Negative Liberty vs. Positive Liberty

Negative Liberty Much is made about freedom and liberty in the United States. Indeed, this stretches all the way back to the founding of this nation. That founding was spurred and motivated in large part by the lack of freedom and representation that the British colonists felt they were receiving with the British crown. Over the years, one of the subtopics that has developed is negative liberty. Generally, negative liberty is the idea that someone has the right to not be bothered or pestered by people or authorities.

While the idea of negative liberty sounds good and should generally be extended to people with no question, there are very specific instances where the concept of negative liberty is abused and should not be extended because it would indeed be wrong. Analysis Negative liberty is a subject that has evolved and changed over the years. The modern manifestation of negative liberty are people that are a tad too aggressive and unrealistic when it comes to people not meddling in their affairs.

Common examples of this would be non-payment of taxes, abuse of children, sexual crimes of any sort and not keeping one's property safe and well-kept. However, the converse argument is that some government agencies and/or regular people are entirely too prudish and self-entitled when it relates to the affairs of others. People that snoop, sneak, eavesdrop and monitor with no good reason and/or legal basis typify this group. The author of this report shall offer more on this after consulting and citing some scholarly sources on the matter.

One such scholar was Isaiah Berlin. He penned some treatises on the subject of liberty in the 1950's and 1960's. Berlin makes his general perspective quite clear when he asserts that "political theory is a branch of moral philosophy" (Berlin). However, he also asserts that while one cannot simply use such philosophy to reduce and deduce specific things from history. Rather, he says that one can deduce and see the different perspectives involved. Berlin gets straight to the point and makes much the same deduction noted above.

He asks two questions to the reader. The first is when it is acceptable and proper to leave a person to their own devices and allow him to do what he or she may. The other question, and the inverse of the first, is when interference and confrontation of some sort is necessary. The latter would be the "positive" liberty argument while the former would be the "negative" liberty argument.

Regardless of where something falls in that duality, Berlin asserts that one's freedom (in a political sense) is the extent to which he can operate and function without being accosted, interfered with or stopped. The question becomes when any interference is allowable and proper and why it is just unnecessary. Deciphering what situations are one and which are the other is something that is not so easy to pin down and intentions towards interfering can vary as well.

As Berlin states it, "the criterion of oppression is the part that I believe to be played by other human beings, directly or indirectly, with or without the intention of doing so, in frustrating my wishes" (Berlin). About ten years after Berlin made his case, another man by the name of Charles Taylor asked aloud, via his writing, what is wrong with negative liberty. He echoes Mr. Berlin when he says that defining and quantifying freedom is quite hard.

What someone has the freedom to do and what they do not have the freedom to do is not the easiest question to answer and negative liberty is certainly in that discussion. He also makes the point that having the freedom to do something and actually doing it are two different things. Just because a person has freedom of speech does not mean they will elect to use that right in all instances, for whatever reason.

Similarly, a person can wish to have the freedom to fly like a bird but that will not happen. However, that does not honestly make him unfree. Taylor cites Berlin as saying that he "prefers negative liberty for it is both truer and more human than its positive counterpart." This is cited to be the case because positive liberty can be abused by totalitarian governments and others that would abuse their ability to meddle and control the people (Ryan).

Of course, the United States Bill of Rights is teeming with rules and regulations that tell the United States government what it cannot do…rather than simply what it can do (Archives.gov, 2015). However, the Constitution asserts much of the opposite (Archives.gov, 2015). Personal Verdict Of course, there should be a balance between positive liberty and negative liberty. Also, both of the concepts need to be based in reality.

For example, there are a number of activities that are going to invite and incite the government to intercede and this is as it should be. This would include the items mentioned earlier in the report such as child abuse and other dangerous or illegal activities. On the other hand, governments do go over the top. For example, it makes sense to require businesses to have a license before they can operate. However, coming down on a seven-year-old running a lemonade stand is a bit much.

Further, the definition of what someone should be able to do is expanded entirely too much. Some people see nothing wrong with stealing from one person that is rich so as to ostensibly help the poor. However, that is almost always illegal and it's immoral regardless. There are legal recourses for people that steal and deceive and depriving liberty of movement or property, especially when the restraint is coming from non-approved entities, is a recipe for disaster. There has to be a balance between negative freedom and positive freedom.

However, negative liberty should be the default and should never sway over the positive liberty without evidence and due process. This is precisely what the aforementioned Bill of Rights guarantees when it talks about due process, double jeopardy, non-incrimination and.