<<

“No chains around my feet, but I’m not free.” – Bob Marley (Concrete Jungle)

Two Concepts of

1. Positive vs : ’s highly influential article brought to light the nature of the disagreement about political . Largely until his time, the default assumption was that ‘liberty’ referred to what Berlin calls ‘negative liberty’.

Negative Liberty: Roughly, freedom FROM. One is free in this sense to the extent that their actions are not hindered or prevented by outside interferers.

Jefferson & Madison: This is, for instance, how the founding fathers understood liberty. Consider our constitutionally recognized of , freedom of (in ’s Bill of Rights), and rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of (in ’s Declaration of Independence). Example:

Freedom of Speech: Having this right means that the government will not interfere with your speech (e.g., they will not pass laws forbidding you from saying whatever you want, and they will pass laws forbidding others from coercively preventing you from saying whatever you want, etc.).

The same can be said for all of the others I listed. (For instance, as one more example, the government will allow you to pursue happiness, and they will not interfere with you or try to prevent you from doing so.)

But, negative liberty of, say freedom of speech, doesn’t do me any if I lack the ability to speak. For instance, imagine that I was raised by wolves and I don’t know how to speak any human languages, or read, or write, etc. In one sense I am free to speak (if I try to say something, the government will not interfere). But, in another sense I am not free to speak (for, I lack the ability to say something in the first place). Berlin recognizes this as a distinct type of liberty, which he calls ‘’:

Positive Liberty: Roughly, freedom TO. One is free in this sense to the extent that they have the ability to DO something, to pursue and achieve goals, etc.

Emancipation: Booker T. Washington’s description of the day of freedom brings out these two aspects of being ‘free’ beautifully.

Born as a slave, he recalls rejoicing after being freed. He was no longer someone else’s property! No longer would his actions be dictated and restricted by another. The former slaves were rejoicing in their newly found NEGATIVE liberty.

Then, slowly, the realization dawned on them. With no money, no property, no education, and no skills other than manual labor, wtf were they supposed to do now!? He writes, “within a few hours the wild rejoicing ceased and a feeling of deep gloom seemed to pervade the slave quarters.” They were mourning the fact that their newly found “freedom” did not include any POSITIVE liberty.

As a result, many had no choice but to remain with their former masters as (often poorly paid) contracted laborers, with life before and after their emancipation not significantly different. Washington, who himself (as he describes it) slept on the streets of Richmond, impoverished, laments the fact that the government did not do more to ensure the well- being of freed slaves (e.g., by giving them property, education, etc.).

[Note: You may be under the impression that the government gave to each freed slave “40 acres and a mule”, but that did not actually happen. For more, listen here. Short version: True, a few freed slaves (but not many) were briefly given some land near Savannah, Georgia, and fewer still also got a mule. But, Andrew Johnson (who assumed the presidency after Lincoln’s assassination) struck down the order and returned the land to its original, white, Confederate owners.]

FDR and the Four : It is fairly uncontroversial that the role of the U.S. government is to protect and promote our freedoms. But, which freedoms? President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his of the Union address in 1941, listed to which every citizen has a right:

 Freedom of speech  Freedom from fear  Freedom of worship  Freedom from want

[Quiz: What sort of liberty does each of these recognize? Positive or Negative?]

In his 1944 “Second Bill of Rights” address, FDR elaborated that all citizens have rights:

 “to a useful and remunerative job”  “to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation”  “to a decent home”  “to a good education”  “to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health”  “to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment”

The goal of this proposal was to “assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.”

2

Contrast Mill’s free world with FDR’s. For Mill, to be free is to live under a government which intervenes as little as possible. But, what good is it to live a life where no one WOULD interfere with you if you were able to do something—but where you CAN’T do anything because you are starving, disabled, homeless, etc.? Hence, for FDR, to be free is to live without (too much) government intervention AND with the ability to actually pursue your own happiness.

Thought Experiment: Imagine that you were confined to a wheelchair in the United States at a time when there were no wheelchair ramps, elevators, aid programs, etc. for the physically disabled. If you tried to visit my upstairs store, or rent my second story apartment, no one would stop you. However, you are unable to physically get to these places. In which of the two senses are you free, and in which sense are you not free? Do you think that society ought to work toward the advancement and improvement of our environment and system in order to increase opportunities for such a person? Why or why not? What does this indicate about your own idea of what ‘liberty’ is?

Brainstorm: Consider each of the following government programs. Do they represent an expansion of negative or positive liberty (or both/neither)? Do you favor such programs, or not? What does this indicate about your own definition of ‘liberty’?

 Military defense  Police protection  Public schools  Medicaid (subsidized health care for the impoverished)  Welfare (subsidized aid for the impoverished; e.g., food, clothing, shelter)

Notice that promoting and protecting the positive of some will REQUIRE that we violate the negative liberties of others. For, programs that promote positive liberty require MONEY, which require TAXES, which entails infringing on people’s property rights (i.e., violating their negative liberty by interfering with their economic affairs). So, no matter what, if government exists, it must infringe at least upon some of our negative liberties (in the form of laws and taxes). But, it does so in the name of increasing our total amount of liberty on the whole.

Long story short: The great disagreement between conservatives and liberals today often boils down to a disagreement about what ‘freedom’ is. As G.A. Cohen puts it,

“The Right extols the freedom enjoyed by all in a liberal capitalist society. The Left complains that the freedom in question is meagre for poor people. The Right rejoins that the Left confuses freedom with resources. ‘You are free to do what no

3

one will interfere with your doing’, says the Right. ‘If you cannot afford to do it, that does not mean that someone will interfere with your doing it, but just that you lack the means or ability to do it. The problem the poor face is lack of ability, not lack of freedom.’ The Left may say that ability should count for as much as freedom does.

[Exercise: Consider this controversy: Gun regulation would be “taking away our freedom”, says the conservative. “No,” responds the liberal, “It would, rather, increase it for others.” Explain how this disagreement might be cast in terms of positive vs. negative liberty.]

2. Against Nozick: Recall that Nozick opposed end-state of because these would require a restriction of our liberties. For instance, if inequalities that do not benefit everyone are unjust, then Wilt Chamberlain must be taxed heavily after going on his basketball tour, and the money must be used for something that benefits everyone (or else, there must be laws forbidding such tours). But, Nozick says that either of these options would be an absurd infringement upon Wilt’s freedom.

[Question: Which type of liberty does Nozick seem to be using to define ‘freedom’?]

Alan Goldman points out that one’s success is strongly correlated with one’s initial conditions. For instance, one who starts off with wealth is FAR more likely to be successful than one who starts off in poverty.

[Consider also Iris Young’s claims about oppression. Do the “initial conditions” of one’s race and gender also play a role in the likelihood/difficulty of one’s success?]

Goldman says that it doesn’t seem fair that the likelihood/difficulty of one’s success be dependent upon what one’s ancestors have done, or what society has done to one’s ancestors.

[Consider the “freed” slaves in Booker T. Washington’s essay. It simply doesn’t seem fair that their success after being freed was virtually impossible due to the history of and oppression, and their “freedom” amounting to nothing more than being turned out onto the streets without property, money, skills, or education. Do you agree?]

Goldman’s goal is convince you that some amount of re-distributive taxation is justified. Doing so takes from the advantaged (i.e., those who have a great deal of positive liberty) and re-distributes to the dis-advantaged (i.e., those who enjoy virtually no positive liberty), ultimately infringing upon the (negative) liberties of some just a LITTLE so that it can promote the (positive) liberties of others a LOT. [What do you think?]

4

Reply #1: Nozick would reply here with his observation that taxation is analogous to forced labor (i.e., slavery), which is unjust.

Rebuttal: Goldman says that people are taxed in proportion to their earnings, but how high those earnings are is a product of one’s (unearned, and therefore undeserved) social advantages. Similarly, how DIS-advantaged one is at the start of one’s life is also unearned (and therefore undeserved). So, all we’re really doing is taking a little undeserved excess money from some to erase an undeserved injustice for others. That seems fine, he says. [Do you agree?]

Reply #2: Nozick would point out that there is a difference between positive rights and negative rights. Consider two stories:

Kids at the Pool: I go to the pool and swim over to one of the children in the water. I hold the kid underwater until he drowns.

Shallow Pond: There is a child drowning in a shallow pond, and no one else is around but me. Not wanting to be late to class, I walk on by without helping. The child drowns.

Do I act wrongly in both stories? Presumably, yes. However, have I violated the child’s RIGHTS in both stories? In the Pool case, I have violated the child’s . The child has a negative right to NOT have his life taken away by another. But, in Shallow Pond, does the child have a right to my aid? (This would be a positive right to BE RESCUED by another.) Nozick doesn’t think there’s any such thing. Clearly, he is in disagreement with FDR, who includes positive rights among his “four freedoms”.

In short, Nozick would say that re-distributive taxation violates rights (the property rights of those who are taxed) and uses that money to help others who have no right to that money, or its benefits—for there IS NO right to be helped by others.

If you’re having trouble agreeing with Nozick’s point of view, consider one more case: I have two kidneys. It would be wrong for you to take them from me, because I have a NEGATIVE right not to be interfered with by others. But, now imagine that my kidneys are failing. Do I have a right to demand that YOU give me one of your spare kidneys? Would it be morally wrong for you to say “No” to my request? If so, then you think that there is no such thing as a POSITIVE right to be GIVEN a kidney when I need one. Nozick would agree. Goldman sums it up,

5

Can the difference between the injunction not to harm others and the demand to help others in need be construed as so great that we violate the fundamental of morals in enforcing the second but follow it in enforcing the first? Nozick would presumably claim that the difference in the two cases is that, whereas it is moral to help others in need, no one can claim a right to be helped, and since people can claim rights to their property, we cannot enforce the demand to help in the name of justice—in fact to do so would be to violate the rights of property owners in treating them as means to others' welfare.

Rebuttal: Goldman gives a Rawlsian criticism as well. He tells us to imagine that we are in the position of someone who is extremely impoverished, or even homeless:

If … we place ourselves in the position of someone in need, we undoubtedly not only would want to be helped or to be answered favorably when begging for help, but would want to be able to demand help as a right so that the need for begging with its additional degradation would not arise. We would want not to await the beneficence of others as a hungry dog might do, but to be able to demand satisfaction of basic needs as a right of human beings in of their worth or dignity. If the demand for satisfaction then becomes a right … and if the state has the right to enforce rights or prevent their violation, then the state has the right of redistributive taxation, at least for this purpose.

If you were behind the veil of ignorance, which would you choose: A society that helped the impoverished, or a society that ignored them? Goldman’s final claim is that the system itself is rigged. In a completely free-, “the rich get richer” at the expense of the poor. Surely, a society such as this is not a just society. So, some re- distribution is justified in order to correct for the injustice.

Cohen: G.A. Cohen clarifies this point. He says that, on the face of it, the “freest” society appears to be the one that has the least number of prohibitive rules and regulations. In other words, if EVERYTHING is permitted, then this society seems to be the most free.

However, now imagine that a shipwrecked sailor lands on your property and is about to die. In a society where EVERYTHING is permitted, it is permissible for you to offer to nurse this sailor back to health if only he sign a contract selling himself to become your slave. This absolutely “free” society has now resulted in someone being a slave. But, if we pass a law forbidding slave contracts, we can avoid this outcome. In other words, with a small restriction on liberty (by forbidding slave contracts), we can increase the sum total of liberty a lot.

6

Cohen points out that Nozick ALREADY AGREES with this way of thinking in principle. For, the mere recognition of property rights at all entails a restriction of freedom. If you own your back yard, then I cannot simply pitch a tent there. If I do, you can legitimately kick me off of your property. But, that is a restriction of MY liberty. So, clearly a restriction of some liberties (my freedom to camp in your yard) protects other liberties (your freedom to do what you want with your property), and this seems justified.

Circularity: Cohen also criticizes grounding the definition of freedom in terms of rights, since he has already grounded the definition of rights in terms of freedom. Here is Cohen’s synopsis of Nozick’s suggestion:

Question: When does one have freedom? Nozick’s Answer: Whenever one’s rights aren’t violated. Question: When is it true that one’s rights aren’t violated? Nozick’s Answer: Whenever one is free to do what they want.

This is called “circular reasoning”. Cohen is accusing Nozick of defining A in terms of B, and defining B in terms of A. This is bad reasoning. Here’s a clearer example:

Question: What is pink? Answer: It’s a light shade of red. Question: What is red? Answer: It’s a darker shade of pink.

3. Hayek’s Criticism: F. A. Hayek criticizes this way of thinking, pointing out that it seems to make the confused mistake of equating having freedom with having money. But, these are not the same. (He contrasts a rich noble woman who is at the beck and call of her prince with a poor artisan who does whatever she wants.)

Hayek says that freedom initially meant something like “freedom from restraint and constraint”, but that these were meant to refer to HUMAN restraint and constraint; i.e., freedom from being interfered with BY OTHER PEOPLE. But, more recently, liberals like Rawls and Goldman have expanded these to include more; being restrained and constrained by one’s economic status, for instance.

It may end up being the case that this latter sort of positive “freedom” is a GOOD thing—but he warns us not to claim that it is the same sort of thing as negative freedom. It is a mistake, he says, for the liberal to claim that they too are simply interested in maximizing freedom when they campaign for re-distribution of wealth.

7

4. Rawls on the of Freedom: Rawls would be sympathetic to Hayek’s claim. He actually agrees that so-called “positive freedom” is not really a species of freedom. Rather, he seems to define freedom/liberty as mere NEGATIVE freedom/liberty. What so-called “positive liberty” refers to is rather the VALUE of our (negative) liberty.

Consider Booker T. Washington’s freed slaves again: Rawls would say that they WERE free. They were just as free as their white former masters after the emancipation. However, whereas that freedom was very valuable to a successful white man of the time, due to their lack of opportunity (resulting from lack of property, wealth, education, etc.), that freedom was of little to no VALUE to the freed slaves.

So, Rawls’s official justification of re-distributive taxation is not that doing so maximizes freedom per se. Rather, doing so is justified because it maximizes the VALUE of freedom for the worst off. This is the end-state goal of social justice. In this way, even if one rejects the idea that there is such a thing as “positive liberty”, the same conclusion could be achieved in this way instead. [Which way do you prefer? Goldman’s or Rawls’s?]

8