Liberty 936385 225626584 2008-07-14T16:55:17Z ClueBot 4928500 Reverting possible vandalism by [[Special:Contributions/81.103.196.182|81.103.196.182]] to version by Eubulides. False positive? [[User:ClueBot/FalsePositives|Report it]]. Thanks, [[User:ClueBot]]. (440127) (Bot) {{refimprove|date=May 2008}} {{otheruses}} {{Freedom}} '''Liberty''', in modern time, is generally considered a [[concept]] of [[political philosophy]] and identifies the condition in which an [[individual]] has the ability to act according to his or her own [[free will|will]]. [[Individualism|Individualist]] and [[classical liberalism|liberal]] conceptions of liberty relate to the freedom of the individual from outside compulsion or [[coercion]]; A [[socialism|socialist]] perspective, on the other hand, associates liberty with equality in wealth. As such, a socialist redefines liberty as being [[entitlement]]s and connects liberty (i.e. freedom) to the equal distribution of wealth, arguing that liberty without equal ownership amounts to the [[domination]] by the wealthy. Thus, freedom and material equality are seen as intrinsically connected. On the other hand, the individualist argues that wealth cannot be evenly distributed without force being used against individuals which reduces individual liberty. [[John Stuart Mill]], in his work, ''[[On Liberty]]'', was the first to recognize the difference between liberty as the freedom to act and liberty as the absence of coercion. In his book, ''[[Two Concepts of Liberty]]'', [[Isaiah Berlin]] formally framed the differences between these two perspectives as the distinction between two opposite concepts of liberty: [[positive liberty]] and [[negative liberty]]. The latter designates a negative condition in which an individual is protected from [[tyranny]] and the [[arbitrary]] exercise of [[authority]], while the former refers to having the means or opportunity, rather than the lack of restraint, to do things. Mill offered insight into the notions of ''soft tyranny'' and ''mutual liberty'' with his ''[[harm principle]]''.<ref>John Stuart Mill, ''On Liberty and Utilitarianism'', (New York: Bantam Books, 1993), 12-16.</ref> Overall, it is important to understand these concepts when discussing liberty since they all represent little pieces of the greater puzzle known as [[Freedom (philosophy)|freedom]]. In a philosophical sense, [[morality]] must supersede [[tyranny]] in any legitimate form of [[government]]. Otherwise, people are left with a societal [[system]] rooted in [[backwardness]], [[disorder]], and [[regression]]. ==Philosophy== [[Image:Majestic Liberty Large.jpg|thumb|left|The [[Statue of Liberty]].]] {{main|Freedom (philosophy)}} Opinions on what constitute liberty can vary widely, but can be generally classified as [[positive liberty]] and [[negative liberty]]. Positive liberty asserts that freedom is the ability of society to achieve an end. For example, [[Puritans]] such as [[Cotton Mather]] often referred to liberty in their writings, but focused on the liberty from [[sin]] (e.g. sexual urges) even at the expense of liberty from the [[government]]. However, in modern time, liberty is generally considered to be the concept of negative liberty{{fact|date=June 2008}}. This refers to an individual's liberty from being subjected to the authority of others. In this negative sense, one is considered free to the extent to which no person interferes with his or her activity. According to [[Thomas Hobbes]], for example, "a free man is he that... is not hindered to do what he hath the will to doe." The concept of negative liberty has several noteworthy aspects. First, negative liberty defines a realm or "zone" of freedom (in the "silence of [[law]]"). In Berlin's words, "liberty in the negative sense involves an answer to the question 'What is the area within which the subject -- a person or group of persons -- is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons." Some philosophers have disagreed on the extent of this realm while accepting the main point that liberty defines that realm in which one may act unobstructed by others. Second, the restriction (on the freedom to act) implicit in negative liberty is imposed by a person or persons and not due to causes such as nature, lack, or incapacity. [[Claude Adrien Helvétius|Helvetius]] expresses this point clearly: "The free man is the man who is not in irons, nor imprisoned in a gaol (jail), nor terrorized like a slave by the fear of punishment... it is not lack of freedom not to fly like an eagle or swim like a whale." The dichotomy of positive and negative liberty is considered specious by political philosophers in traditions such as [[socialism]], [[social democracy]], [[libertarian socialism]], and [[Marxism]]. Some of them argue that positive and negative liberty are indistinguishable in practice, while others claim that one kind of liberty cannot exist independently of the other. A common argument is that the preservation of negative liberty requires positive action on the part of the government or society to prevent some individuals from taking away the liberty of others. ==Freedom as a triadic relation== In 1967, Gerald MacCallum argued that proponents of positive and negative liberty converge on a single definition of liberty, but simply have different approaches in establishing it. According to McCallum, freedom is a triadic relationship: "x is/is not free from y to do/not to do or become/not become z". In this way, rather than defining liberty in terms of two separate paradigms, positive and negative liberty, he defined liberty as a single, complete formula. The question is whether this formula fully captures what positive liberty means. Positive liberty, understood as "internal forces which determine how a person shall act" <ref name=miller> Miller, David, 'Introduction', in Miller, ed., Liberty, 1991</ref> is saying more than 'x is free to do z.' One is free when one ''becomes'' the ideal of oneself, which includes MacCallum's triadic relation; but the latter alone is insufficient to fully capture what positive liberty means.{{Fact|date=May 2008}} ==Liberty and political thought == ===Meaning of Liberty=== [[Image:amagi.png|right|thumb|Freedom (''[[ama-gi]]'') written in [[Sumerian language|Sumerian]] [[Cuneiform (script)|cuneiform]] ]] The first known use of the word ''freedom'' in a political context dates back to the 24th century BC, in a text describing the restoration of social and economic liberty in [[Lagash]], a [[Sumeria]]n city-state. [[Urukagina]], the king of [[Lagash]], established the first known legal code to protect citizens from the rich and powerful. Known as a great reformer, Urukagina established laws that forbade compelling the sale of [[property]] and required the charges against the accused to be stated before any man accused of a crime could be punished. This is the first known example of any form of [[due process]] in the history of humanity. Like Urukagina, most ancient freedoms focused on ''negative liberty'', protecting the less fortunate from harassment or imposition. Other ancient legal codes, such as the [[Code of Hammurabi]], similarly forbade compulsion in economic matters, like the sale of land, and made it clear that when a rich man murders a poor one, it is still murder. Still, these codes relied on a certain virtuousness of kings and ministers, which was far from reliable. In the [[Persian Empire]], citizens of all [[religion]]s and [[ethnic group]]s were given the same rights and had the same [[freedom of religion]], women had the same rights as men, and [[slavery]] was abolished. All the palaces of the kings of Persia were built by paid workers in an era where slaves typically did such work.<ref name="Engineering an Empire: Persian Empire"> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKN-gZuSH2o Engineering an Empire: Persian Empire]</ref> The [[Cyrus cylinder]] of [[Cyrus the Great]] documents the protection of the rights to liberty and [[security]], [[freedom of movement]], the right of property, and economic and social rights.<ref>Arthur Henry Robertson, John Graham Merrills (1996). ''Human Rights in the World: An Introduction to the Study of the International Protection of Human Rights''. [[Manchester University Press]]. ISBN 0719049237.</ref> In the [[Maurya Empire]] of [[History of India|ancient India]], citizens of all religions and ethnic groups had rights to [[Freedom (political)|freedom]], [[tolerance]], and [[equality]]. The need for tolerance on an [[Egalitarianism|egalitarian]] basis can be found in the [[Edicts of Ashoka|Edicts]] of [[Ashoka the Great]], which emphasize the importance of tolerance in public policy by the government. The slaughter or capture of [[Prisoner of war|prisoners of war]] was also condemned by Ashoka.<ref>[[Amartya Sen]] (1997). ''Human Rights and Asian Values''. ISBN 0-87641-151-0.</ref> Slavery was also non-existent in ancient India.<ref>[[Arrian]], ''[[Indica (Arrian)|Indica]]'': <br>{{quote|"This also is remarkable in [[History of India|India]], that all Indians are free, and no Indian at all is a slave. In this the Indians agree with the [[Lacedaemonian]]s. Yet the Lacedaemonians have [[Helot]]s for slaves, who perform the duties of slaves; but the Indians have no slaves at all, much less is any Indian a slave."}}</ref> [[Roman law]] also embraced certain limited forms of liberty, even under the rule of the Roman Emperors. However, these liberties were accorded only to [[Roman citizenship|Roman citizens]]. Still, the Roman citizen enjoyed a combination of positive liberty (the right to freely enter contracts, the right to a legal marriage) and negative liberty (the right to a trial, a right to appeal and the right to not be tortured). Many of the liberties enjoyed under Roman law endured through the Middle Ages, but were enjoyed solely by the [[nobility]], never by the common man. The idea of unalienable and universal liberties had to wait until the Age of Enlightenment. ===Social contract=== [[Image:French-Liberty-British-Slavery-Gillray.jpeg|thumb|In ''French Liberty. British Slavery'' (1792), [[James Gillray]] caricatured French "liberty" as the opportunity to starve, and British "slavery" as bloated complaints about taxation.]] The [[social contract]] theory, invented by [[Hobbes]], [[Locke]] and [[Rousseau]], were among the first to provide a political classification of [[rights]], in particular through the notion of [[sovereignty]] and of [[natural rights]]. The thinkers of the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] [[logic|reasoned]] the assertion that [[law]] governed both heavenly and human affairs, and that law gave the [[monarch|king]] his power, rather than the king's power giving force to law. The [[divine right of kings]] was thus opposed to the [[sovereignty|sovereign]]'s unchecked ''[[auctoritas]]''. This conception of law would find its culmination in [[Montesquieu]]'s thought. The conception of law as a relationship between individuals, rather than families, came to the fore, and with it the increasing focus on [[individualism|individual liberty]] as a fundamental reality, given by "[[Nature]] and [[God|Nature's God]]," which, in the [[utopia|ideal state]], would be as expansive as possible. The Enlightenment created then, among other ideas, ''liberty'': that is, of a free individual being most free within the context of a state which provides stability of the laws. Later, more radical philosophies such as [[socialism]] articulated themselves in the course of the [[French Revolution]] and in the 19th century. ===Modern perspectives=== The modern conceptions of [[Democracy (varieties)|democracy]], whether [[representative democracies]] or other types of democracies, are all found on the [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau|Rousseauist]] idea of [[popular sovereignty]] {{Or|date=September 2007}}. However, [[liberalism]] distinguishes itself from [[socialism]] and communism in that it advocates for a form of [[representative democracy]], while socialism claims to work for a [[direct democracy]]. Liberalism is a [[politics|political]] current embracing several historical and present-day ideologies that claim defence of individual liberty as the purpose of government. Two main strands are apparent, although both are founded on an [[individualism|individualist]] [[ideology]]. In continental Europe the term usually refers to [[economic liberalism]], that is the right of individual to contract, trade and operate in a market free of constraint. In the United States it often refers to [[social liberalism]], including the right to dissent from orthodox tenets or established authorities in political or religious matters. Both are core political issues, and highly contentious.{{Fact|date=February 2008}} A school of thought popular among US [[libertarians]] holds that there is no tenable distinction between the two sorts of liberty -- that they are, indeed, one and the same, to be protected (or opposed) together. In the context of U.S. [[constitutional law]], for example, they point out that the constitution twice lists "life, liberty, and property" without making any distinctions within that troika. [[Anarcho-individualism|Anarcho-Individualists]], such as [[Max Stirner]], demanded the utmost respect for the liberty of the individual. From a very similar perspective from North America, [[Anarcho-primitivism|primitivist]]s like [[John Zerzan]] proclaimed that [[civilization]] ''not just the state'' (as in socialist thought) would need to be abolished to foster liberty. Some in the US see protecting the ideal of liberty as a [[Conservatism|conservative]] policy, because this would conform to the spirit of individual liberty that they consider is at the heart of the American constitution. Some think liberty is almost synonymous with [[democracy]], at least in one sense of that word, while others see conflicts or even opposition between the two concepts, with democracy being nothing more than the tyranny of the majority.{{Fact|date=February 2008}} A future question that must be addressed is how liberty will be possible in extraterrestrial environments, in the light of increasing space exploration activities around the world. As space is an extreme environment, the more collective societies that will probably emerge there might have consequences for the way liberty develops <ref>Cockell, C.S. 2008 An essay on extraterrestrial liberty. Journal of the British Interplanetary Society 61, 255-275</ref> ==See also== * [[Civil liberty]] * [[Freedom (political)]]'' * [[Freedom (philosophy)]] * [[Gratis versus Libre]] * John Stuart Mill's ''[[On Liberty]]'' * [[Liberté, égalité, fraternité]] * [[Libertarian Party]] ==References== {{reflist}} {{Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights}} {{Human rights}} [[Category:Political philosophy]] [[Category:Social philosophy]] [[Category:Liberty symbols]] [[fa:آزادی]] [[fr:Liberté (philosophie politique)]] [[he:חירות האדם]] [[ms:Kebebasan]] [[th:เสรีภาพ]] [[vi:Quyền tự do]]