Negative Liberty: Limits and Balance in Political Freedom

Introduction

Much is made about freedom and liberty in the United States. Indeed, this preoccupation stretches all the way back to the founding of the nation — a founding spurred in large part by the lack of freedom and representation that British colonists felt they were receiving under the British Crown. Over the years, one of the subtopics that has developed out of this broader conversation is negative liberty. Generally speaking, negative liberty is the idea that a person has the right not to be bothered or interfered with by other people or by authorities. While negative liberty sounds entirely reasonable and should generally be extended to people without question, there are specific instances where the concept is abused or where its extension would itself be wrong.

Defining Negative Liberty: Berlin and the Two Questions

Negative liberty is a subject that has evolved and changed over the years. The modern manifestation of the concept sometimes involves people who are overly aggressive and unrealistic in their demands that others not meddle in their affairs. Common examples of this would include non-payment of taxes, abuse of children, sexual crimes of any sort, and failure to keep one's property safe. However, the converse argument is equally important: some government agencies and private individuals are entirely too intrusive and self-entitled when it comes to the affairs of others. People who snoop, eavesdrop, and monitor without good reason or legal basis typify this problem.

One foundational scholar on this subject is Isaiah Berlin, who wrote important treatises on the nature of liberty during the 1950s and 1960s. Berlin makes his general perspective clear when he asserts that "political theory is a branch of moral philosophy" (Berlin). He also argues, however, that one cannot simply use such philosophy to reduce and mechanically deduce specific conclusions from history. Rather, he says, one can use it to recognize and appreciate the different perspectives in play.

Berlin cuts straight to the heart of the matter by posing two questions to the reader. The first asks when it is acceptable and proper to leave a person to his or her own devices — to allow them to do as they choose. The second, the inverse of the first, asks when interference or confrontation of some kind becomes necessary. The latter represents the "positive" liberty argument, while the former represents the "negative" liberty argument. Regardless of where a given situation falls in that duality, Berlin holds that one's freedom, in a political sense, is the extent to which one can operate and function without being accosted, interfered with, or stopped. The difficult question is when any interference is allowable and proper, and when it is simply unnecessary. 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).

Charles Taylor and the Limits of Negative Liberty

About a decade after Berlin made his case, another scholar, Charles Taylor, asked through his writing what exactly is wrong with negative liberty. He echoes Berlin in observing that defining and quantifying freedom is quite difficult. What a person has the freedom to do — and what they do not have the freedom to do — is not an easy question to answer, and negative liberty sits squarely in the middle of that difficulty. Taylor also makes the important point that having the freedom to do something and actually doing it are two entirely different things. Just because a person has freedom of speech does not mean he or she will choose to exercise that right in every instance. Similarly, a person might wish to fly like a bird, but that will never happen — and yet this impossibility does not honestly make the person unfree.

Taylor cites Berlin as saying that he "prefers negative liberty for it is both truer and more human than its positive counterpart." This preference is explained by the observation that positive liberty can be abused by totalitarian governments and others who would exploit their power to meddle in and control the lives of citizens (Ryan). The United States Bill of Rights is, of course, filled with provisions that specify what the government cannot do rather than simply what it can do (Archives.gov, 2015). The Constitution, however, asserts much of the opposite in establishing the powers of government (Archives.gov, 2015).

Conclusion

As with most things, there are people on both sides of the liberty argument who will abuse the concept. Just as some people who deserve to be left alone are instead harassed and monitored, there are also those who genuinely harm others and yet invoke negative liberty as a shield. Even so, the pendulum should always swing closer to negative liberty than to positive liberty, because people should generally be left alone rather than monitored and controlled. That principle, rooted in the work of thinkers like Berlin and Taylor, remains the most human and the most defensible default for a free society.

Works Cited

Archives.gov. "Constitution of the United States — Official." National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives and Records Administration, 20 Feb. 2015. Web. 20 Feb. 2015.

Archives.gov. "Bill of Rights — Official." National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives and Records Administration, 20 Feb. 2015. Web. 20 Feb. 2015.

Berlin, Isaiah. Four Essays on Liberty. London: Oxford UP, 1969. Print.

Ryan, Alan. The Idea of Freedom: Essays in Honour of Isaiah Berlin. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1979. Print.