Comprehensively, the term liberty is understood to pertain to freedom i.e. absence of constraints. Nonetheless, there exist nuances in the interpretations thereof which shall be understood as the chapter progresses.
In politics, liberty is generally concerned with external constraints, whereas in philosophy, both internal and external constraints are collectively a matter of concern.
The provenance of liberty as a concept.
Liberty as a concept arose as a result of the industrial revolution in the seventeenth century. The emerging capitalist class was concerned primarily with the absence of the role of the state. The feudal system of economy had prevailed until then, and this had led to an aggregation of the market under the state. The capitalist class eventually overthrew the feudal system and established factory-based production as the predominant mode of economic production.
The system of economy and polity being closely linked, a political system in accordance with the capitalist system appeared to have been constituted. The economy was under the control of the capitalist class and the role of the state therein was as good as insignificant. The form of state extant under such a system can best be described by the term minimalist state. In theory, liberty as envisaged by the prevalent mode of thought under the capitalist system, was to be accorded to every individual irrespective of his or her background. However, the capitalist system steadily led to the aggrandizement of power by the capitalist class and oppression of the labour (worker) class.
In consequence, a new mode of thought arose which advocated a positive role of the state in the economy. It sought to establish a welfare state i.e. the state was to have a key role in formulating and implementing economic policies that would be done keeping the economically disadvantaged sections into consideration.
The United States of America is an example of a minimalist state, because it follows a system of regressive taxation. As the level of income increases, the tax charged on the income decreases.
India is an example of a welfare state, because it follows a system of progressive taxation. As the level of income increases, the tax charged on the income also increases.
Negative and Positive Liberty.
It is in this context that the concepts of negative liberty and positive liberty came to be formulated. The terms negative and positive are not to be understood in the conventional sense of ‘negative being bad’ and ‘positive being good’. Under the capitalist system, the role of the state was negated. Therefore, the liberty enjoyed by individuals (in theory, for it was only the capitalist class that actually enjoyed liberty as time progressed) came to be described as negative liberty, for the role of the state herein was negated. On the other hand, when the state began to play an active role and was concerned with protecting the liberties of the disadvantaged sections as well, the state had a positive role, in that its role was not negated. Hence the term positive liberty.
Negative liberty, therefore, envisages a minimalist role of the state. It posits a sphere of an individual within which he reigns supreme and the state has no role in that sphere. It can appositely be described with the phrase freedom from. It is based on the premise that individual knows his self-interest best. John Locke, Adam Smith Jeremy Bentham etc. were the proponents thereof.
For instance, in India, the Right to Privacy is an instance of negative liberty. It cannot be brought under the purview of the state.
On the other hand, positive liberty envisages role of the state to the extent that it is intended to ensure that the liberty of all is upheld and the liberty of one does not lead to the repression of liberty of another. It can appositely be described with the phrase freedom to.
For instance, in India, the Fundamental Rights enumerated in the Constitution cannot be categorized under negative liberty. There are reasonable restrictions that follow these rights. To some extent, fundamental rights may indeed be restricted by the state should they pose a threat to, say, law and order. This is, therefore, an example of positive liberty.
Liberty, Licence and Authority.
The concept of positive liberty does lead us to ponder upon the extent to which an individual must enjoy freedom, and accordingly, the extent to which the state must be allowed to restrict an individual’s liberty.
Should the liberty of an individual be unfettered, there exists of the possibility of its degeneration into a licence to do anything as he so pleases.
For instance, should an individual construe his freedom of movement as ultimate, he may venture out on the roads and drive without due regard for traffic rules. This is likely to lead to accidents, thus posing a threat to the right to life and safety of other individuals on the road. Therefore, to some extent, this freedom has to be restricted. Traffic rules constitute an example of such a restriction.
L.T. Hobhouse aptly notes, “The unfettered freedom of one, leads to the unconditional servitude of society as a whole”.
However, should the state be allowed to possess unfettered powers to restrict the liberty of an individual, it may lead to a totalitarian state. If liberty cannot be allowed to degenerate into licence, authority cannot be allowed to degenerate into totalitarianism.
Self-regarding and other-regarding actions.
John Stuart Mill attempts to strike a balance between liberty and authority by dividing the actions of individuals into two categories: self-regarding actions and other-regarding actions.
Self-regarding actions are those actions that, when performed by an individual, have consequences only on the individual himself. For instance, any task undertaken by the individual in the confines of his own house is a self-regarding action. Since it has no impact on society, the state is supposed to not have any role in regulating or limiting such actions.
Other-regarding actions are those actions that, when performed by an individual, have consequences on the society as a whole. For instance, tasks pertaining to driving on roads, or addressing a mass of thousands etc. can be categorized as such. Since it has an impact on society, the state is supposed to have a role in regulating or limiting such actions.
J.S. Mill is quick to point out that the role of the state is not unlimited in the latter case. For instance, an act that may be construed as negative but does not have a serious impact on the society must invite only social condemnation and no legal repercussions by the state. The recent example of insensitive remarks by the lawyer representing the convicts in the Nirbhaya case can be categorized as such. It was not a self-regarding action for it was a public statement, but it did not pose a direct threat to society. Therefore, the state cannot prosecute him for it.
Emergence of libertarianism or neo-liberalism.
With the establishment of the welfare state, the state began to exercise a significant role in the planning of the economy. The Five-Year Plans of India exemplify the principles of a welfare state. Soon, however, the state was seen to have an overarching influence on the economy. A certain section of society felt that the economic freedom of the worthy was curtailed and resources were transferred to the poor in an arbitrary manner. Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s even coined the term nanny state to describe the state, for almost every essential was provided by the state.
This discontent among the aforementioned section of society led to the emergence of neo-classical liberalism or libertarianism. Margaret Thatcher expounded it in the 1980s, but an important proponent thereof had emerged even prior to her. This was in the 1960s, and his name was Isaiah Berlin.
Isaiah Berlin was a consummate proponent of negative liberty. Confusing as it may sound, he enumerated negative and positive aspects to his conception of negative liberty, and termed them negative liberty and positive liberty respectively. Therefore, in the context of Isaiah Berlin, it is to be understood that negative liberty and positive liberty are actually components of the negative liberty as originally defined (as in minimalist state). He makes his ideas clear in his Two Concepts of Liberty (1958).
According to Berlin, negative liberty pertains to not preventing an individual from undertaking such actions as are required for him to develop his own skills. The role of the state is confined to upholding the Freedom of Contract which is a basic tenet of classical liberalism.
Berlin further posits that positive liberty pertains to an individual developing such skills as are directed at improving his conditions or succeeding further, on his or her own and that the state must have no role therein. His exact words are as follows:
In both cases, therefore, an absence of constraint is implied.
Berlin’s views are very much acceptable in the moral sphere. For example, even in the absence of external constraints, an individual may not be free on account of internal constraints such as addictions pertaining to alcoholism, compulsive gambling etc. That the state cannot help much in this regard is true. Moreover, it also enables the individual to develop his or her capabilities in a personal sphere without any interference.
In the material sphere, however, the views of Isaiah Berlin have been subjected to criticism. Critics, C.B. Macpherson among them, have pointed out that Berlin had conflated the conventional inequalities and natural inequalities as propounded by Jean Jacques Rousseau. Natural inequalities are those which are present among us by nature i.e. by means of genetics. Different heights, skin complexions etc. constitute natural inequalities. Conventional inequalities, on the other hand, stem from social arrangements made by man, which have led to oppression of one social group by another. The caste system in India and societal constructs of masculinity and femininity around the world constitute conventional inequalities.
If Berlin’s views were to be accepted in the material sphere, it would imply that the state would have no role in the emancipation of individuals even on account of having been subjected to discrimination due to prevalent socioeconomic arrangements. As an example, he would advocate no emancipatory role by the state in favour of the SCs and STs in India. These disadvantaged groups would, in his view, have to improve their conditions by themselves.
Therefore, Berlin has been described as a proponent of status quo.
The concept of Creative Freedom by C.B. Macpherson.
Extractive power can aptly be defined as the ability to extract benefits from someone even if he may or may not be willing. It is a core trait of capitalism, for the capitalist class hold power over the labour class and are able to extract benefits therefrom.
C.B. Macpherson is among the most prominent critics of capitalism. He propounds the concept of creative freedom by trying to transcend the orthodox utilitarianism as expounded by J.S. Mill. He asserts that under the capitalist system, the extractive power of the capitalists makes the labour class use its skills only as per the demands of the market. This prevents the labourers from utilizing their developmental power i.e. power to develop one’s skills for the pursuance of one’s self-appointed goals. He terms this as a higher form of pleasure, as contrasted with the bodily pleasures which are described as lower forms of pleasure. Therefore, concludes that it is only in a welfare state that a certain kind of check can be put on the economic power of the capitalists.
Freedom of expression and dissent.
Freedom of speech and expression pertains to the sphere of negative liberty. Whenever restrictions are imposed thereon, there must be a sound rationale behind doing so.
Once the freedom of expression is restricted on one ground or the other, it may turn into a perpetual practice. For instance, in India, caste and religious sentiments are routinely invoked to suppress freedom of expression, which violates Article 19 of the Constitution. For the progress of society, people should bear some inconvenience that may be a part of freedom of expression.
However, such freedom cannot be unfettered, for it may lead to abuse of the principle of liberty itself. Therefore, a balance between positive and negative liberty must be struck inasmuch as freedom of expression is concerned.
J.S. Mill’s Views on Freedom of Speech and Expression.
J.S. Mill enumerate brilliant reasons in his book On Liberty as to why Freedom of Expression must not be restricted. He lists out four points:
According to him, no idea can be completely false. There is an element of truth in every idea. No idea should be suppressed because the element of truth may be lost.
Truth does not appear on its own. It surfaces only when opposing viewpoints are raised. Hence, freedom of expression is a precondition for truth to surface.
The trustworthiness of an idea can be upheld only when it is subjected to debate. Acceptance of an idea without being subjected to debate leads to the establishment of a dogma.
An idea that may be false in contemporary times may prove to be true in the future. Therefore, a society that suppresses ideas may lose out on the benefit in the form of valuable knowledge.
These points may very well be illustrated with an example in the Indian context. Indian author Arundhati Roy once made a statement that Kashmir should have the right to separate. While on the surface, the statement may appear condemnable owing to the unconstitutionality of the proposed idea (for India is a union and not federation of states and therefore states have no distinct sovereignty), the possibility of state excesses must not be ignored. It may have to do with concern for the people in Kashmir caught in the clash between terrorists and the government forces. Therefore, her statement should be subjected to debate and not entirely repressed.
Thus, J.S. Mill has correctly pointed out the benefits of the Freedom of Speech and Expression. His views are important to ensure that society does not become stagnant and fossilized. His views also form the basis of social and cultural reforms carried out in any society.