Negative and Positive Freedom for the Relationship Between the Individual and the State - Essay Example

Running head: Compare the implications of negative and positive freedom for the relationship between the individual and the state. Customer Inserts His/her Name Customer Inserts Grade Course Customer Inserts Tutor’s Name 29/06/ 2011 Freedom implies to ability to act or think as one wish and pursue own interest by making their own choices (Yildiz, 2005). The concept of negative freedom centers on freedom from interference. Where there is absence of external constraint on individual and people will act in the way they want for example freedom of speech (Yildiz, 2005).Theories of negative freedom spell out the acceptable limit of interference of individuals’ life (Yildiz, 2005). Moreover its extent is determined by how many possible choices lie open to an individual. This freedom is an opportunity for action rather than action itself. In contrast, positive freedom is a matter of what you can actually do (Yildiz, 2005). This will contribute to human flourishing, personal development and self mastery (Hans, 1997). All sorts may be open giving you a large amount of negative freedom, however you might find that there are still obstacles to taking full advantage of the opportunities (Hans, 1997). A free society based upon the concept of negative freedom is one in which state interference in individual lives is kept to a minimum (John, 2008). In negative freedom, the laws and the physical constraint provides checks and balance. There is no intervention from government or restrictions to allow privacy and choice since it restricts freedom if get involved, unless there is harm to other people (John, 2008). Therefore, negative freedom is upheld primarily through checks on government power such as codified constitution and bill of rights. Example include civil liabilities such as freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom from excessive taxation and freedom of religious worship (John, 2008). Poverty and social disadvantage are seen as constraints on positive freedom, as they impair the individual’s ability to flourish his or her potential. State provides some intervention to protect its citizens from harm (Joy, 1997). Positive freedom ensures that people have resources to flourish and guidance to realize their potential. Instead of being left alone hence able to develop skills and talents to broaden their understanding and gain fulfillment. Expressions of positive freedom can be found in freedom from ignorance, disease and want (Joy, 1997). The negative freedom tradition has resulted in a combination of an understanding of democracy as a procedure for protecting and aggregating self-interested or private preferences and a conception of negative as non interference with private interests (Joy, 1997).Moreover it combines freedom and democracy, since it rejects the idea of a connection between individual liberty and democratic rule (Kevin & Tony, 2003). It is seen as matter of protecting an area within which a man can act unobstructed by others and able to satisfy his desires effectively. Berlin says that a person lacks negative liberty if prevented from attaining a goal (Yildiz, 2005). The conception of this freedom is absolutely uninteresting in a political context when it is not related to some idea of what it is we should be free to do (Kevin & Tony, 2003). When freedom is reduced to its negative dimension, it is impossible to speak of the freedom of the citizen as a participant in the political process, since freedom is tied to private pleasures (Kevin & Tony, 2003). According to negative conception of freedom, freedom is external to politics and it is seen as beginning where politics ends in various forms of private life. It is regarded as a dimension of freedom that is parasitic on other dimensions of freedom in decision making and collective forms of justification (Kevin & Tony, 2003). From a socio-theoretical perspective, it is evident that historical demarcations of private spheres have a tendency to protect the individual freedom of the powerful at the expense of the oppressed (Yildiz, 2005). Freedom has both positive and negative aspects; hence government regulation can be seen as facilitating freedom where its purpose and effect are to enhance opportunities for fuller participation in the economic and political system (Kevin & Tony, 2003). Freedom of a citizen is constituted by having social, economic and civil liberties of participation. The state will guarantee the citizen a sphere of privacy, a restriction of its domain of authority (Kevin & Tony, 2003). Individual freedom is enhanced when the individual concerned directly exercises control and also when family, community and the state play a fundamental role in creating an environment for individual freedom (John, 2008). Therefore the state will provide public goods such as a safe and healthy environment, public infrastructure, education, culture and language (John, 2008). The arbitrary use of threat or coercion to a society especially by the state may prevent them from doing things they value most (John, 2008). Positive conception of freedom provides a more comprehensive account of the metaphysical grounds and the essentials normative aspect of freedom (Yildiz, 2005). However the negative freedom focuses on finding out the universal constraints on freedom of action (Yildiz, 2005). The advocates of positive freedom focus on the relationship between a free agent and a free society by explicitly defending a specific theory of human nature and good life (Yildiz, 2005). Kant theory illustrate that we are free not as human beings, but as rational and moral beings that can transcend the natural causal determination and act on self-imposed laws (Yildiz, 2005). The negative and positive ideas of freedom originate from the interconnections between the individual and the collective; hence those relations that enhance the opportunities for self expression of all individual are envisaged (Joy, 1997). The problem of positive freedom naturally leads to the issues of governance of societies and the paradox of self-government (Joy, 1997). Multiplicity of political ideologies, groups and institutions is inevitable in free societies (Joy, 1997). Freedom abhors uniformity since human nature is non-uniform and diversity of human thought processes produces a multiplicity in the conceptualization of liberty. Freedom plays out the economy of peacefulness, violence between and within individuals and traces the aporia of justice (Joy, 1997) Maintaining the conception of positive freedom generally advocate a strong national culture, however the conception of negative liberty argued that the state should have a minimum role in developing a national culture which is inconsistent with the pluralism. (Bruce & Academy of Canadian Cinema & Television, 1989).Moreover the state activities are restricted to the administrative responsibilities of ensuring a measure of distributive justice. Such activities include; operating social welfare programs, a health care delivery system and a free education system (Bruce &Academy of Canadian Cinema & Television, 1989). The state exercises a policeman’s role in maintaining security and order so that individual can without fear of interference from others do what he will so long as he is law abiding (Robert, 2004). However the law has nothing to do with the fulfillment of personal aims or of attainment of personal morality. An autocratic government can allow a wide area of negative freedom, while reserving to itself the reins of the state or a political democracy could restrict more than such an autocracy the negative of its citizens (Robert, 2004) The Greek states exhibited a negative freedom in their attempts to avoid foreign domination. They wanted to be free from control of its actions by another (Robert, 2004). Berlin associates negative freedom with unitary notion of personality or self which can only be a slave to or frustrated in its aims by some agency other than itself (Robert, 2004). But such freedom comes about through the maintenance of temperature and values recognized by the individual through reasoned judgment or educated right opinion (Robert, 2004).Freedom is related to the concept of the state whereby liberals regard the state as an institution that represents and defends its members (Kevin & Tony, 2003). Freedom is associated with the development of a democratic state hence more opportunities will exist for individual to influence its policy outcomes (Kevin & Tony, 2003). The relationship between state action and the freedom of individual showed that many forms of collective action do not involve coercion but it is motivated by the desire for increased liberty (Joy, 1997).The idea of liberty is of vital importance in the political organization of societies, because it results to competing political ideologies (Joy, 1997). Moreover these competing political ideologies will debate on the structural mechanism which can harmonize justice and the individual liberty. Civil laws impose restrictions on the freedom of action of individuals with a view to increase the liberty (Joy, 1997). It can be enhanced by restraining those actions of individuals, prevention of which will confer a greater freedom on others than the diminution of excessive license by some. Thus good laws are considered to enhance the liberty of citizens of a state (Joy, 1997). However government and laws are antagonistic to individual liberty. All external constraints whether of individual or of the state results in a diminution of individual liberty (Joy, 1997). The state is created by individuals and for individuals to serve the needs and interests of its citizens (Ksenija, 2008). It also acts as a neutral arbiter when competing individual or groups come into conflict with one another within the society. Economic freedom is an indispensable means toward political freedom achievement (Ksenija, 2008). In a society that is economically free, everyone controls the fruits of their own initiative and labor. Individuals are empow­ered and entitled to pursue their dreams depending on the free choice they make (Ksenija, 2008). References Hans Theodorus Blokland, (1997).Freedom and culture in Western societyVolume 5 of Routledge studies in social and political thought.illustrated, Routledge John M. Alexander, (2008).Capabilities and social justice: the political philosophy of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum.Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Joy Vazhayil, (1997).Facets of freedom: a moral and political analysis .Concept Publishing Company. Kevin Harrison, Tony Boyd, (2003).Understanding political ideas and movements: a guide for A2 politics studentsUnderstanding politics.illustrated.Manchester University Press. Ksenija Premur, (2008).European Union - History and Future.Lulu.com. R. Bruce Elder, Academy of Canadian Cinema & Television, (1989).Image and identity: reflections on Canadian film and culture. University. Press. Robert Hall, (2004).PlatoVolume 9 of Political Thinkers, Geraint Parry.Routledge. Yildiz Si̇li̇er, (2005).Freedom: political, metaphysical, negative and positive Ashgate new critical thinking in philosophy.Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Read More