Two Concepts of Liberty 1. Positive vs Negative Liberty: Isaiah Berlin’s highly influential article brought to light the nature of the disagreement about political freedom. 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 rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religion (in James Madison’s Bill of Rights), and rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (in Thomas Jefferson’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 good 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’: 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. 1 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. [What do you think? Were the “freed” slaves truly FREE?] FDR and the Four Freedoms: 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 State of the Union address in 1941, expanded the notion of freedom to include not only negative liberty, but positive as well. He listed Four Freedoms to which every citizen has a right: Freedom of speech Freedom of worship Freedom from want Freedom from fear [Quiz: What sort of liberty does each of these recognize? Positive or Negative?] 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. 2 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 liberties 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 ‘liberty’ is. Consider one controversy: Gun regulation would be “taking away our freedom”, says the conservative. “No,” responds the liberal, “It would, rather, increase it for others.” [Exercise: How so? Explain this disagreement in terms of positive vs. negative liberty. Note: There will be a whole in-class debate about this later. How exciting!] 2. Against Nozick: Recall that Nozick opposed end-state principles of justice 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. 3 [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 slavery 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?] 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.