Negative Liberty vs. Positive Liberty and the Road to Hell

All sides in our split society claim to want freedom, but how can that be? We must look at the difference between positive liberty and negative liberty.

All sides in our split society claim to want freedom, but how can it be that two groups that are at odds with each other want same thing? To understand, we must look at the difference between positive liberty and negative liberty.

To say we're divided over many issues these days is an understatement. One of the thousand-foot views of that divisiveness is over the idea of freedom. One side claims that it's wrestling freedom from the hands of those who want to oppress society. Sounds good until you realize the other side claims precisely the same thing. But how can it be that both factions are the heroes fighting for liberty against a tyrannical mob hellbent on destroying life as we know it?

At its heart, the issue isn't that some of us are good and some aren't. To be sure, there are plenty of bad people in the world. Most of us want the same basic things, although we may differ in focusing on them. Those are safety and the opportunity for a quality life; however, we define that. We don't want to suffer, nor do we want our neighbor to suffer either. So, for the most part, we're all decent individuals, although with one subtle difference.

Positive Liberty and Negative Liberty: Different Interpretations of Freedom

That difference is our different interpretations of freedom. And it's what's causing the divide.
Generally, we can say there are two competing interpretations of freedom. One is the positive liberty interpretation. This view holds that the community should protect us from risk through the active interventions of others.

Negative liberty believes that we can do what we please without outside interference. To be clear, I'm not making a value judgment when I talk about positive and negative. The distinction comes from active intervention (positive) or the lack of intervention (negative).

Who Has a Duty?

To help understand the difference, let's look at Alex. Alex is an alright guy, but he doesn't always make the best decisions. As such, he finds himself in a position where he's struggling to make ends meet. The positive liberty interpretation says that Alex should be free from poverty. So, the community must help Alex maintain a particular standard of living. And the circumstances that led him to his current situation don't matter. Positive liberty, in this case, is the community's active intervention to support Alex.

The negative liberty viewpoint is that Alex was free to choose with the associated benefits and risks. No politician or public policy expert was telling Alex what choices to make. The community, thus, doesn't have a duty to help Alex. Negative freedom for Alex is the lack of interference.
The central question then is the degree to which society must guarantee any sort of outcome for each individual. A positive liberty outlook says the community has a duty, while the negative liberty outlook answers no, there is no duty.

It's Not About Good vs. Evil

So, all the divisiveness over freedom isn’t born out of some epic struggle between good and evil. It’s a point of view about what freedom means.

To answer which interpretation is better requires thought and many significant value judgments. Positive liberty has the advantage of helping people maintain some basic level of existence. But it also opens the door to the domination of others under the rubric of "the public good."
Likewise, negative liberty allows us to live free from coercion, but it risks letting some people struggle in poverty.

Of course, there are arguments about safeguards and fairness that we could spend years debating. My intent isn’t to dive into those arguments. Instead, I want to show that much of our divisiveness comes from differing interpretations of freedom.

I know the adamant, take-a-side world of social media doesn't reward these types of thoughts. Likes, clicks, and other sorts of attention will be sparse. Still, we need to remember that most people have an intrinsic desire to see everyone do well. The difference only comes from whether we place the duty to safeguard an outcome on the community or the individual.