e.g. the incapacity to fly] to attain a goal is
not lack of political freedom” (Berlin, p. 169)

PROMBLEM 1: Full negative freedom seems both (a) practically impossible and (b) self-defeating ->
necessity of a frontier

 freedom could not be unlimited, i.e. “natural freedom” (Berlin, p. 171):

,  a state of absolute non-interference would result in anarchy in which the physiologically and
socially superior exploit the weak.
 Even staunch proponents of negative liberty agree that such a society is undesirable, for two
main reasons:
1. The absolute negative liberty of the one may (and most likely will) curtail the negative
liberty of the other.
 “Men are largely interdependent, and no man’s activity is so completely private as
never to obstruct the lives of others in any way.” -> “the liberty of some must
depend on the restraint of others”, e.g. If I am free to kill you, you are unfree to live.
 If the strong are free to exploit the weak, the weak are no longer free to determine
how to live their lives.
2. Other values may clash with liberty so that one has to be prioritized
 There is no harmony in human purposes and because others may clash with freedom
most would agree that freedom may be curtailed in the interest of these other values

 Problem of “Political claptrap” (Berlin pp. 171-2): Shouldn’t we care first about the
basic necessities of all before we care about freedom?
- Question of raised in political debate
- Especially relevant because much of the wealth which is the basis for the
freedoms enjoyed by the West comes/came from exploitation elsewhere
- NEVERTHELESS: “Nothing is gained by a confusion of terms.” If I sacrifice my
freedom for e.g. equality or the basic means of others, I am sacrificing freedom,
i.e. without gaining some other kind of freedom. I merely gain equality.
“Everything is what it is: liberty is liberty, not equality or fairness or justice or
culture” etc.
 NOTWITHSTANDING: we all agree that sometimes freedom must be sacrificed
for such other values.
 HENCE “a frontier must be drawn between the area of private life and that of public
authority” (Berlin, p. 171)
 RESULT: political debate as to where the frontier between inference and absence of
interference must this frontier be located? -> answer based on two questions (in accordance
with the 2 main reasons for why absolute negative liberty is undesirable)
1. To what extent must individual liberty make way for other values?
 On this question, opinions are typically most divided.
 Even in societies where freedom of expression is traditionally held sacred, today we
perceive a growing movement of those who think that it must yield even to the petty
feelings of those who are easily offended.
2. May the individual’s liberty be constrained to ensure the liberty of the other?
 Most would answer yes
 PROBLEM 1: there might be disagreement as to what action constitutes inference
upon the individual’s liberty -> question of indirect interference (see next)
 PROBLEM 2: there may be disagreement as to what constraints upon the individuals’
liberty are needed to ensure the liberty of all
- Optimistic philosophers (e.g. Locke, Smith, Mill): social harmony and progress
were compatible with reserving a large area for private life (Berlin, p. 173)
- Pessimistic philosopher (Hobbes): greater safeguards must be instituted to
prevent man from destroying one another and social harmony (Berlin, p. 173)