• The concept of liberty or freedom is a fundamental principle in political philosophy.
• Liberty is seen as the distinctive principle of liberalism, while freedom is recognized as a universal principle.
• Freedom is valued across various political ideologies, including liberal, idealist, and Marxist theories.
• Although freedom is widely accepted as an end, there are differing views on the means and mode of achieving it.
• Even those who advocate for absolutism, authoritarianism, and slavery claim to support freedom, often arguing that submission to authority leads to the best form of freedom for ordinary people.
• Champions of liberty have consistently opposed the claims of the privileged classes to any supposed excellence in authority.
• The ideal of liberty has been a driving force behind revolutionary struggles against despotism and foreign regimes.
• The struggle for liberty is always connected to the spirit of equality, as oppressed sections rise up against their oppressors.
• In peasant revolts and national struggles for independence, the oppressed challenge the alleged superiority of their oppressors and demand equality and justice based on the universal principle of human equality.

NATURE OF LIBERTY

• The idea of liberty can be analyzed in two ways:
  • (a) Freedom as the quality of human being
  • (b) Freedom as the condition of human being

FREEDOM AS THE QUALITY OF HUMAN BEING

• Freedom as the quality of human being suggests that only humans, unlike other living beings, are capable of freedom.
• Animals, birds, and insects are governed by the rules of “struggle for existence” and “survival of the fittest” where the strongest and cleverest survive.
• These creatures have no aim of life beyond mere existence, unlike humans who have the ability to pursue a purpose in life.
• Humans have created complex institutions, civilization, and culture to pursue their aims, distinguishing themselves from other animals.
• While animals are slaves of nature, humans have learned to tame, control, and harness nature for their benefit.
• Freedom is considered a distinctive quality of humans.
• Jacob Bronowski (1973) notes that while animals leave traces of what they were, humans leave traces of what they create.
• Freedom as the quality of human being is demonstrated in humanity’s ability to gain scientific knowledge of the laws of nature and apply them for the benefit of mankind.
• Without scientific knowledge, humans would remain slaves of nature, and their ignorance could be disastrous.
• Therefore, humans’ ability to gain scientific knowledge is the source of their freedom.

FREEDOM AS THE CONDITION OF HUMAN BEING

• Freedom as the condition of human being is defined as absence of constraint, which can be both internal and external.
• In politics, the focus is on external restraint, while in philosophy, both internal and external constraints are considered.
• When discussing positive action by the state to remove constraint, we return to political liberty.
• Liberty is demanded because humans are considered rational creatures, and freedom means that once a person understands what is best for themselves and society, their rationality should not be hindered by external, unreasonable restraint.
• This removal of external restraint is referred to as negative liberty.
• A person may still not be free even without external restraint. For example, someone suffering from physical pain or mental disturbance may not be able to pursue their desires.
• Humans are not only rational, but also sensitive beings who may feel constrained by hunger, thirst, fatigue, or other internal constraints.
• True freedom requires that a person is free from both internal and external constraints, including physical pain, disease, ignorance, fear, and want.
• Achieving such freedom is challenging in the real world, but a state can be judged by its ability to minimize constraints in citizens’ lives, thus securing positive liberty.
• Freedom for rational agents means they should not depart from rational thinking or lose their desire for freedom.
• A slave may feel content with their slavery or become a slave to superstitions, irrational customs, or social pressures.
• Some people may become trapped in consumer culture, seeking satisfaction from material goods rather than from nature, art, or literature.
• If people are not free and do not seek freedom, efforts should be made to awaken their conscience and make them desire to be free.
• Servitude is of two kinds:
  • Slavery to domination from outside
  • Slavery to one’s own artificial needs.
• Mahatma Gandhi noted that freedom is not just external but also about breaking free from artificial needs.
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau stated that slaves may become so debased by their chains that they lose the desire to break free.

CONCLUSION

• Despite the long history of human civilization, humans have not fully risen above the rule of the animal kingdom.
• When elders or more experienced, competent, and energetic individuals manage common affairs for the common good, people do not lose their freedom in obeying their commands.
• However, in practice, it is often the selfish, strong, and shrewd individuals who gain dominant positions and acquire special privileges.
• As a result, society is divided into privileged and underprivileged sections, including the oppressor and oppressed, the exploiter and exploited, the dominant and dependent groups.
• One set of men assumes power over the lives of others, leading to the division of society.
• The privileged classes develop a vested interest in maintaining the existing order and justify it by stressing its virtuesto establish the legitimacy of their dominant position.
• A typical example of this is Aristotle’s defense of slavery, where he argued that some men differ in moral excellenceand that slaves were not full human beings, merely ‘living tools’.
• Aristotle suggested that slaves could gain the benefit of virtue only by serving their masters and that slavery provided leisure for free men, which was necessary for the exercise of virtue.
• Privileged classes have always defended the status quo, opposing any change to the existing situation.
• It is only when the subjugated sections rise in revolt against injustice and oppression that they challenge the privileges of the dominant sections and raise the slogan of liberty to press their claim for equality.
• Liberty is thus a force for social change, the voice of the oppressed, the voice against injustice, and the call to reestablish human values against the rules of the animal kingdom.

SCOPE OF LIBERTY

• The problem of liberty involves the adjustment of claims between the individual and society (or community).
• The state plays a role as the instrument or agency for regulating their relations.
• If the individual’s claim is extended to an extreme, disregarding the interests of society, liberty would become ‘licence’.
• On the other hand, if the liberty of the individual is increasingly restricted in the supposed interest of society, it would lead to unconditional submission to authority, resulting in loss of liberty, amounting to tyranny.
• It is crucial to draw a distinction between liberty and licence on one hand, and to fix the proper frontier between liberty and authority on the other.
• Tyranny refers to a cruel, unjust, and oppressive rule by a person or a small group who exercise absolute power over others within their jurisdiction.

LIBERTY AND AUTHORITY

• Liberty of the individual must be restricted by the need for equal liberty for others.
• One man’s liberty should not obstruct another’s enjoyment of similar liberty.
• Liberty is meant to enable men to pursue rational or ideal objects, promoting happiness in alignment with societal good.
• In an ideal state, no regulations would be necessary, but due to human imperfection, regulation is required to safeguard liberty.
• Ernest Barker (1951) defines liberty within the state as a relative and regulated liberty, balancing individual and collective needs.
• Relative liberty provides more substantive freedom than absolute liberty, which could be ineffective or non-existent.
• Regulation of liberty acknowledges the authority of the state over the individual.
• The conflict between liberty and authority is significant; no individual or state is perfect.
• D.D. Raphael (1976) notes that political theorists recognize the conflict between individual liberty and state authority and that a balance must be struck.
• Hobbes favors limiting liberty for the benefits of state authority, while Locke and J.S. Mill believe state authority should be limited to maximize liberty.
• Limitations on state authority are needed to ensure it serves its social purpose.
• Legitimate state authority must align with the moral beliefs and values of the people.
• A state may have unlimited legal power but cannot practically exercise absolute authority without considering political and social realities.
• State authority is backed by compulsion (physical force), but this should be supplemented by moral support to be effective.
• Legitimacy refers to the quality of an action or arrangement that is regarded as lawful by those it affects.
• A state is legitimate if people view it as necessary, lawful, and beneficial to society.
• Legitimacy reduces the need for force; if legitimacy is questioned, a state may possess power but lack authority.
• Legitimate authority is effective when most people accept it on moral grounds, acting from a moral obligation rather than under compulsion.

LIBERTY AND LICENCE

• Liberty, if interpreted as absence of all restraints without considering the interests of others, degenerates into licence.
• Licence leads to a self-contradictory situation that undermines social order and liberty.
• One individual’s liberty may become another’s constraint or oppression (e.g., liberty of the strong suppressing the weak).
• Liberty of the powerful (e.g., the wolf or large fish) would harm the weak (e.g., sheep or small fish), leading to a chaotic situation.
• A thief’s liberty to steal threatens security; a driver’s liberty to drive recklessly endangers life and liberty of others.
• Such unrestricted freedom is incompatible with the purpose of social organization.
• Freedom must be regulated to prevent one individual or group from using their freedom to harm others.
• L.T. Hobhouse (1922): The unregulated freedom of one individual leads to servitude for all, while collective freedom requires restraint from all.
• Ernest Barker (1951) emphasizes that liberty must be adjusted in the socio-economic context:
  • The capitalist’s liberty to set factory conditions must be balanced with the worker’s liberty to work under fair conditions.
  • Liberty is relative and requires regulation to prevent exploitation and ensure fairness.
• Maintaining liberty requires a balance between liberty and authority to avoid tyranny.
• Regulation of liberty ensures that it does not degrade into licence, preserving social order and individual rights.

DIMENSIONS OF LIBERTY

• Liberty can be formally described as absence of restraint.
• To maintain individual liberty, the state should not impose restraints on activities in various spheres of life.
• The term unrestrained does not mean unregulated; it implies activities should not face unreasonable restraints.
• To identify the proper scope of unrestrained activities, we can distinguish between:
  • Civil liberty
  • Political liberty
  • Economic liberty of the individual.

CIVIL LIBERTY

• Civil liberty, according to Barker, refers to the liberty of man as an individual person; his personal liberty.
• Civil liberty consists of three main elements:
  • Physical freedom from injury or threat to life, health, and movement.
  • Intellectual freedom for expression of thought and belief.
  • Practical freedom to enter into mutual obligations with others for their mutual benefit, known as freedom of contract.
• The first article of civil liberty, physical freedom, is generally non-controversial.
  • Freedom of movement should not be restricted except for public safety, law, and order.
  • Physical injury should only be inflicted as a punishment for a crime, in accordance with law and prescribed authority.
• Intellectual freedom (second article) is critical for the individual and society.
  • J.S. Mill, in his essay On Liberty (1859), defends the importance of freedom of thought.
  • Knowledge and progress depend on free discussion, which thrives in an environment of open expression.
  • The silencing of opinions deprives both present and future generations of the opportunity to exchange error for truth.
• Freedom of contract (third article) requires more scrutiny.
  • People should be free to enter into contracts for mutual benefit, provided no damage is inflicted on a third party.
  • The freedom may be exploited by stronger parties in a contract to impose disadvantageous terms on the weaker party.
  • L.T. Hobhouse advocates for equality between parties in a contract, ensuring each has a real choice to accept or reject the bargain.
  • Absolute freedom of contract could lead to exploitation or even force one into slavery, thus limiting their freedom.
  • Modern judicial thinking recognizes reasonable limitations to freedom of contract.
• Civil liberties are a set of legal protections against arbitrary government actions.
  • Civil liberties include personal freedom, freedom of movement, freedom of thought and expression, freedom of faith and worship, freedom of association and assembly, right to a fair trial, and equality before the law.
  • Protection of civil liberties is a key feature of liberal democracy.

POLITICAL LIBERTY

• A man enjoys civil liberty as an individual person and political liberty as a citizen.
• William Blackstone (1723-80) defined political liberty as the power of curbing government, viewing government as an external force.
• In modern democracy, government is constituted by the people, and political liberty involves constituting and controlling the government.
• Constituting government occurs through a general act of choice or election, based on universal suffrage, where everyone freely participates.
• Controlling the government involves continuous discussion where citizens freely share their views and opinions on public policy.
• This view of political liberty asserts the right of people to be represented in decision-making bodies and to influence decisions.
• The aim is to ensure that the state remains sensitive and responsible to the prevailing social consciousness.
• Mere provision of political liberty is insufficient if elections are influenced by money and manipulative power.
• When media is controlled or influenced by a privileged class, especially big business magnates, it undermines true political liberty.
• The exploitation of media for profit and influence prevents the realization of substantive freedom for the people.

ECONOMIC LIBERTY

• Economic liberty refers to a person’s freedom as a worker engaged in a gainful occupation or service, whether using hands or brain.
• Barker suggests economic liberty is implied in the articles of civil liberty.
• However, economic liberty is a complicated issue, with conflicting interpretations from various parties such as employer vs. worker, trader vs. consumer, landlord vs. tenant.
• One party may see economic liberty as the freedom to secure maximum profit, while the other seeks reasonable terms, fair prices, and quality.
• Without curbing the stronger party to safeguard the weaker, the principle of liberty is reduced to mockery.
• This conflict highlights the essential adjustment between the claims of liberty and equality.
• R.H. Tawney (1938) observed that when liberty is understood as including protections for the economically weak, ensuring they are not at the mercy of the economically strong, equality becomes essential to liberty.
• Equality is not inimical to liberty but necessary for it when liberty includes economic security for all.
• In the economic sphere, negative liberty (freedom from interference) and positive liberty (freedom to participate and secure well-being) come into direct conflict.
• If social policy does not protect the vulnerable, the application of liberty would lack real substance.

LIBERAL-INDIVIDUALIST VIEW OF LIBERTY

NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE LIBERTY: THE EARLY DEBATE

• Liberal writers use the terms ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ synonymously, considering them the supreme value guiding public policy.
• Liberty or freedom is generally viewed as the absence of restraint or coercion, focusing on individual liberty.
• The Atlantic Charter (1941), created by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill during WWII, outlined Four Freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from fear, and freedom from want.
• These freedoms can be categorized into two pairs:
  • The first pair answers freedom to do what?: freedom of speech (freedom to say what one likes) and freedom of worship (freedom to practice any religion).
  • The second pair answers freedom from what?: freedom from fear (freedom from fear of government or war) and freedom from want (freedom from poverty or unemployment).
• The Four Freedoms are not just WWII aims but have a wider application in public policy, particularly in a welfare state.
• The first type of freedoms (freedom of speech, worship) represent negative liberty, which implies a negative role of the state—it should not interfere with individuals’ pursuit of goals.
• The second type of freedoms (freedom from fear, want) represent positive liberty, requiring a positive role of the stateto remove obstacles to individual freedom.
• Negative liberty and positive liberty are complementary, not opposed; they are two sides of the same coin and incomplete without each other.
• The struggle for liberty in seventeenth-century Europe was driven by a new merchant-industrialist class, demanding negative liberty, particularly in the economic sphere.
• This was a push for the establishment of capitalism against the forces of feudalism.
• Norman P. Barry noted that the negative conception of liberty flourished when individuals were struggling to be free from arbitrary government.
• The axiom of negative liberty was that individuals know their own interests best, and the state should not decide their ends or purposes.
• Freedom of contract was central to negative liberty, allowing individuals to choose who they deal with in transactions.
• Henry Sidgwick argued that even contracts with onerous terms reflected an individual’s choice.
• Early liberals believed that law must enforce contracts, as individuals were the best judges of their interests.
• The state should not impose its own conception of ‘good’ on individuals in their dealings.
• This concept of negative liberty led to laissez-faire, advocating for freedom from government interference in economic affairs.
• Advocates of negative liberty like Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, Henry Sidgwick, and Herbert Spencer supported the idea of a minimal state.
• The liberal-individualist view of liberty was initially promoted by the merchant-industrialist class seeking a free market society against state mercantile policies.
• Laissez-faire individualism argued that self-interest among individuals would promote social interest in a non-interventionist atmosphere.
• Society was seen as an aggregate of atomized, alienated individuals, united by a mechanical unity.
• Liberty was defined as freedom of trade, freedom of enterprise, freedom of contract, and free competition in the market.
• The state was viewed as a necessary evil, required only to maintain liberty by protecting person and property.
• Mercantile policy advocated for state intervention in the economy to protect indigenous industries, ensure the import of cheap raw materials, and export expensive finished goods.
• Laissez-faire individualism upheld the individual’s right to freedom of trade, freedom of contract, and freedom of enterprise, with minimal state interference.
• The concept of negative liberty played a significant role in the establishment of capitalism, releasing productive forces blocked by feudalism.
• By the mid-19th century, capitalism supported by negative liberty led to poor conditions for workers and consumers, highlighting contradictions in liberty.
• The working class and other thinkers like humanists, socialists, Marxists, and positive liberals argued for a new definition of liberty.
• The non-interventionist policy of the state was seen as incompatible with liberty, especially in the face of the employer’s freedom to hire and fire workers, causing insecurity and poverty.
• John Stuart Mill (1806-73) introduced the concept of positive liberty, transitioning from negative liberalism.
• Mill recognized that the working class was deprived in a capitalist economy based on laissez-faire individualism and sought areas for state intervention.
• Mill distinguished between self-regarding actions (affecting only the individual) and other-regarding actions(affecting others), advocating for state intervention in the latter.
• Mill argued for a positive role of the state to ensure social welfare, even if it curtailed individual liberty.
• Mill supported taxation, limiting inheritance rights, and state provision of education.
• After Mill, thinkers like T.H. Green, L.T. Hobhouse, and H.J. Laski further developed the concept of positive liberty.
• Green emphasized the positive role of the state in enabling individuals to exercise moral freedom.
• Hobhouse and Laski argued that private property was not an absolute right and that the state should prioritize welfare, even at the cost of economic liberty for the privileged.
• The idea of positive liberty culminated in the concept of the welfare state.
• A welfare state safeguards citizens’ liberty and provides essential social services, such as social security, free education, public health, poor relief, and subsidized goods.
• The welfare state also protects cultural heritage, promotes higher education, and supports scientific research.
• It uses public resources and taxes the relatively rich to fund a network of social services.

THE CONTEMPORARY DEBATE

• The political thought of early exponents of positive liberty is closely linked to the theory of the welfare state, which first flourished in England and spread globally.
• Positive liberty is now seen as an essential complement to negative liberty in modern states.
• Some contemporary liberal thinkers, known as Libertarians, emphasize negative liberty, advocating for minimal state intervention.
• Prominent Libertarian thinkers include Isaiah Berlin (1909-97), F.A. Hayek (1899-1992), Milton Friedman (1912-2006), and Robert Nozick (1938-2002).
• Libertarianism is a contemporary political principle that seeks to remove impediments to individual liberty, treating it as the basic principle of public policy.
• Libertarianism rejects the welfare state and promotes a free market society as essential for liberty.
• Libertarianism advocates for minimal state intervention in the dealings between individuals.
• A free market society is one where all social relationships are reduced to market relations, focusing on the interaction between supplier and consumer.
• In a free market society, individuals (or families) are expected to fulfill each other’s needs and earn a living by doing so.
• The free market encourages respect for each other’s abilities and achievements, fostering dealings for mutual advantage.
• However, because the free market is driven by the harsh forces of demand and supply, it offers little room for humane considerations or sympathy for disadvantaged people.

VIEWS OF BERLIN

• Isaiah Berlin in Two Concepts of Liberty (1958) introduced a distinction between negative liberty and positive liberty.
• Negative liberty involves not being prevented by others from achieving one’s goals.
• Positive liberty treats an individual as their own master, focusing on self-mastery.
• In negative liberty, the state can only secure liberty by ensuring an individual is not hindered in choosing their course of action.
• Positive liberty lies within the individual’s will and capacity, beyond the state’s scope.
• Berlin’s position: If an individual cannot achieve something due to personal incapacity (e.g., lack of resources), it is not a deprivation of political liberty.
• Berlin believes the state is not responsible for making the required means available for achieving desires.
• Social inequalities cannot be questioned from the standpoint of liberty according to Berlin.
• Berlin’s distinction between moral and material spheres of liberty is questioned.
• Moral sphere of liberty: Self-mastery where a person is free to the extent that their rational, long-term goals control their irrational desires.
  • Example: A drug addict, alcoholic, or compulsive gambler may be unfree due to lack of self-control, not coercion.
• Material sphere of liberty: Enjoyment of positive freedom is hindered by social arrangements that can be changed by political action.
  • Berlin’s examples: Natural limitations (e.g., not flying like an eagle) are unalterable, whereas poverty or lack of access to courts are social issues.
• Poverty and ignorance can be caused by social injustice, not personal failure, thus justifying state intervention.
• B.C. Parekh questions whether Berlin would accept social arrangements as interference by other men.
• C.B. Macpherson criticizes Berlin’s division between negative and positive liberty, saying it neglects the role of social impediments.
  • Macpherson argues negative liberty is too narrowly defined, only suitable in a market society.
• Berlin’s concept of positive liberty emphasizes self-direction and individual purpose, contributing to liberal-individualist theory.
• Berlin’s concept differs from the positive liberals’ definition of positive liberty.
• Idealist Theory of Freedom is chiefly associated with G.W.F. Hegel who viewed the state as the embodiment of reason.
• In this theory, individual freedom is found in accepting the dictates of the ideal state.
• The theory becomes problematic when an existing government is equated with the ideal state and allowed to exercise authority without questioning the government’s character.
• Negative liberty is defined as the absence of restraint, meaning non-interference by the state in individual activities to allow the pursuit of happiness, as long as it does not obstruct others’ similar pursuit.
• Positive liberty is the extension of opportunity for individuals to pursue happiness when obstructed due to socio-economic conditions.
• S.I. Benn and R.S. Peters illustrate that freedom is not truly free if there are obstacles like expensive education or poverty, which restrict one’s ability to exercise their freedom.
• To ensure effective freedom, a person must have the means to exercise choice. Freedom becomes truly unlimited when the capacity to make choices is equally accessible to all.
• Positive freedom seeks to provide people with the means (e.g., education, employment, health services) to overcome socio-economic constraints, effectively extending freedom.
• State regulation that provides necessities (e.g., an artificial leg for a cripple, education for the ignorant) is an extension of positive freedom, ensuring that people can pursue happiness.
• Positive liberty addresses the social dimension of freedom, focusing on removing constraints imposed by socio-economic conditions that can be altered.
• If someone lacks the capacity to fulfill a desire due to social conditions, they will view this as a political issue needing socio-economic changes.
• Natural limitations, such as not being able to fly or swim, are not political issues because they cannot be altered by social policy.
• Discrimination (e.g., racial inequality) can be politically addressed because it is seen as social injustice that can be changed through social policy.
• Positive liberty involves removing only those constraints that arise from socio-economic conditions, which are alterable by human action.
• D.D. Raphael explains that a person in prison is not free because of human restraint, while freedom from want or diseases like cancer are natural impediments that humans hope to overcome.

VIEWS OF HAYEK

• F.A. Hayek, in his Constitution of Liberty (1960), used liberty and freedom interchangeably, arguing that a man has liberty when he is not subject to coercion by another’s arbitrary will.
• Individual freedom is distinct from three other meanings: political freedom, inner freedom, and freedom as power.
• Political freedom refers to participation in government choices, legislation, and administration control but does not guarantee individual freedom.
• Inner freedom is the extent to which a person is guided by their own will and not by impulses or circumstances. It contrasts with moral weakness rather than external coercion.
• Freedom as power is the ability to satisfy desires or the range of choices open to a person. It differs from individual freedom, as it concerns power, not the absence of coercion.
• Hayek advocates preserving the original meaning of freedom, limiting its application to avoid misuse by collectivist advocates to justify excessive state intervention.
• If freedom is viewed as power, it could lead to endless legislative measures that may destroy individual liberty in the name of extending choice or power.
• Hayek does not deny that government provision of opportunities (e.g., skills, services) is desirable but cautions against framing these as promoting freedom.
• Collectivism involves collective control of economic and political decisions, typically exercised through the state, and opposes individualism.
• Hayek defines freedom as freedom from state constraints, in line with James Madison, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Lord Acton.
• Hayek supports liberalism, which minimizes state coercive power, promotes competition, and offers non-coercive services, but does not use the market for distributive justice.
• Hayek sees inequality as a natural result of individual differences in skills and abilities, countered only by authoritarian suppression.
• He argues that equality before the law leads to material inequality and that further coercion for equality is unjust in a free society.
• Hayek’s argument against equality is based on two premises: liberty is the absence of coercion and individuals’ differing abilities will result in inequality in material status.
• Attempts at material equality lead to coercion, depriving individuals of their freedom.
• Hayek emphasizes the value of individual freedom from a societal perspective, linking it to social progress driven by knowledge.
• Liberty allows room for unpredictability and unforeseeable developments, which are essential for progress.
• Hayek argues that the importance of freedom is not determined by how many people desire it but by its contribution to social progress.
• He believes that it is better for some to be free than for all to have limited freedom, as freedom should be allocated based on contribution to progress.
• Hayek’s view is inconsistent as he starts with the individual as the end but ends by reducing individuals to the means of social progress.

VIEWS OF FRIEDMAN

• Milton Friedman, in Capitalism and Freedom (1962), defines freedom as the absence of coercion by fellow men and argues that capitalism or a competitive market society is necessary for freedom.
• Friedman believes individual freedom or family freedom is the ultimate goal for judging social arrangements.
• He suggests that competitive capitalism is both a direct component of freedom and a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for political freedom.
• Friedman’s contempt for equality is intrinsic to his view of freedom, arguing that equality should be sacrificed to maximize freedom.
• Government’s role, according to Friedman, is limited to matters that cannot be handled by the market, or are more efficiently addressed through political channels.
• He advocates for minimal government intervention, with the government only required to sustain and supplementthe market society.
• Macpherson notes that Friedman’s view would mean the government removing itself from most welfare and regulatory functions, including price controls, wages, social security, and housing subsidies.
• Macpherson critiques Friedman’s view, arguing that he makes a conceptual error by failing to distinguish between a simple exchange economy and a capitalist economy.
• Capitalism differs from a simple exchange economy because it involves the separation of labour and capital, with the labour force not having sufficient capital to make independent choices in the market.
• In a capitalist economy, the labour force is coerced by market forces beyond their control, limiting their creative freedom to choose how to employ their labour.
• Capitalism obstructs a person’s ability to use their labour creatively, as they are constrained by market forces, leading to coercion.
• Friedman’s opposition to a regulatory welfare state makes his concept of freedom ill-conceived and partial.
• C.B. Macpherson further explains that capitalist economies are distinct from simple exchange economies because of the lack of capital among workers, limiting their choices.

VIEWS OF NOZICK

• Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974) opposes the principle of equality and seeks to define the functions of the state based on the theory of the origin of the state.
• Nozick follows Locke’s method, asserting that individuals have certain rights in the state of nature and would hire protective associations for their property holdings.
• The dominant protective association becomes the state.
• Nozick argues that the acquisition or transfer of property without force or fraud is just, and that rights arise from voluntary exchanges.
• The state should exist solely for the maintenance of property rights and for limited functions, leading to the legitimacy of a minimal state.
• The minimal state should not engage in redistributive transfers among citizens, and inequalities in production should not be corrected at the level of distribution.
• Nozick acknowledges a potential restriction in cases where there is only one source of water in a desert, where monopolizing it would be unjust.
• However, he argues that such restrictions should not apply to products of human effort and talents.
• Nozick believes that individuals who discover remedies (e.g., for fatal diseases) are entitled to demand any price for their work.
• He assumes that all inequalities of wealth and power are due to individual differences in talents and efforts, and argues that redistributing wealth would be unjust.
• This view is criticized as it ignores the role of social status and the impact it has on individuals’ outputs, which does not align with the realities of the capitalist system.
• Nozick’s view is considered ill-founded because it overlooks the social context of economic inequalities.

MARXIST CONCEPT OF FREEDOM

MARX AND ENGELS ON FREEDOM

• Marxist concept of freedom differs from the liberal-individualist concept and analyzes freedom in relation to socio-economic conditions.
• Marxism rejects the idea of individual freedom as something enjoyed in isolation or by simply “being left alone.”
• It opposes the theory of an atomized, alienated, and possessive individual capable of enjoying freedom.
• Marx and Engels in Holy Family (1844) critique the atomistic view of individuals, arguing that such a view ignores the social and relational nature of human beings.
• They reject the notion of the individual as self-sufficient, with no connection to the outside world or other people.
• Marxism holds that the natural needs of individuals connect them to each other, leading to the creation of civil societythat binds people together.
• Marxism critiques the Utilitarian view, which believes that the common good can be derived from the aggregation of individual goods.
• Instead, Marxism asserts that the common good can only be achieved by creating socio-economic conditions that enable freedom within society.
• These conditions include access to material means for satisfying wants and opportunities for self-development.
• The key to freedom in Marxism lies in creating a rational system of production that maximizes the development of forces of production and meets everyone’s needs.
• John Lewis in Marxism and the Open Mind (1976) explains that for Marx, freedom is the ability to achieve the totality of human goods, including both material and spiritual aspirations, with a focus on mastery and rational control of the production process.
• Utilitarianism, founded by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), views pleasure and pain as the central motivators of human actions.
• The balance of pleasure over pain from an action or thing is termed utility, which leads to happiness.
• The guiding principle of Utilitarianism is the greatest happiness of the greatest number, which represents the aggregate happiness of individuals in society.

LEAP FROM NECESSITY TO FREEDOM

• According to the Marxist view, the capitalist system is not conducive to human freedom and is characterized by constraint or necessity.
• Necessity refers to the condition where human life is governed by laws of nature, such as gravitational force, which exist independently of human will.
• Engels in Anti-Dühring (1878) states that necessity is only blind when not understood. Freedom does not mean independence from natural laws but the ability to understand them and make them work towards specific goals.
• Freedom is the control over both internal nature and external nature, based on the knowledge of natural laws. It is a product of historical development.
• The first humans, like animals, were unfree, but every step forward in culture marked progress toward freedom.
• The capitalist system faces continual crises because productive forces and products cannot be used, leading to contradictions where producers have nothing to consume due to lack of consumers.
• The expansive force of means of production eventually breaks the bonds imposed by capitalism, requiring socialization of the means of production to resolve the crisis.
• Engels argues that social organization, once imposed by nature and history, will eventually be the result of free human action, giving man control over history.
• The shift from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom will occur when humans can control their own social and productive forces.
• In the Communist Manifesto (1848), Marx and Engels predict a future communist society where class distinctionswill disappear and production will be concentrated in the hands of a vast national association.
• In this future society, public power will lose its political character, and the free development of each individual will become the condition for the free development of all.

HUMANIST BASIS OF FREEDOM

• Marx, in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (1844), laid down the ethical basis of socialism and the humanist foundations of freedom.
• He severely criticized capitalism for its dehumanizing effect, demonstrating that the capitalist system alienates man in several ways.
• Alienation in contemporary society arises from the system of commodity production, division of labour, private ownership, market economy, and monetization.
• Marx identified four levels of alienation:
  • (a) Alienation from his own product and work process: Worker plays no part in deciding what or how to produce.
  • (b) Alienation from nature: Work lacks satisfaction as a creative act, becoming monotonous and routinized under mechanization.
  • (c) Alienation from other men: The competitive nature of the economic system divides society into irreconcilable class interests.
  • (d) Alienation from himself: The realm of necessity dominates, reducing man to animal existence and leaving no room for higher pursuits like art, literature, and culture.
• Capitalism subordinates human faculties to the conditions created by private ownership of capital and property, making the capitalist and worker alike slaves to the rule of money.
• Capitalism is an economic system based on industrial production, where means of production, distribution, and exchange are privately owned, and economic activity is aimed at private profit.
• In capitalism, workers are free to work based on their skills, capacities, and market demand.
• Socialism is an economic system where the means of production, distribution, and exchange are under social ownership and control, with economic activity focused on fulfilling social needs.
• In socialism, work is compulsory for all able-bodied individuals, and the state manages resources for social benefit.
• Alienation refers to a state where an individual is isolated from significant aspects of social existence or the creative aspects of their own personality.
• The remedy to alienation is found in realizing that society is a creation that can provide freedom, obstructed by the conditions created by private property, especially under capitalism.
• The solution lies in a socialist revolution that restores human values and inaugurates a new era of freedom.
• Engels in Anti-Dühring (1878) explains that through a socialist revolution, the proletariat would free the means of production from the character of capital, enabling socialized production based on a predetermined plan.
• As socialized production grows, different classes of society will become an anachronism, and the political authority of the state will die out.
• In this system, man becomes master of his own social organization and lord over nature, attaining true freedom.
• Liberal-individualist theory seeks minor adjustments within the capitalist system to secure freedom, whereas Marxist theory advocates replacing capitalism with socialism to secure the conditions of true freedom.

MARCUSE’S CONCEPT OF ONE-DIMENSIONAL MAN

• Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), a Marxist, provided a brilliant analysis of freedom in contemporary Western society.
• Orthodox Marxists and structural Marxists emphasize a scientific and economic interpretation of Marxism, while Marcuse, a proponent of Neo-Marxism, stressed the subjective, critical, and humanist aspects of Marxism.
• Marcuse rejected Soviet Marxism as a distorted version and aimed to revive the original, humanist interpretation of Marxism for social change.
• Neo-Marxism seeks to review contemporary conditions in light of Marxism’s basic tenets, focusing on subtle forms of dominance and dependence at economic, political, cultural, and psychological levels.
• In One-Dimensional Man (1964), Marcuse critiqued the alienation in capitalist societies, where capitalism not only controls production and distribution but also creates demand through mass media manipulation.
• The result is a widespread craving for consumer goods, which turns into a distorted second nature, making people insensitive to their genuine discontent.
• Under consumer capitalism, oppressed groups are distracted by trivial, material desires, causing the urge for freedomto disappear.
• Alienated individuals are unaware of their alienation, and they must first realize their condition to awaken their urge for freedom.
• In Eros and Civilization (1966), Marcuse outlined a society free from alienation, where work becomes play and necessary labor aligns with individual needs.
• The elimination of repressive performance and surplus repression would free individuals from alienated labor.
• Marcuse was optimistic that Western society’s technology could meet most human needs, enabling people to live in freedom and dignity.
• Once people understand the necessary conditions for freedom, they could transcend violence and anarchy to build a new, free society.
• Critics of Marcuse’s views argue that human needs are endless, and the gap between aspiration and achievement will prevent happiness.
• Some critics question who would bring about revolution, as Marcuse denies the revolutionary potential of the proletariat.
• Marcuse places his hopes on the marginal elite of students and the radically dispossessed members of the poorest classes.
• Some critics argue that by rejecting the revolutionary potential of the proletariat, Marcuse loses his claim to be a Marxist.

FREEDOM AS EMANCIPATION

• Libertarians and humanitarians have different conceptions of positive freedom.
• Isaiah Berlin, a prominent libertarian, defined positive freedom as ‘self-mastery’, where a person is free when they control their own life rather than being controlled by someone else’s will.
• David Miller identified three elements of Berlin’s conception of positive freedom:
  • Freedom as power or capacity to act in certain ways, contrasted with mere absence of interference.
  • Freedom as rational self-direction, where a person’s life is governed by rational desires rather than unexamined impulses.
  • Freedom as collective self-determination, where each person plays a role in controlling their social environment through democratic institutions.
• Humanitarians are people who believe in showing compassion towards humanity, especially the oppressed and suffering.
• Humanitarians focus on the welfare of the downtrodden.
• Like Berlin, libertarians argue that the state’s role should be limited to securing negative freedom, preventing interference in individuals’ lives.
• Libertarians warn that if the state becomes the guardian of positive freedom, it would imply moral superiority of an enlightened group in power, leading to totalitarianism.
• Norman Barry expressed this view, stating that the path to totalitarianism is laid when the state equates its own purposes with those of individuals or collectives such as classes, nations, and races.
• Totalitarianism is a system where the state seeks to control all aspects of life—political, economic, social, cultural, and intellectual—directing citizens towards state-determined goals.
• In totalitarian systems, citizens have no right to criticize the state or propose alternatives.
• Humanitarians, in contrast, view positive freedom as a positive action by the state to liberate those who are oppressedor lack the means to exercise their freedom.
• Humanitarians seek freedom not just for those who are competent and resourceful, like libertarians, but for those who are disadvantaged and oppressed.
• Humanitarians tend to equate freedom with emancipation for those in unfavorable conditions.

IDEA OF EMANCIPATION

• Emancipation means freeing someone from social, political, or legal restrictions that are considered degrading or unnecessary, or from doing degrading work.
• The emancipation of slaves meant they were no longer the legal property of their masters and could live according to their free will.
• Slaves were legally owned by their masters, who had full control over their lives, and any labor done by the slave became the property of the master.
• In medieval times, slavery was replaced by serfdom, where serfs worked land owned by lords in exchange for a small share of produce.
• Serfs had some freedom compared to slaves, but they could not leave their work without the lord’s permission.
• Emancipation of a serf meant giving them the freedom to leave their land and work in the open market, relieving them of traditional obligations.
• In modern times, workers are legally free, but may still face constraints due to market conditions.
• Marx and his followers spoke of the emancipation of workers from the constraints of the capitalist system, calling for the overthrow of capitalism.
• The Communist Manifesto (1848) urged workers to unite, as they had “nothing to lose but their chains” and “a world to win.”
• Marxists believed that the overthrow of capitalism would lead to socialism and eventually communism, marking a transition from ‘the kingdom of necessity’ to ‘the kingdom of freedom.’
• In all cases, emancipation involves the act of liberating people from oppressive conditions.
• Emancipation of women refers to freeing women from legal, social, and moral bondage, enabling them to develop socially and culturally.
• Subaltern groups are those in society who are permanently placed in a subordinate or inferior position due to social constraints.
• Subaltern groups are exploited, oppressed, and marginalized, forced to live at or below subsistence level due to the concentration of resources and political power by a privileged class.
• Restoring the rights of subaltern groups is a central concern of social justice.
• Social justice is a policy aimed at preventing the concentration of wealth, prestige, and power in the hands of a few, ensuring deprived and underprivileged sections gain a fair share.
• The next step toward freedom as emancipation is a condition where freedom becomes an instrument of individual development.
• This developmental view of freedom is exemplified by Macpherson’s concept of creative freedom and Amartya Sen’s view of development as freedom.

FREEDOM AS DEVELOPMENT

• Freedom as development is opposed to the libertarian view of freedom, which defines freedom as the absence of restraint or being left alone.
• The libertarian view benefits the rich and strong who are in an advantageous position in a competitive society.
• This view does not favor the poor or weaker members of society, who may be left to suffer in such a system.
• Freedom as development envisions a situation where the disadvantaged sections of society can improve their quality of life through talents and efforts.
• This approach does not rely on the mercy of the rich toward the poor, but seeks to protect everyone’s dignity and self-esteem while pursuing self-development.
• The idea of freedom as development is well represented in the philosophies of C.B. Macpherson and Amartya Sen.

MACPHERSON’S CONCEPT OF CREATIVE FREEDOM

• C.B. Macpherson (1911-87), a Canadian political philosopher, is critical of capitalism despite not identifying as a Marxist; Norman Barry refers to him as a neo-Marxist.
• In his work Democratic Theory-Essays in Retrieval (1973), Macpherson identifies two principles of Western democratic theory:
  • (a) Maximization of utilities: viewing man as a consumer of utilities, a bundle of appetites.
  • (b) Maximization of powers: based on J.S. Mill’s revision of utilitarianism, emphasizing human development and the application of human capacities.
• Essence of freedom lies in realizing one’s creative faculties, with real freedom being exercised through developmental power, distinct from extractive power.
• Extractive power: the ability to use others’ capacities for personal gain, or “power over others,” seen in historical market societies from Machiavelli to James Mill.
• Developmental power: the ability to use one’s own capacities for self-appointed goals, exemplified by the power of land and capital owners to extract benefits from others.
• Developmental power allows individuals to use their human capacities fully, including rational understanding, moral judgment, aesthetic activity, love and friendship, and productive labor.
• Three impediments to maximizing developmental power:
  • (a) Lack of adequate means of life.
  • (b) Lack of access to means of labor.
  • (c) Lack of protection against invasion by others.
• These problems, rooted in both material and cultural/ideological factors, cannot be solved within a capitalist society.
• Macpherson advocates for a new system combining civil liberties with a socialist mode of production to fully utilize developmental power and achieve creative freedom.
• In a capitalist society, poor sections have negligible developmental power and no extractive power; owners of land and capital exploit workers’ manual and intellectual power.
• The welfare-state variety of capitalism has some checks on economic power through political power, but still limits the maximization of developmental power for the poor.

AMARTYA SEN’S CONCEPT OF DEVELOPMENT-ORIENTED FREEDOM

• Amartya Sen, an Indian economist and social philosopher, has significantly contributed to welfare economics with his capabilities approach.
• The capabilities approach promotes the idea of allocating resources based on differential human capabilities. It emphasizes enabling people, including differently abled individuals, to lead a respectable social life and achieve a common level of welfare.
• The United Nations Development Programme adopted Capability Indicators based on Sen’s approach.
• Critics argue that the identification of capabilities may carry cultural biases, such as replacing simple living and high thinking with a consumer culture. However, this flaw can be mitigated by involving culturally enlightened scholarsfrom diverse backgrounds.
• Sen later focused on the interlinkages between freedom and development in his work Development as Freedom(2000).
• Sen quotes William Cowper, emphasizing that freedom offers experiences that slaves, even if content, cannot understand.
• Despite global opulence, many people remain unfree, facing economic poverty, social deprivation, political tyranny, or cultural authoritarianism.
• Sen highlights both old and new problems such as poverty, hunger, violation of political freedoms, neglect of women’s rights, and the threat to the environment.
• The main purpose of development is to extend freedom to those who are unfree and to spread its benefits.
• Freedom is both the goal and the means of development. Social institutions like markets, political parties, legislatures, judiciary, and media contribute to freedom and development, supported by social values.
• Sen’s framework links values, institutions, development, and freedom.
• Development refers to the removal of unfreedoms and ensuring people have the opportunity to exercise their potential and reason.
• Two important aspects of human freedom:
  • (a) Freedom as the goal of development.
  • (b) Effectiveness of specific freedoms (e.g., economic and political freedoms reinforcing each other).
• Social opportunities such as education and healthcare complement economic and political freedoms and help individuals overcome deprivations.
• Critics argue that Sen focuses too much on economic criteria for measuring well-being and freedom, but he also addresses social deprivation, political tyranny, and cultural authoritarianism as important factors of freedom.
• Sen equates freedom with social justice across social, political, cultural, and economic spheres, both nationally and internationally.
• Social Deprivation refers to the condition where specific social groups (e.g., caste, gender, race) are deprived of a respectable status despite their merits, contributing to social injustice.
• Political Tyranny involves the misuse of state machinery (legislative, executive, and judicial branches) to oppress people through unfair laws, police abuse, and judicial inefficiency.
• Cultural Authoritarianism occurs when a dominant cultural group promotes its own culture as superior, pressuring other groups to despise their own culture and adopt the dominant one.

CONCLUSION

• The problem of liberty or freedom is complex and becomes clearer as it is analyzed in various contexts.
• Initially, liberty was defined as the absence of restraint, a simple concept proposed by classical liberalism.
• According to classical liberalism, the state may impose restraints only to maintain public order and security and to ensure enforcement of contracts.
• Liberty is viewed as an area where the state should not interfere, advocating for a minimum state that only performs essential functions.
• Market forces (e.g., Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”) were seen as the natural regulators for mutual adjustment among individuals who follow societal rules.
• This view aligns with laissez-faire individualism.
• Later, it was realized that the market is not a smooth or humane mechanism for adjusting human relations.
• Market forces can also be a source of constraints on the individual’s freedom.
• It was recognized that individuals suffer from various constraints beyond state-imposed restraints, including the effects of market forces.
• The emergence of the welfare state with extensive regulations was seen as a necessary instrument for ensuring freedom.
• Different thinkers and schools of thought identified more sources of constraint, coercion, and domination that curtail individual freedom.
• These sources of constraint could not always be addressed by the state.
• Marxists viewed the state as an instrument of the dominant class and proposed that the state’s withering away was essential for human freedom and emancipation.
• Libertarians like Berlin argued that the state could only guarantee negative liberty (freedom from interference), and that individuals were responsible for gaining their positive freedom.
• Neo-Marxists like Marcuse contended that the means of freedom already existed in contemporary Western society.
• According to Marcuse, individuals are deprived of freedom due to their dependence on technology and consumer capitalism, and that a genuine urge for emancipation could lead to a new social order where freedom prevails.
• The quest for freedom is a continuous process.
• Genuine freedom cannot be fully enjoyed by an individual in isolation.
• True or maximum freedom can only be achieved in a congenial social order where the free development of each leads to the free development of all (as per Marx’s philosophy).