The terms liberty and freedom have been defined and interpreted differently by writers and thinkers using different perspectives. To appreciate the meaning, nature, scope, relationship of liberty with authority and liberty and equality, etc. we should look at how they have been defined. From the brief survey of how liberty and freedom have been treated in different periods in Europe, we come across various meanings of liberty and freedom. These includes, civic freedom as Greeks meant, republican liberty as Cicero advocated, freedom to search and judge within the Christian fold as advocated by William of Occam and the conciliar theory, freedom as privileges to select classes and groups as feudal Europe espoused, negative and positive liberty as liberalism adopts, civil liberty, liberty enjoyed in common with the whole community, as Rousseau and Bentham says, equal liberty as the socialist thought advocates.
Euripides, the Greek statesman, proclaimed liberty in the sense of free speech and participation in public affairs when he said, ‘This is true liberty, when free-born men, having to advise the public, may speak free.’ What Cicero meant by liberty was extension of opportunity of participation in the public affairs of Rome to the plebeians. He advocated a mixed constitution, which could give a share to aristocratic, monarchical and democratic elements in the public affairs. When Rome became republic from its earlier form of monarchy, to assert its viability and necessity, Cicero in his book, The Laws said, ‘it is clear that either the monarchy ought never to have been abolished, or else that real liberty, not pretence of it, had to be given to the common people.’ What Cicero calls ‘real liberty’ is the presence of Tribunes as elected representatives of the plebeians. Though in a different context, Machiavelli known for his suggestion for a strong monarchical rule in his book, The Prince, showed respect for republicanism in his later book, The Discourses in the sixteenth century. He was of the opinion that once founded, a state could be made permanent by admitting a share of people in government and suggested business of the state to be run in accordance with law.13 It seems Machiavelli was reflecting Cicero’s concern of republican liberty.
Hobbes defines liberty as ‘… absence of external impediments, which impediments may take off part of man’s power to do what he would do.’ Hobbes’s idea was that human beings, by nature, are oriented for self-preservation. In fact, the social contract is meant to come out of the state of nature and institute a sovereign to provide conditions in which the prime concern of security of life is maintained. For this, all impediments are to be removed by the sovereign. It is then the duty of all subjects to abide by the law the sovereign sets for them. ‘For the use of laws is not to bind the people from all voluntary actions; but to direct and keep them in such a motion, as not to hurt themselves by their own impetuous desires, rashness or indiscretion; as hedges are set, not to stop travellers, but to keep then in their way.’14 As such, Hobbes grants liberty and freedom to individual in all aspects and seeks interference of law to remove external impediments. He gives freedom in all those matters in which law is silent. Leviathan gives freedom to transact business and contract, to pursue private religion, belief and conscience and to disobey when the sovereign violates the very basis of life, as the end of obedience is protection. Though Hobbes had individualism as the end of the sovereign in the sense of protection and preservation of individual life, he granted only limited liberty and did advocate interference by the Leviathan. This was because Hobbes says, ‘I ground the civil rights of sovereign and both the duty and liberty of subjects upon the known natural inclination of mankind.’ He identifies natural inclination with instinct of self-preservation and security. In consonance with this objective, for Hobbes, ‘a free man is he that … is not hindered to do what he has the will to do.’
Locke’s understanding of freedom and liberty arises from the nature of social contract. Liberty is part of natural rights of ‘life, liberty and property’. Individual retains rights to liberty as part of these rights and the ‘life, liberty and estate’ of one person can be limited only to the extent to enforce similar rights of another person. For this, Locke advocates enforcement of these rights through law. He says, ‘end of law is not to abolish or restrain but to preserve and enlarge freedom.’ As the State is only a trust to protect these rights through law, he advocates constitutional government based on rule of law. For Locke, limited government based on rule of law and separation of powers (legislative, executive and judicial and federative) provides framework of political liberty for individual as well as protection of rights of life and property.
Somewhat like Locke, Baron de Montesquieu in his The Spirit of Laws, equates presence of liberty with separation of power. He says, ‘when the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty … again there is no liberty, if the judicial power be not separated from the legislative and the executive.’ This was separation of powers as a means of checks and balances to ensure political liberty and as a protection against the tyranny of ruler. Both Locke and Montesquieu feel that constitutional government with checks and balances could be a guarantee of political liberty.
While Locke advocated economic liberty in the form of natural right of property and its inviolability by the state, Adam Smith provided a clear exposition of the theory of laissez faire, individual to be left alone. For him, liberty amounts to:
Everyman, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest in his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man or order of men. The sovereign is completely discharged from … the duty of superintending the industry of the private people, and of directing it toward the employments most suitable to the interests of the society.15
This is a clear enunciation of liberty as non-interference by the State in the affairs of the individual, particularly in the field of economic activity. Smith calls this as natural liberty.
Hayek and Friedman, both supporters of neo-liberalism and the negative view of liberty, define liberty in terms of absence of coercion of one person by another. Hayek says ‘a man possesses liberty or freedom when he is not subject to coercion by the arbitrary will of another.’ By defining liberty or freedom in terms of absence of coercion by arbitrary will of another, Hayek admits coercion by non-arbitrary will of another. This means there can be coercion that is not arbitrary. However, whether this admits positive liberty implicitly or not is a matter of debate. Friedman also defines freedom in the same way as Hayek does. According to Friedman, freedom means ‘absence of coercion of a man by his fellow men’.
Rousseau was an advocate of civil society and civil liberty. For him, liberty implies obeying the General Will. He defines liberty as ‘obedience to law which one gives to oneself’ and also that ‘it is to law alone that man owe justice and liberty’. ‘Law’ to which Rousseau refers is law made by the General Will. Rousseau feels that in the state of nature only impulsive freedom is possible, civil liberty is required for liberty to be meaningful. Civil liberty of each individual is guaranteed because ‘each one, in giving himself up to all, gives himself up to no one’.
Hegel’s conception of freedom is based on his thesis of development of Spirit as embodied in the development of state. World history according to Hegel is development of the Spirit, and the State is the march of God on earth. Since the Spirit or it is independent for its progress, its progress is also progress of freedom. As such, ‘the history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of Freedom.’ Individual’s freedom is inseparable from the freedom embodied in the state. Hence, individual freedom lies in obedience to the state. For Hegel, individual liberty is in submission to the laws of the State. The State is ‘that form of reality in which the individual has and enjoys his freedom provided he recognizes, believes in and wills what is common to the whole’.16 Laski severely criticized Hegel’s conception of freedom as ‘dialectical fraud’, which equated slavery and freedom.
Bentham’s Utilitarian doctrine gives primacy to maximization of pleasure as an end and maximization of liberty as an end. He opposes the concept of liberty as natural rights, which he decries as ‘simple nonsense’. He differentiates between Natural Liberty, which is liberty to do what I will and Civil Liberty as liberty to do whatever I will so long as it is consistent with the interests of the community to which I belong17. Since the utilitarian principle of happiness is the only ultimate criterion that liberty must admit, it is the concept of civil liberty that Bentham gives primacy. A law is good or bad not because it increases or decreases liberty but because it increases or decreases happiness. For Bentham then, liberty is subject to utility and at times there may be a conflict between the two.
John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty is considered as a significant defence of individual liberty of actions. Mill declares that the subject of his concern is’… Civil or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over individual.’18 Mill was, in fact, apprehensive of the majority’s overwhelming oppression of the individual having a view contrary to theirs. He, therefore, advocated liberty of the individual against the ‘tyranny of majority’. This was also significant because liberal democracy has espoused the principle of majority as the operational means. Mill defines liberty in two ways. Firstly, it is in the sense of being left to oneself as ‘over himself, his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign’. He says, ‘all restraints qua restraints is an evil’. Thus, for Mill, liberty is non-interference in an individual’s liberty of action except to protect the similar liberty of other individual(s). As such, he differentiates between ‘self-regarding’ and ‘other-regarding’ actions. ‘Other-regarding’ actions are those actions of individuals that have a bearing on the liberty of other individuals. Mill admits interference in this sphere of individual actions. A second definition of liberty he gives is that ‘liberty consists in doing what one desires’. This means liberty may not be being left alone or to oneself. For example, one would be justified in preventing a man crossing a bridge that one knows to be unsafe. ‘Liberty consists in doing what one desires, and he does not desire to fall into the river,’ says Mill. This definition of liberty provides enough scope for interference and amounts to admitting Rousseau’s position that one can be forced to be free, as Wayper says.19 However, we can say that Mill’s concern for introducing criteria of moral and self-development of individual personality into the principle of Utility that can be seen in both the definitions. He seeks to protect the sphere of ‘self-regarding’ actions and also gives primacy to the individual’s desires.
Thomas Hill Green’s idea of freedom is also Hegelian. For both, an individual is most free when he identifies himself with the Divine Spirit. However, Green defines freedom in a positive sense as ‘a positive power or capacity of doing something or enjoying something worth doing or enjoying and that too, something we do or enjoy in common with others.’ He also defines freedom as ‘the liberation of all powers of men for the social good.’ This is possible only when everyone does what is in the interest of all and in the realization of the human personality. Freedom is not absence of restrictions but availability of those conditions that help one realize positive power or capacity. Green advocates concept of freedom as positive power.
H. J. Laski defines liberty in the positive sense when he says, ‘By liberty I mean the eager maintenance of that atmosphere in which men have the opportunity to be their best selves.’ Thus, instead of absence of restriction, Laski advocates presence of certain conditions as in terms of rights, which are essential for development of an individual personality. However, with the emergence of fascist and corporatist state in Germany and Italy, Laski is reported to have revised his view of liberty as absence of interference from authority. Laski also supported Lord Acton’s conception of liberty as ‘the assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes his duty against the influence of authority and majority, customs and opinion.’
Macpherson defines liberty in developmental sense as ‘positive liberty is liberty to act as a full human being. A man’s positive liberty is virtually the same as what I have called a man’s power in the developmental sense.’
From the above descriptions, it becomes clear that the notion of liberty and freedom has changed over a period of time. Of particular interest is the shift from the notion of liberty as absence of restraints to individual action to the notion that liberty and freedom is more a matter of moral and self-development of the individual. In the second sense, liberty becomes a derivative value serving the ultimate purpose of moral and capacity development of individual personality. Further, it has also focused on different aspects of liberty such as natural liberty and laissez faire notion (Smith, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau), political liberty (Locke, Montesquieu, Blackstone, Barker), civic liberty (Greeks and Romans), Civil and Social Liberty (Mill, Blackstone, Barker), economic liberty (laissez-faire and neo-liberals, Laski, Barker), religious liberty (renaissance and reformation), etc. We also find that liberty requires certain conditions to be present to be effective. We may also explore the relationship of liberty and authority and also liberty and licence.
Leave a Reply