This paper traces the historical evolution of political liberalism and its competing conceptions of liberty. Beginning with classical liberalism's definition of liberty as freedom from sovereign coercion — anchored in Locke's triad of life, liberty, and property — the paper examines how 19th-century liberalism shifted toward positive liberty, demanding active state protection of citizens' rights. It contrasts this with the libertarian defense of negative liberty and its fear of majoritarian tyranny. The paper concludes with John Rawls's critique of capitalist inequality, illustrating the enduring tension between property rights and equal freedom across liberal political thought.
The political liberalism of the 17th and 18th centuries was far different from the contemporary conceptualization of liberal politics. In the evolution of modern liberalism, liberty was once conceived as an absence of coercion by a sovereign. As Gaus (2010) explains, "the heart of liberty is the absence of coercion by others; consequently, the liberal state's commitment to protecting liberty is, essentially, the job of ensuring that citizens do not coerce each other without compelling justification." This stood in direct contrast to the concept of the divine right of kings, which presumed that a ruler, by virtue of his power, had the ability to do as he willed in relation to his subjects — without justification — and that subjects had no right of revolt.
Classical liberalism, perhaps in reaction to the once-assumed prerogative of sovereigns to tax as they willed and to seize property from subjects at will, tended to view liberty as synonymous with property. To be free was to be secure in one's person and home, and to know that neither could be conscripted by the state. Hence Locke's famous assertion about the right to life, liberty, and property as the cornerstones of liberalism.
Modern liberalism takes a different view and tends to stress the value of positive liberties over negative liberties. Negative liberties are understood as "freedom from" — that is, freedom from state interference. Positive liberties, in contrast, stress the responsibility of the state to protect certain rights of all human beings and to take a more proactive role in safeguarding those liberties. Nineteenth-century liberals onward valued the need for "a variety of state policies, encompassing not only the criminal law and enforcement of contracts, but the licensing of professionals, health, safety and fire regulations, banking regulations, commercial infrastructure (roads, harbors and canals) and often encouraged unionization" to ensure that citizens' liberties to live safe and healthy lives are protected (Gaus 2010).
To refuse to fulfill these functions is, ultimately, to create a less free society — one in which those without natural advantages are disadvantaged. Merely being free to participate in the democratic process does not mean that a person is truly "free," say advocates of positive liberties. It is difficult to be free if one is physically deprived or forced to work in a factory job that requires laboring ten hours a day to remain economically solvent. Coercion may not necessarily take the form of actively directing a person's actions; it can also result from invisible social pressures.
In contrast, advocates of a negative concept of political liberty tend to be more libertarian in their political orientation. Their belief in the need for "freedom from" the state is rooted in a fear that a state that is overly aggressive in protecting the rights of the majority will need to extract too many resources from citizens in the form of taxation. They believe that the will of the majority in demanding positive rights — such as healthcare, or even the regulation of business practices — has the potential to become a form of tyranny.
The notion of liberty itself has evolved considerably over the years. Classical liberals such as Locke and Rousseau tended to view liberty as a universal value, while some contemporary theorists of social justice such as Rawls stress that the value lies not in liberty as such but in what types of liberty are granted. Rawls views a truly just society as one in which no social group can substantially advance past another, and does not regard the modern capitalist state as truly free at all. Rawls's view reflects the fundamental difference between old and new liberalism and between positive and negative liberties: "a growing conviction that, so far from being 'the guardian of every other right' (Ely, 1992: 26), property rights generated an unjust inequality of power that led to a less-than-equal liberty (typically, 'positive liberty') for the working class" (Gaus 2010).
"Libertarian fears of majority tyranny and excessive taxation"
"Rawls critiques capitalist inequality and redefines freedom"
You’re 87% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.