The Two Concepts Of Liberty

Another area in which it is suggested that modern liberalism has departed from classical liberalism is freedom. Classical liberals believe in negative freedom. This is simply that there should be an absence of external constraints on the individual and as such they should be left alone to make their own choices. In this way classical liberals were heavily influenced by the natural rights theories of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson claimed that we were born with inalienable rights and therefore no individual or government had the right to take these away. Freedom from constraints is therefore an essential condition for exercising these rights. In practise, this has meant that classical liberals have advocated a minimal state or what John Locke referred to as the ‘night-watchman state’. The activities of this state should be limited to the enforcement of contracts, maintaining order and protection from foreign threats to prevent the state from infringing on individual liberties as much as possible.

Flags burning under raining bombs, gunshots echoing through a field of raining terror, while hiding underground for the day where humanity can roam free again; situations as so aren’t exactly what people imagine when thinking about one’s future. Every death was honored by those who lived; lives lost during wars of any kind are unlike lives lost in our country today, not for the value of those once living are greater than another, but from how much those lives mean to this day. Establishment and preservation of freedom wasn’t easy and will never be easy; many people served until their last breath, for the freedoms of our lives today. That is why we must continue to grasp for freedom, and to establish and preserve our freedom most effectively we must have the heart to be free, and have united dedication to freedom itself.

Although liberals agree about the value of liberty, their views on what it means to be ‘free’ vary significantly. It was Isaiah Berlin who first created the concepts of negative and positive freedom that helped to differentiate between the two liberals’ views of freedom. The concept of negative freedom was adopted by classical liberals, who believed that freedom was defined as being left alone and free from interference. Classical liberals believed this theory to mean that individuals should be free from external restrictions or constraints. Modern liberals, on the other hand, believed in positive freedom. This, modernist’s perceived to means that all individuals have the ability to be their own master, and thus reach full autonomy. Unlike classical liberals, who had little faith in humankind, Modernists conveyed humans in a much more positive light: people are rational beings that are capable, and therefore should be able, to flourish and

In 1787 representatives from twelve of the thirteen states met in Pennsylvania for a constitutional convention. Delegates voiced great concern over the protection of individual liberties and personal property. For southern delegates one of the most important liberties was the right to own slaves. While they wanted a federal government that would protect their rights, they did not want a governing body that would emancipate their slaves. There was a notation that the pursuit of happiness was tied to property. As strongly as people might adhere to the notion of liberty and freedom, they adhere just as strongly to the notion of property.

The United States criminal justice system have been known to be one of the most injustice system in the world. Criminal justice is known as the system of law enforcement, involving police, lawyers, courts, and corrections, used for all stages of criminal proceedings and punishment (Dictionary.com). One of the most heartbreaking things that happen in the United States every year is innocent people being condemned for crimes that

2. They felt the national government was too far away from the people and therefore couldn't be monitored by them

Classical liberalism allow an individual to use primary social value of liberty in the political culture that extent until liberties of the others disturbed. Classical liberal ideas often form the basis for opposition to the use of government to attain social and personal objectives. They stress reliance on private the free market to determine the best outcomes rather than the private initiatives [1].

Upon creating the U.S. Constitution, the framers of America believed that “in order to form a more perfect union,” we required a government that would “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” They sought to form a political entity that would take the necessary steps to ensure that the people of the nation would have the freedom to act and speak according to their own free will and guarantee their future generations the entitlement to that same liberty. The bill of rights, laid out as the first 10 amendments in the Constitution, guarantees citizens a number of personal freedoms that the government cannot infringe upon. Through the process of incorporation, the amendments not only apply to the federal government, but also to the states and local government. Therefore, allowing for the reservation of powers to the states and the people that were not notably allowed to the federal government.

1) for example, social security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance. Another factor that spurred the growth and development of this “new” liberalism, and most likely the most rudimentary, was “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” (Guide, pg. 10). This idea is closely related to American Liberalism today, in that it advocates civil and personal liberties with an indifference to private ownership. Another tenant of modern liberalism, taken from Rawls’ great work, “A Theory of Justice” published in 1971, “is that the ‘new liberalism’ has become focused on developing a theory of social justice” (Guide, pg. 10). This basic principle asserts that society should be structured so that social and economic inequalities give the greatest advantage to those who are the least well off. This works on the principle of reciprocity so that no social group advances at the cost of another. Liberals also believe that it is essential for the government to protect citizens from events such as environmental derogation as a consequence of “injustices and failures of free-market capitalism” (PowerPoints, Modern Liberalism, pg. 2). Modern liberalism believes that government protection and action is necessary in achieving equality and

Libertarianism is the social-political philosophy that emphasizes autonomy, freedom of choice, and individual rights above all else. Its name comes from Liberty - as in a liberty to act as a morally autonomous agent without public or private interference. Although Libertarianism holds a generally skeptical view of political government, it does not entirely argue for anarchism. Libertarianism does argue for a limited government, not necessarily limited in its actual physical size or scope, but rather limited in its ability, and power, to interfere into the aforementioned autonomy of a moral citizen. There are many schools of thoughts within Libertarianism.

The basic concept that the individual has the right to liberty is still there. However the role of government has changed. The modern Liberal feels that the purpose of government not only to protect individual rights, but to also provide social welfare, benefiting society as a whole, (Downes, yaliberty.org). This would include things like financial assistance, universal health care, and free and equal education. Also todays Libertarian party supports the government enforcing more rules and regulations to big corporations. The political platform of todays Liberal can seem misleading to some. One example of this is individual abortion rights. Modern Libertarianism supports the right of the individual to be able to make their own decision to have an abortion, the government should not have a say in the matter. This shows support for the classical belief that government should not play a big part in an individuals life. However, by contrast, todays Liberal political platform also feels that the government should not perform executions – even for convicted serial killers, (Goodman ncpa.org). This directly goes against the classical view that the governments role is to protect the individuals

In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville’s memorable claim that there is an incredible tension between liberty and equality in America is certainly true. His secondary argument is equally justifiable—that Democratic nations, especially American, will grow to love equality more “ardently and enduringly” than liberty (Tocqueville, 202), and can be proved by observing current American political patterns and events.

Liberty, equality and justice. Those three words are the values the United States was founded on. Over time the United States has struggled to abide by these values. However they try to promote them in schools, in court and in work. An African American and women do not have the same treatment as a Caucasian. In 1955, there was a trial for the murder of Emmett Till. The United States highlights these values but, fail to follow through with them.

After going through what positive liberty is, examples of positive liberty and the debates surrounding positive liberty, the main question running through my head is whether the government should promote positive liberty? While I do acknowledge what Keong says about people expecting the state to hand entitlements over, I think that the government should promote positive liberty to maintain order within society. An image that runs through my head at the thought of the government not promoting positive liberty is one of anarchy. People can do whatever they like with no consequence which to me, breeds chaos all around. At least with positive liberty, people can do what

Negative and positive liberty are best understood as distinct values within Berlin’s own scheme of value pluralism. While an increase in either is desirable, ceteris paribus, attempting to maximize any single idea of liberty without regard to any other values necessarily entails absurd and clearly undesirable conclusions; any sensible idea of jointly maximizing freedom in general, therefore, must acknowledge the tradeoffs inherent in increasing one aspect of freedom or another. The tension here is akin to the familiar tradeoff between equity and efficiency concerns in economics; negative and positive freedom are not diametrically opposed, but the two ideals may not be individually maximized at the same time.