Chap 4 6/5/03 3:03 pm Page 83

Freedom 4

Most people have some idea of what the word ‘freedom’ means, and most
approve of it. In our analysis we examine the term more closely, exploring such
themes as freedom of opinion, freedom under the law and economic freedom. To
further elucidate the concept we present brief summaries of the ideas of a
number of political philosophers on the subject. In particular we analyse the views
of John Stuart Mill and Isaiah Berlin on ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ freedom. Then we
focus on the central issue of freedom and the state, concentrating on three major
areas of dispute: conscientious objection, state acquisition of private property,
civil disobedience and terrorism. We end with some observations on the cultural
environment conducive to freedom and reflect on the problems of freedom in the
modern world.

POINTS TO CONSIDER

➤ Why does the term ‘freedom’ have such a strong emotional appeal?

➤ Is private property essential to human freedom?

➤ To what extent are the writers cited in this chapter agreed as to the meaning of free-
dom?

➤ Are the concepts of positive and negative freedom mutually exclusive?

➤ What criteria would you suggest as useful in establishing whether a specific restraint on
freedom was justifiable?

➤ Does a truly free society demand impossible levels of moral restraint on the part of its
citizens?

Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd - 9781526137951

Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:47:05AM
via free access
Chap 4 6/5/03 3:03 pm Page 84

84 Understanding political ideas and movements

Forward, you sons of Hellas! Set your country free!

Set free your sons, your wives, tombs of your ancestors,
And temples of your gods. All is at stake: now fight!
(Aeschylus, The Persians, 472BC)

If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the
contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person
than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. (J. S. Mill, On
Liberty, 1859)

Liberty does not carry out each of its undertakings with the same perfection as an
intelligent despotism, but in the long run it produces more than the latter. It does
not always and in all circumstances give the peoples a more skilful and faultless
government; but it infuses throughout the body social an activity, a force and an
energy which never exist without it, and which bring forth wonders. (Alexis de
Tocquveille, Diary, 25th August 1831)

Everyone is against ‘sin’ and everyone is in favour of ‘freedom’, although

neither can be defined so as to ensure agreement on their meaning. From its
origins in the Ancient Greek city-states and their democracies, freedom has
usually been considered a political ‘good’, good for individuals, organisations
and society. ‘Liberty’ or ‘freedom’ has great advantages as a rallying call in
politics arising from its opaqueness in popular usage. Freedom seems to mean
whatever the speaker wants it to be and can be used to gloss over potential
conflicts about a course of policy. Everyone can agree that ‘freedom’ is worth
defending only because of its vagueness.
People may not know much about political theory, but they know what they
mean by ‘liberty’. Usually, people are only aware of liberty when they are
deprived of it in an illegal or unfair manner by the deliberate acts of other
individuals. Thus, freedom concerns human relationships and is clearly
related to power in its many forms: financial, physical and political. Some
people in positions of power will attempt to constrain liberty, usually with
appeals to the ‘common good’ or a ‘higher principle’ beneficial to the whole of
society or mankind.
For the last two centuries or so freedom and equality, sometimes allied, often
opposed, have been the two great horses that pull the carriage of modern
politics along. Some critics, usually on the political left, argue that freedom
without a greater degree of economic and social equality between people is
largely meaningless, as the rich and the powerful can exploit their own
freedom to restrict that of the many. Other critics, mainly among classical and
neo-liberals and some members on the modern conservative right, argue that
freedom is such an important value in society that it must always take priority
over equality. One can have freedom, they argue, which might or might not
involve greater equality in society as a consequence. However, if equality is
Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd - 9781526137951
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:47:05AM
via free access
Chap 4 6/5/03 3:03 pm Page 85

Freedom 85

pursued as a political goal over all else, then liberty is certain to be degraded
and damaged (if not extinguished) as a political ‘good’. Western politics since
the French Revolution has been essentially a discourse between these two
fundamental concepts in which freedom has generally prevailed.

Freedom: a starting point

It is worth noting that some thinkers identify a difference between ‘liberty’
and ‘freedom’. ‘Liberty’ is associated with the type of political system existing
in a society, constitutional constraints on state power and guaranteed consti-
tutional liberties. ‘Freedom’, on the other hand, is a looser term, describing
both freedom in relation to the state and freedom for individuals in society.
For the sake of simplicity we will use ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ as inter-
changeable terms.
There are many ways in which the concept of freedom is expressed in political
discourse. A useful starting point in our exploration of the idea is to introduce
a number of these elements:
• individual freedom;
• freedom of opinion and expression;
• freedom under the law;
• economic freedom;
• property and freedom;
• national freedom.

Individual freedom
Individual freedom is the central element in Western liberal political thought
and has become part of the political discourse in most nations. This aspect of
freedom includes freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of
religion, freedom to travel. It is linked with the other central element of liber-
alism (especially in its ‘classical’ form): the minimal state. The state is seen as
a potential threat to freedom and its powers and involvement in society should
be kept to the minimum levels possible, concomitant with the requirements of
law, order and justice.

Freedom of opinion and expression

Most advocates of liberty believe that academic, religious and political
opinions should be allowed to compete freely in order for society to solve its
problems, to make progress and to function in a healthy way. Freedom of
expression is a central tenet of liberal thought: without it no other freedom can
exist. Freedom of opinion is associated with attempting to achieve many other
‘good’ political and social goals, such as the pursuit by individuals of a better
Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd - 9781526137951
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:47:05AM
via free access
Chap 4 6/5/03 3:03 pm Page 86

86 Understanding political ideas and movements

and richer lifestyle, and attempts by governments to stimulate economic

growth, reduce crime and eliminate poverty.

Freedom under the law

One of the most important aspects of freedom in the Western political
tradition is that there must be some limits if it is to have meaning. These limits
may be the consequence of internal restraint and judgements, freeing oneself
from, for example, irrational passions and cravings to gain freedom to pursue
one’s ‘true’ goals in life. Some limits are what might be called ‘normative’
constraints. By this is meant the acceptance of social morals, values and
customs constraining one’s behaviour. However, almost all discussions of
freedom sooner or later have to analyse the concept of freedom under the law.
Freedom under the law means that there are areas of social life that are not
regulated by self-awareness or moral and customary values and thus require
the introduction of law to set clearly defined limits on social behaviour with
identifiable penalties for their infringement.

Economic freedom
Economic freedom is the right of individuals and businesses to pursue their
economic objectives in competition without undue state regulation and inter-
ference in the workings both of businesses and the free market. Owners of
businesses, in this light, need to be able to run their companies to maximise
profits and growth, to employ staff on flexible terms in line with the require-
ments of the business. Workers must be able to negotiate contracts related to
working conditions and pay, free of government regulations and impositions.
Freedom is therefore a vital component in promoting economic efficiency and
rationality for the benefit of all in society.
Work and employment form a very important part of most people’s conception
of liberty. They play a significant role in creating a source of individual identity
and self-image that is important if people are to act freely. A larger income and
greater wealth tend to give people a greater sense of practical freedom, and
more choices in their lives than the poor enjoy. Freedom without some form of
economic dimension is likely to remain merely theoretical, and will not survive
if its opponents offer better economic rewards. The hungry and starving will
readily give up theoretical freedoms if they can instead be fed.
State intervention in economic relations may be necessary to rectify an
imbalance between employer and employees, producers and consumers. For
instance, employees may be ruthlessly exploited by their employers; unions
may use their industrial muscle to force unreasonable concessions on wages
and conditions out of employers; businesses sometimes work together to
manipulate the market price for goods and exploit consumers. In practice,
Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd - 9781526137951
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:47:05AM
via free access
Chap 4 6/5/03 3:03 pm Page 87

Freedom 87

therefore, the free market may not work to the equal benefit of all and the
enhancement of everyone’s economic freedom. The concept of the ‘greater
good’ in society may require laws, rules, controls, regulations and taxes to
ensure a greater degree of ‘freedom’ in the ‘market’.

Property and freedom

Property is a vital component in most theories of the meaning of freedom.
Essentially ‘property’ can be identified as having two meanings: property in
the sense of one’s person and property in the conventional sense of goods,
wealth and land.
Individuals own property of their person in its body and capacities. This is the
foundation on which persons can expand their potential and powers to
maximise freedom. Hence, restrictions on freedom of speech are an abuse of a
person’s ‘property’ rights to speak one’s own views. Similarly, imprisonment
without trial is an abuse of freedom of property of one’s own body by wrongly
restricting the use of it as a means of having
freedom of movement. (In Stoic tradition, Stoic
however, one could claim that a person who is Zeno of Athens established the
wrongly imprisoned could still maintain his Stoic school of philosophy in
the late fourth century BC.
property of freedom of thought and ideas,
Stoicism sought virtue as the
especially if he has access to books.) greatest good and taught that
self-control of one’s feelings
The conventional meaning of the term ‘property’ is and passions, especially in the
of course tangible material goods and wealth. face of adversity, was the mark
From a liberal viewpoint, if one’s wealth increases, of a good man.

then one’s freedom, in terms of exercising practical

choices, also increases. Moreover, the ownership of property by groups, organi-
sations and private individuals acts as a check on the power of the state, thus
giving society a greater sense of security. Socialists might add a warning that an
over-concentration of wealth in private hands is likely to enhance the freedom
of the few at the expense of that of the many.

National freedom
National freedom is connected with the concepts of the ‘nation’ and the ‘state’.
The doctrine of ‘national self-determination’, first enshrined in the Versailles
Treaty (1919) as a fundamental principle of international society and interna-
tional law, is the political manifestation of national freedom. According to this
doctrine all nations have a right to govern themselves, and for national
freedom to have a political reality a nation must be able to govern itself
without being dominated or controlled by another nation. This concept of
exclusive self-government is the key characteristic of ‘sovereignty’, the most
important attribute of a state. Hence, the creation of its own state becomes a
Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd - 9781526137951
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:47:05AM
via free access
Chap 4 6/5/03 3:03 pm Page 88

88 Understanding political ideas and movements

desirable goal for a nation seeking its freedom, since the state, once estab-
lished, will exercise exclusive legal and political rights and powers within the
national territory. National freedom, therefore, is expressed and given reality
by the existence of the state.

Some major contributors

Freedom is the most popular political and social aspiration of the modern
world. However, most political thinkers have tended to take the term ‘freedom’
for granted and have tended to discuss other political ideas such as order, duty,
good government, sound political leadership, rather than liberty. It is worth-
while examining freedom as discussed by a number of major political thinkers.
A brief survey will give a flavour of the debate.

Plato
Plato’s Republic is an attempt to establish the meaning of the term ‘justice’
and identify the characteristics of the ‘good’ state. Plato believed that
freedom was bound up with self-discipline and morality. He doubted that the
law was able to establish meaningful moral conditions in society without
there first being a moral impetus from within people themselves. Never-
theless, he had no objection to the principle of morality being enforced by
the law. Without reason and self-discipline, individuals cannot attain
freedom, Plato believed, while doubting whether most people possessed
these requisite qualities. Freedom certainly did not require the existence
of democracy. On the contrary, Plato was keenly aware that the emphasis
placed on ‘freedom’, so called by the Athenian democracy, created an ill-disci-
plined people who, lacking self-control, generated factions, which degen-
erated into disorder that, in turn, inevitably gave birth to tyrants and
dictators. Arbitrary and oppressive government, not freedom, is the defining
characteristic of tyrants and dictators and the ultimate consequence of
Athenian-style ‘democratic freedoms’.

The Stoics
The Roman Stoic philosophy stressed the possibility of freedom existing within
a person’s mind, irrespective of external conditions. Self-discipline and
contemplation of life allow even the slave or the prisoner to be free in a
meaningful sense. The slave could cultivate habits of thought that enabled
him to be free within his mind, whatever his legal status or the physical
constraints placed upon him. In the last resort the slave has the choice
between obedience and death: such a choice is a statement of freedom.

Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd - 9781526137951

Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:47:05AM
via free access
Chap 4 6/5/03 3:03 pm Page 89

Freedom 89

Niccolo Machiavelli
In the Discourses, Machiavelli argued for a republic as the embodiment of the
positive value of freedom. Self-government was essentially the same thing as
freedom, although the people enjoying such freedom would, as in the Roman
Republic Machiavelli admired, be constrained in their political influence by a
range of political and social factors that confined self-government to the
wealthy, powerful and educated. Freedom in the sense of self-government did
not mean direct democracy as it did in Ancient Athens. In his other major
political work, The Prince (1513), Machiavelli glories in the exercise of
freedom by the great man, the strong personality, the individual pushing his
power and talents to the limit, constrained only by the actions of other men
similarly engaged in exercising their freedom to the utmost.

Thomas Hobbes
Hobbes placed ‘order’ and ‘security’ as much higher political goals than
‘freedom’ in his Leviathan (1651). Men had ‘freedom’ in the state of nature, a
condition in which government did not exist, but this only led to an appalling
state of permanent war of all against all in which only the freedom of the
strongest had any reality. Hobbes argued that the creation of the state was a
rational response to the excess of freedom previously existing in the state of
nature. Freedom was only possible within the order created by the powerful
state. Once the state was established, freedom was to be found in the subse-
quent order and in those areas of life that were not proscribed by the law; this
theory is described in modern political thought as ‘negative freedom’. To
Hobbes the area of private life that should remain outside some state
involvement is remarkably small and, in his view, should remain so. Hobbes
was highly resistant to the idea that freedom was consequent on self-
government and democracy: a democracy would swiftly slide into the violence
and chaos of the state of nature and with such a disaster freedom would be
extinguished.

John Locke
Locke, in Two Treatises on Government (1690), declared that the law is the
means by which liberty is defended and enhanced. He believed that
government should be regarded as the servant of the people and, as such, an
instrument to preserve liberty. The best way to do this is to ensure that
government is highly restricted in its functions (essentially to the maintenance
of internal law and order, defence against external enemies and the raising of
taxes to pay for these two). Freedom in this sense is defined in terms
associated with ‘negative’ freedom: all that is not restricted by law is left over
for individuals to enjoy. Locke argued that there should be as large an area of
Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd - 9781526137951
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:47:05AM
via free access
Chap 4 6/5/03 3:03 pm Page 90

90 Understanding political ideas and movements

private life as possible over which the state has no right to trespass. Indeed, he
declared that the right to the greatest possible degree of freedom was second
only to the right to life.

Immanuel Kant
Running through Kant’s many works, most notably Critique of Pure Reason
(1781), Critique of Practical Reason (1788), Critique of Judgement (1790), is
the linking of freedom with making voluntary choices to do good. Kant argues
that all men seek to do good and attempt a rational understanding of the
universe to discover the goals of life associated with the pursuit of good. Men
can call themselves truly free only when their actions are aimed at these goals.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Rousseau argues in The Social Contract (1762) that true freedom lies in
obedience to the laws we have worked out for ourselves. This manifests itself in
the social contract, which creates civil and political society, and the subsequent
‘General Will’ that creates unanimous agreement to obey the law. Laws are valid
when they obey the General Will, and freedom consists in obeying these laws.
Rousseau even advocated the use of the power of the state to ‘force people to be
free’, if necessary. Rousseau’s concept of the General Will and its relationship to
freedom has been the subject of considerable attention and controversy since its
formulation. On the one hand, the idea of the General Will is condemned as a
fundamental threat to freedom, providing the intellectual justification for total-
itarian and authoritarian political regimes, as well as providing ready-made
excuses for self-appointed guardians of public morals in the non-political and
private sphere of life. On the other hand one might claim that the General Will
is merely a complex and convoluted way of identifying a popular constraint on
the actions of government and making it accountable to the people.

Henri Benjamin Constant

In his many works Constant formulated his views on many aspects of politics
as a French liberal. In his important lecture of 1819 Constant identified the
considerable differences between what he called the ‘liberty of the ancients’
and the ‘liberty of the moderns’. The liberty of the ancients rested upon slavery
and warfare, and was restricted to citizenship and taking part in the delibera-
tions of the assembly. Constant claimed that this form of liberty did not
guarantee the rights of the individual. Indeed, ancient liberty was essentially
a form of privilege of the free man over the slave. In contrast, liberty of the
moderns guaranteed individuals equality before the law and also their
freedom to pursue their own interests. Constant used this theory to challenge
Rousseau’s idea of the General Will. In his view the liberty of the moderns was
Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd - 9781526137951
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:47:05AM
via free access
Chap 4 6/5/03 3:03 pm Page 91

Freedom 91

the basis of representative government. The state existed to protect the private
interests of the individual.

Karl Marx
Freedom, to Marx and his followers, is not possible under capitalism. The highly
exploitative capitalist system reduces both the working class and their capitalist
exploiters to a level of servitude to the system. Those who control the means of
production may have somewhat greater freedom than those who merely sell
their labour to scrape a living, but bourgeoisie and
proletariat alike possess a freedom reduced to capitalism
mere work and consumption. Some modern The economic system in which
Marxists claim that capitalism is even more wealth is privately owned and in
inimical to freedom than it was in the nineteenth which goods and services are
produced for profit, as dictated
century when Marx analysed its workings.
by market forces, which has
Contemporary capitalism, so modern Marxists developed over the last five
argue, enslaves workers by means of ideological hundred years to be the
indoctrination, making them compliant to a economic driving force of the
modern global economy.
progressively more exploitative system. Contem-
porary workers in capitalist societies have been
enslaved with ‘chains of gold’: the material trappings of consumer capitalism
have hidden the raw nature of exploitation to some degree, but capitalism is still
inimical to the development of human potential in a condition of true freedom.

John Rawls
Defending social democracy in A Theory of Justice (1971), John Rawls argued
for liberty in an unequal society. He stated that every person has a right to the
greatest possible liberty concomitant with the same degree of liberty allowed
to others. Liberty is defined in rather narrow terms: freedom of speech and
movement, and participation in the democratic system. Rawls also stressed
the importance of each person having adequate material resources to enjoy
their liberty. He did not argue for material equality, only the existence of suffi-
cient material resources for all. To Rawls, freedom, not equality, is the
paramount priority in politics. Freedom must not be sacrificed in order to
achieve a higher degree of material equality. Nevertheless, Rawls argued for
the existence of a welfare state to ensure that the poorest in society have the
resources to attempt to achieve their greater freedom.

Mill and Berlin: two key thinkers on liberty

We propose here to discuss some of the issues of liberty in relation to the ideas
of John Stuart Mill and Isaiah Berlin. We will offer just a few pointers to their
contribution to the debate on the meaning of freedom.
Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd - 9781526137951
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:47:05AM
via free access
Chap 4 6/5/03 3:03 pm Page 92

92 Understanding political ideas and movements

John Stuart Mill

Mill’s On Liberty (1859) is quite rightly regarded as one of the classical studies
of freedom and liberty in society. His ideas are particularly associated with
concepts of ‘negative freedom’. Mill claimed freedom was the basis for moral
improvement of individuals and society, for truth to be discovered and for
originality and genius to develop to the full. Freedom of choice allowed men
and women to judge what would make them happy, and only individuals, not
the state (however enlightened), could know what makes them happy.
Mill, like most nineteenth-century liberals, perceived a considerable threat to
freedom from the growth of a mass democracy. Individuals were entitled to a
private sphere in which they were able to act and think as they saw fit, one which
would serve as a great buttress against public opinion and the much-feared
‘tyranny of the majority’. Mill made a distinction between actions that affect
only oneself, which do not justify restrictions on them, and actions that affect
others, which may need to be restrained by other individuals and/or the state:
the sole end for which mankind are warranted individually or collectively, in inter-
fering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the
only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a
civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good,
either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be
compelled to do so or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it
will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise,
or even right. There are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with
him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting
him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which
it is desired to defer him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The
only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that
which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his
independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own mind and body, the
individual is sovereign.1

This may seem a very clear-cut distinction. But it is extremely rare that one’s
actions do not have an effect on others. For example, suicide may be thought
the ultimate act of individual freedom; whatever other constraints exist on
one’s freedom one retains the power of deciding to take one’s own life; no other
individual will be injured. However, family, friends and the social networks in
which the individual exists will be deeply affected by a person’s suicide.
Smoking, to give another example, may damage only one’s own health, but
does drain health service resources that might be used elsewhere, so smoking
cannot be considered in isolation from the social consequences of one’s actions.
To Mill, constraints on individuals are only justifiable if they are needed to
protect others from harm. What is immediately apparent is the problem of
defining the nature of ‘harm’. Sometimes the definition of harm is so wide that
Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd - 9781526137951
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:47:05AM
via free access
Chap 4 6/5/03 3:03 pm Page 93

Freedom 93

it can be used to excuse any constraint. Most pornography, blasphemy and film
violence for entertainment may not involve harming others directly, but one
might claim that long-term harm to individuals and society arises from lack of
restraint in these areas. Freedom must, to Mill, involve not infringing the
rights and freedoms of other people. Indeed, all Western democracies are
founded on this principle, although the problems of its practical application
are the stuff of modern political debate.
Although Mill’s concept of liberty has been very influential throughout the
English-speaking world in particular, and Western democratic societies in
general, its universal validity is open to doubt. Severely disciplined societies
can also nurture love of truth, integrity and individualism, as witness Ancient
Sparta, Medieval Islam and Calvinist Switzerland during the sixteenth
century. One must point out that the concept of individual freedom is a rather
modern one. Few people before the nineteenth century would have defined
freedom in terms used by Mill or modern liberals.

Isaiah Berlin
In Two Concepts of Liberty (1958) Isaiah Berlin took up the long-standing ideas
of ‘positive freedom’ (or ‘freedom to’ act) and ‘negative freedom’ (or ‘freedom
from’ external restraint).

Positive freedom
This entails people having a choice about their actions. Usually what we
choose to do is what we want to do, but this is not always the case as choices
may be determined by internalised attitudes to social duties, what is the right
thing to do, linked with freedom of conscience. Hence, a very strong
component of positive freedom is the idea of humans being able to strive to
reach their full potential. Positive freedom implies individuals’ capacity to
assert their individuality by means of reason. To enhance their opportunities,
education is vital; the state may give poor people financial and other aid
towards this end, as late nineteenth-century New Liberals, and modern
liberals and socialists have advocated.
Positive freedom reflects the desire of the individual to use his/her own power
and reason to assert themselves against the mass of other people, to stand out,
to strive to achieve their full potential. Self-discipline is a key element in this
view of freedom, involving the suppression of aspects of one’s character that
might interfere with the achievement of the higher self. Positive freedom
involves testing one’s own limits and the constraints society places upon one.
Successful people in all walks of life see freedom in such terms and not in the
rather uninspiring negative form of being simply left alone.
Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd - 9781526137951
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:47:05AM
via free access
Chap 4 6/5/03 3:03 pm Page 94

94 Understanding political ideas and movements

However, positive freedom does have its detractors. Those individuals who are
able to achieve their higher self by assertion of positive freedom are often
unsympathetic to others who, for whatever reason, are unable or unwilling to
pursue a life devoted to self-discovery. All too often positive freedom enables
the few to develop iconic status and dominate others. History is littered with
oppression and coercion inflicted by people who claimed to have achieved
their ‘higher self’ above those they deemed to be
‘inferior’. The positive freedom of the few may libertarian
involve the extinction of the freedom of the many One who puts a very high value
as the history of nationalism, communism, on freedom of the individual.
Extreme libertarians argue for
fascism and religion demonstrates. the removal of the state from
almost all areas of social and
One might argue that the libertarian pursuit of economic life, including health,
power and success, associated with the concept of drug control, education and
positive liberty, is fundamentally immoral as it even policing.
inevitably involves the assertion of the power of
some people over others. One might, however, counter that positive freedom
does not involve such crude forms of self-assertion. Positive freedom when
exercised with reason can liberate people from the pursuit of tawdry baubles
to pursue a ‘higher self’ and goals that do not involve mere pomp and display.

Negative freedom
This is a view of freedom particularly strong among English philosophers.
Liberty cannot be unlimited; law and custom set limits to freedom and give it
shape and meaning. Negative freedom is usually defined as the absence of
restrictions, usually legal, on one’s freedom to act. Restrictions on freedom
must, in this view, be human restrictions and not the consequence of some
natural incapacity or inability to achieve a goal. Under ideas of negative
freedom people are free to do whatever they desire so long as there is no law
or widely accepted standard of public behaviour forbidding them, but laws
and customs must exist to provide some framework within which liberty might
be enjoyed. Liberty should be for all and not just for a few.

Negative freedom is not in itself a ‘negative’ concept in that it is ‘bad’; it entails

the absence of legal or other restraints on choices of action. Law, for example,
enhances the liberty of individuals by protecting them from infringements of
their liberties by others. The ‘minimal’ or ‘caretaker’ state exists as the main
means by which negative freedom is upheld. The state, according to this view,
has no business in laying down frameworks of state education and welfare
benefits, as they undermine the freedom which all individuals have to decide
their own destiny and to make their own choices. Reduction of social disad-
vantages, as under positive freedom, does not enhance freedom but may
undermine it by giving too much potential and actual power to the state.

Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd - 9781526137951

Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:47:05AM
via free access
Chap 4 6/5/03 3:03 pm Page 95

Freedom 95

People, under negative freedom, have the right to choose options. They must
have as large an area of private life, free of state control or influence, as is
concomitant with public order and this should include freedom of religious views
and opinion, freedom of expression and freedom over property. These areas
should be as free from state interference as possible, as they constitute what
humans cannot give up without offending against the essence of human nature.
Some have argued that negative liberty is rather unsatisfactory as an ideal of
freedom. ‘Freedom from restraint’ lacks the inspiration that positive freedom
can offer to the poor and oppressed to expand their human potential. One
could argue that even some kinds of tyranny might be compatible with negative
liberty: a liberal-minded despot may allow his oppressed people to have large
areas of freedom within the private sphere, so long as they obey the state.
The ideas of positive and negative freedom are not mutually exclusive. Their
practical application to the affairs of society should ensure that freedom
becomes more than a theoretical construct.

Freedom in relation to the state

Freedom is related to the concept of the state. Liberals regard the state as an
institution that represents and defends its members. There should not be any
essential conflict between a state and its individual members, but liberals are
particularly suspicious of state power and its potential threat to the freedom
of the individual. They perceive a fundamental tension and possible conflict
between the individual and the state.
British liberal Herbert Spencer, in Man Versus the State (1884), doubted that
there was a universal conflict between the individual and the state. Spencer
believed that one can identify particular conflicts and that the intensity of
conflicts between individuals and the state may vary over time and from
country to country. Freedom is associated with the development of a
democratic state. The more democratic a state the more opportunities exist for
individuals to influence its policy outcomes and, consequently, the greater the
freedom existing within society. Democratic states should thus seek to reduce
the sources of grievance or hostility within society to ensure good government,
while providing the maximum degree of freedom in society. Ultimately,
however, the state has coercive power over all other sources of power in
society and is in the supreme position to dominate its members and to infringe
their liberty.
There will always be points of conflict between the state and the individual
which raise issues of freedom. Citizens have recourse to law and the courts to
defend freedom in relation to the state and the rule of law. However, political
struggle determines the effectiveness of the rule of law in society. Politics
Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd - 9781526137951
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:47:05AM
via free access
Chap 4 6/5/03 3:03 pm Page 96

96 Understanding political ideas and movements

creates the kind of political culture in a society, the effectiveness of the rule of
law, and the commitment to freedom among its citizens. Anarchists, for
example, argue that the state has no right to interfere with individual liberty,
while fascists, on the other hand, claim that individuals can only know true
freedom when they identify their individual interests with the state. These are
two extremes in the debate on individual liberty. Most political debate on this
issue falls between these two positions. The greater good of the community
may require that some individuals make sacrifices, sacrifices that are imposed
by the state. Some such issues associated with freedom and the state can be
addressed in the following examples:
• conscription and conscientious objection;
• state acquisition of private property;
• civil disobedience and terrorism.

Conscription and conscientious objection

In wars of national survival the state claims the right to conscript its citizens
into the armed forces, train them and expect them to fight and kill for the
greater good of the citizens of the state. Many states claim that citizens should
be expected to serve some time in the armed forces as a natural obligation of
their citizenship. After all, so the argument goes, the liberty of the individual
depends on the effective functioning of the state as the defender of its citizens
against their external enemies. It is reasonable, therefore, for citizens to be
prepared to participate in the defence of the state and undergo military
training to do so.
Western states are steadily giving up conscription. Most allow non-partici-
pation in the armed forces on conscientious and religious grounds. Citizens
who object on principle to training to fight and kill are usually accommodated
in some manner, but it does not exempt them from some form of non-military
national service. Conscription is in one sense a clear infringement of the
principle of individual freedom. It can be argued, however, that freedom
involves responsibilities and recognition of obligations to one’s society, the
society that instils ideas of freedom within us and provides the means by
which freedom can be expressed.

State acquisition of private property

Private property, especially among Western liberals, is considered a vital
element in advancing and protecting freedom against dangers from state
power. However, property is not entirely free from state control or state
takeover. The principle of private property does not preclude the state from
acquiring private property, by compulsion if necessary. Advocates of freedom
argue that four fundamental requirements need to be met for such state action
Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd - 9781526137951
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:47:05AM
via free access
Chap 4 6/5/03 3:03 pm Page 97

Freedom 97

to be acceptable: first, that the property is essential for the achievement of

common goals for the good of the whole community, such as the acquisition
of land in wartime for air bases and training camps or the state control of vital
industries; next, that the desirable goals are achievable only by acquisition of
this property; thirdly, that the property acquisition process is clearly enshrined
in law for all to see and, if necessary, challenge; finally, that the owner of the
property will be compensated for its loss and will have first chance to retrieve
the property when it is no longer needed by the state. Nevertheless, there is
the fundamental assumption in most ideas of liberty that, all other things
being equal, the vast bulk of private property will remain in the hands of
private individuals and companies.

Civil disobedience and terrorism

Generally speaking, most theorists on freedom accept that there will be
circumstances in which individuals might be justified in challenging the state
by recourse to methods that are outside the usual structures of the political
process. Civil disobedience and terrorism are
usually seen as being appropriate only in societies civil disobedience
that are not democracies and lack peaceful and The deliberate violation of the
deliberative means of changing law and policies. law, usually in a non-violent
manner to advance a political
Even democracies, however, act at times in some cause. Civil disobedience was
way that suppresses the interests of minorities. used by the Committee of One
Hundred in the 1960s to
Civil disobedience is an assertion of the freedom to promote nuclear disarmament
protest about issues that are being neglected or and in the 1990s by
rights that are being abused. Civil disobedience environmentalist groups
campaigning against road and
can involve the refusal to pay taxes, deliberate
airport development in Britain.
flouting of the law and other acts designed to
demonstrate opposition to a particular policy. As a
political strategy, civil disobedience is intended to raise the public profile of an
issue of concern by seeking publicity and highlighting where, in the view of the
protesters, the government has gone wrong. Those involved in civil disobe-
dience are aware that they are likely to be breaking the law by their campaign.
Indeed, a trial is often sought by campaigners as a platform to gain further
publicity. However, governments may choose to ignore the activities of those
involved in civil disobedience as of little import, unless the campaigners move
towards more violent tactics.

Where civil disobedience has had most impact as a defence of liberty is when
it has been attuned to the aims and objectives of large numbers of people.
Perhaps the most effective example of campaigning civil disobedience in
pursuit of freedom is that organised by Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian
Congress Party for national freedom during the 1930s and 1940s. However,

Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd - 9781526137951

Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:47:05AM
via free access
Chap 4 6/5/03 3:03 pm Page 98

98 Understanding political ideas and movements

one might doubt the effectiveness of such campaigning if civil disobedience

had been directed against a regime other than the British Raj. Civil disobe-
dience campaigners in Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Russia were somewhat
ineffectual in defending freedom against these monstrous regimes. The anti-
nuclear campaign in Western Europe during the late 1970s and early 1980s
had civil disobedience elements to it. While it failed to stop the deployment of
Pershing and Cruise missiles it did contribute to getting governments to
explain their nuclear strategy when they would rather have kept it a matter of
state secrecy. The Solidarity Movement in Poland used civil disobedience
which eventually helped bring down the corrupt and incompetent communist
regime and began the unravelling of Soviet and communist domination in
Eastern Europe.
Terrorism is a much more controversial political tactic for achieving freedom.
Most people would deny it as a valid means of defending and advancing the
cause of freedom, especially in democracies. Terrorism uses violence to
influence public opinion and state policy in favour of the interests and goals
of the terrorist group. Violence might be directed against the forces of state
power, such as the police, the armed forces or
civil officials, or it might involve attacking civilian
paramilitary
targets in order to create public pressure on the
Paramilitary organisations
government to change policy to the advantage of operate on military lines and
the terrorist group concerned. Even when use force to achieve a political
terrorism achieves some or all of its political goal – e.g., the Provisional Irish
Republican Army (PIRA) in
goals, it severely damages ideas of liberty and Northern Ireland.
taints the democratic process by demonstrating
that freedom can be achieved by violent means.
After all, if one can bomb and shoot one’s way to the negotiating table with
government why should one pursue electoral politics and attempt to persuade
voters of the rightness of one’s cause?
Paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland have had an enormous
influence on the politics of the Province over the last three decades, arguably
more so than democratic political parties. Some, such as Sinn Fein/PIRA and
some Loyalist paramilitary organisations, have adopted a ‘bullet and ballot
box’ strategy that has paid considerable political dividends in recent years.
Both Loyalist and Republican paramilitary organ-
isations claim they are defending the sectarian PIRA/Sinn Fein
freedom of ‘their’ people against oppression. The PIRA is a terrorist
organisation that seeks to
Some violent organisations, such as those on the
achieve a united Ireland by
fringes of the animal rights movement, see no armed force. It is currently
need to be involved in any democratic action to (2002) on ‘ceasefire’. Sinn Fein
pursue their aims and use violence as a principal is a political party closely
associated with the PIRA.
means of political action.

Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd - 9781526137951

Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:47:05AM
via free access
Chap 4 6/5/03 3:03 pm Page 99

Freedom 99

Political theorists have rightly concentrated on threats to freedom from the

state. State oppression, because of its potential to be all-embracing, is the
major threat that defenders of liberty have concentrated on challenging. State
oppression has sometimes led to revolution that overthrows the oppressive
state, proclaims freedom, struggles with chaos and, eventually, establishes an
even more oppressive system of dominance. One can interpret the progress of
the French and Russian revolutions as a warning that liberty does not always
follow the end of a particular form of state oppression. Both sought to liberate
people and create freedom for the oppressed majority, and both involved
terror, violence and dictatorship and the extinction of liberty (as Plato and
Hobbes would have predicted).

Freedom and society

Liberty is associated with being ‘ourselves’, whatever that might be. Ideas of
liberty and self-help by citizens derive from their society and from the political
culture they have assimilated. If a sense of the importance of freedom is not
part of a society’s culture, or is not deeply ingrained in the political mores of
citizens and leaders alike, then no amount of talk of liberty and the freedom
enshrined in a well-balanced constitution will protect it from the enemies of
freedom. One can observe this in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Pol Pot’s
Cambodia and a host of tyrannies, large and small, that litter the pages of
twentieth-century history.
Defenders of liberty are usually aware that the state is not the only, or neces-
sarily the most important, threat to freedom. Contrary to the strongly held
beliefs of liberals, one might identify elements within most of us in favour of
compulsion and against liberty. Psychologists often identify the desire to
dominate and the oppressive exercise of power as part of human nature; they
note the ease with which some people will identify with a group or a leader,
abandoning their own judgement. Men in Nazi extermination squads were
often family men and good neighbours, loving fathers and kind to small
animals, but they committed appalling crimes with little sense of their
immorality or their abuse of the lives and freedom of their victims. The cause
of National Socialism was their political god. As Max Stirner, writing in the
1840s, rather chillingly stated: ‘Most people are not looking for freedom at all,
but for a cause to enslave themselves to.’
Community values and morals may influence the formulation of law, but are
not entirely enshrined in law. Normative values such as unpopularity,
ostracism and disapproval do have considerable influence over individuals, in
some cases a coercive influence. To a considerable degree, such values may be
considered important elements in underpinning individual freedom: they
establish constraints on individual behaviour that allow other individuals to
Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd - 9781526137951
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:47:05AM
via free access
Chap 4 6/5/03 3:03 pm Page 100

100 Understanding political ideas and movements

enjoy their freedom, without recourse to law. However, they can become a
source of oppression, imposing restrictions on individual liberty that cannot be
challenged in courts of law but are none the less keenly felt. This may be seen
in school bullying, the shunning of individuals believed to be somehow ‘odd’
or ‘eccentric’ by their ‘normal’ neighbours, or ‘group-think’ and pressures to
conform to the crowd: all are examples of the fundamental fragility of liberty
in social groups.
Restrictions on liberty are needed to avoid licence. Constraints are always
required in society to ensure the existence of freedom for all. Licence is not the
same thing as liberty. Licence is a lack of restraint, an abuse of freedom, a lack
of control and proportion in one’s actions. It is a failure to be aware of the ways
in which one’s actions affect others (however much they may appear initially
only to affect oneself), the consequence of which is the erosion of real liberty.
For example, there are desirable social restrictions on displays of emotions
such as anger, irritation and love – emotions which do not attract legal
sanctions themselves but which can infringe the freedom of others by creating
fear or embarrassment. While one might question the motives of campaigners
for censorship in the arts and information, one might also question the
benefits to society of pornography, violence in film and television, or the idea
that swearing is some fundamental expression of free speech. In themselves
such actions might be regarded as harmless, but they may corrode standards
of behaviour and damage the sense of living in a free and balanced society,
where respect for others is an important element in social relations.
Moral and political principles directly determine a person’s attitudes to liberty.
One should not confuse liberty of thinking with liberty of talking. The latter
can be legally restrained; the former cannot. As we have seen in relation to the
Stoics, the development of a strong set of internal moral values can be the
basis of freedom. One might be able to be free in one’s own mind even in the
most oppressive state and society. However, state and society have many ways
in which the private world of the mind can be colonised and ultimately
controlled by the values of the oppressor. The neat distinction between the
private world of the mind and the public world of society is not today as clear
as was once believed. Modern psychology identified the roots of personality,
modern totalitarian regimes have demonstrated the political means of control
that can be established, and modern advertising techniques mould and manip-
ulate people’s thoughts in favour of values that support capitalist businesses.

A future for freedom

One could easily lapse into despair when one contemplates the crimes and
disasters committed in the name of political programmes claiming to be
defending or advancing the freedom of this or that group, whether they are
Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd - 9781526137951
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:47:05AM
via free access
Chap 4 6/5/03 3:03 pm Page 101

Freedom 101

individuals, the nation, a religion or a race. Nevertheless, freedom has a way

of bubbling up through the cracks of even the most oppressive monolith, with
the most ruthless systems of terror and mind control. Luckily for the cause of
human freedom its enemies fail because of the very strengths of free societies,
the ability to question, criticise, challenge and seek out the best options for
social change and experiment, the willingness to change when the facts
change. The triumph of Western liberal democracy towards the end of the
twentieth century has not ended the need to maintain eternal vigilance to
defend the cause of freedom. Perhaps the post-Cold War world has made it
even more important that freedom survives in our own societies with the trivi-
alisation of politics and the manipulations of the advertising industry, the
impact of business interests on government policy and the political ‘spin
doctors’.

Summary
Freedom is a popular cause, and, at first glance, an easy concept to grasp.
However, as soon as we begin to think of whose ‘freedom’, to do what, matters
become more complex. What limits, for example, should there be to freedom
of expression? Does personal freedom imply economic freedom? Is private
property a precondition of political freedom? A number of political philoso-
phers have been concerned with freedom, among the most important being
John Stuart Mill and Isaiah Berlin. Mill propounded a theory of what has
become known as ‘negative freedom’, or freedom from external constraints,
centred on the principle of the ‘sovereign individual’. In his view the citizen
should be completely free to do whatever they want, unrestrained by state or
law, with the key proviso that what they do does not harm others. Berlin
pointed out that for many people freedom was a mere abstraction, of no
relevance to their actual lives. To correct this deficiency, positive freedom has
been proposed – that is, the provision by public authorities of the material
requirements such as healthcare and education that would enable all citizens
to enjoy genuine freedom. Generally speaking, the attitude in the English-
speaking world has been to regard the state as the main potential threat to
freedom, a viewpoint reinforced by the experience of twentieth-century dicta-
torships. Left-wing thinkers have usually argued that the state has a more
positive role to play in the promotion of freedom.
Freedom remains an issue of contemporary relevance. Areas of controversy
include the degree to which the state can legitimately curtail its citizens’
rights; how far the citizen can justifiably resist the commands of the state; and
to what degree a free society depends not on constitutional arrangements but
on widely shared cultural values and moral principles. For some, the twenty-
first century has already witnessed the decisive victory of freedom. Others are
Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd - 9781526137951
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:47:05AM
via free access
Chap 4 6/5/03 3:03 pm Page 102

102 Understanding political ideas and movements

less sanguine. They question whether in Western culture liberty is confused

with licence. They point to the essential triviality of so many of our so-called
‘choices’. Others aver that multi-national corporations operate virtually
without restraint in a worldwide free-trade environment; it is these corpora-
tions, not the state, that now most gravely threaten freedom. Finally, modern
techniques of propaganda have become so skilled and subtle that a real
tyranny of the mind can exist within a superficially liberal democratic society.

REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING

1 J.S Mill, On Liberty (1859).

Barker, E. Principles of Social and Political Theory (Oxford University

Press, 1961).
Berlin, I. ‘Two concepts of liberty’, in Four Essays on Liberty (Oxford
University Press, 1958).
Cranston, M. Freedom: A New Analysis (Longmans, 1954).
Friedman, D. The Machinery of Freedom (Harper and Row, 1973).
Gray, T. Freedom (Macmillan, 1984).
Heywood, A. Political Ideas and Concepts: An Introduction (Macmillan, 1994), pp.
195–224.
Raphael, D. D. Problems of Political Philosophy (Macmillan, 1990).
Ryan, A. (ed.) The Idea of Freedom (Oxford University Press, 1979).

SAMPLE QUESTIONS

1 Which is the most important in modern societies, freedom, equality

or democracy?
2 To what extent is the freedom of individuals in conflict with the
freedom of groups?

3 Is freedom only really possible within a free-market capitalist eco-

nomic system?

4 Is liberty unattainable?

5 ‘Far from inhibiting freedom, state intervention can in fact enhance it.’ Discuss.

6 Which is the best guarantee of freedom, a liberal constitution or a liberal culture?

Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd - 9781526137951

Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:47:05AM
via free access