LIBERALISM 2

T.H Green on Liberty

There are two types of liberty Negative and Positive, the first type of freedoms, such
as freedom of speech and freedom of devotion, represent the negative aspect of liberty
they imply a negative role of the state, that is not to control the individual in pursuing
his self-appointed goals. The second type of freedom, such as freedom from fear and
freedom from want, show the positive aspect of liberty. It is also essential to
remember that these two types of freedom, namely negative liberty, and positive
liberty, are not opposed to each.
Negative and Positiveliberty are two sides of the same coin. Liberty is the ability of
the individuals to have control over their own right and actions. There are different
understandings of liberty, which shows the relationship of individuals to society in
different ways, including some which relate to life under a “social contract” or to exist
in a “state of nature”, and some which see active exercise freedom and rights as
essential to liberty. Understanding liberty involves how we see the roles and
responsibilities of the individual in society in relation to understand the concept of
free will.
He is one of the thinkers of positive liberalism his theory was inspired by idealist
theory, developed from the teachings of Rousseau, Kant, and Hegel.Green recognizes
„moral freedom‟ as the different quality of man. He based his principles on the
religious nature of man, he maintained that man strength of mind act upon his
reflections is an “act of will” and is on the outside determined by God.According to
Green, freedom is not the Supposed ability to do anything desired but is the power to
identify one‟s self with the good that reason reveals as one‟s own true good.
Green‟s Theory of liberty is characterized by moral freedom. He proceeds his studies
by distinctive between negative and positive freedom. As we know that Negative
liberty is freedom from interference from other people. It is primarily concerned with
the possession of the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their
own free choices. Whereas positive liberty is having the power and resources to fulfil
one‟s own potential as opposed to negative liberty, which is freedom from external
restraint. Example like free from restriction, lock up.
Positive liberty consists in acting according to reason achieving self-realization or
self-perfection. Green said that the true liberty or positive freedom of man consists in
the act of “Good Will”, it is a positive power of doing or enjoying something worth
doing or enjoying.
Green set out a number of different descriptions of the positive concept of freedom. In
fact, there are three descriptions of positive freedom to be found in Green‟s thoughts.
While all three descriptions are of course closely linked, each shows a different
picture and brings out a different aspect of the concept.
On one occasion „the idea of true freedom described as „the maximum of power for all
members of human society alike to make the best of themselves. In this description,
Green puts special importance on the self-realization of the individual. A second
description, describe freedom in the positive sense as „the liberation of the powers of
all men equally for contributions to a common good.
This seems primary to point to an equal opportunity for all individual citizens. For the
purpose of our present inquiry, however, we will chiefly base ourselves on what could
be viewed as the classical definition of positive freedom. This concept is contrasted to
the then current notion, which, in order to distinguish it from Green‟s redefinition of
the term, is referred to as „negative‟ freedom.
He also explains the negative freedom as following from its nature as a political ideal.
This is set out by specifying three elements in which the difference with negative
freedom consists. Again, these three elements are presented as building on one
another.
He started with a series of three negative characteristics, which are subsequently
contrasted to the more appropriate conception of freedom by means of a parallel series
of three determinations, culminating in a final point about the essentially social nature
of freedom. The second distinguishing feature to formal, unspecified nature of the
condition of absence of compulsion: merely freedom to do as we like irrespectively of
what it is that we like‟ is contrasted with doing or enjoying something worth doing or
enjoying.
The third element centres on the compatibility of the exercise of various specific
forms of freedom by different people: freedom that can be enjoyed by man or set of
men or one set of men at the cost of a loss of freedom to other‟s is opposed to those
forms of freedom which do not interfere with the exercise of similar forms of freedom
by others. These three elements prepare the way for the conclusion about social nature
freedom. Genuine freedom can only be exercised through the help our security is
given to him by his fellow men, and which he, in turn, helps to secure for them.

Hayek on Liberty
Hayek in his monumental work The Constitution of Liberty, F.A. Hayek attempts to
establish a systematic political philosophy on behalf of individual liberty.He begins
very well, by defining freedom as the absence of coercion, thus upholding "negative
liberty" more cogently than does Isaiah Berlin.
Hayek's political theory is directed against coercion, which he defines as the
intentional control of one person by another. The element of personal intention
ensures a clear conceptual distinction between the freedom from coercion i.e., the
“liberty” that is exercised in the private sphere, and the freedom of choice and
opportunity that may be severely constrained by the impersonal, unintentional
operation of market forces. Hayek's narrow definitions of coercion and liberty
therefore suggest that he was more intent on defending the benefits conferred on us by
market forces than on affirming any value intrinsic in freedom a suggestion confirmed
by his lack of interest in species of freedom, such as autonomy, that might
conceivably be fostered by state coercion. Hayek's consequentialist defence of liberty,
however, was grounded in economic doctrines such as his own view that prices served
a vital epistemic function. Given his strictures against the ignorance of modern
electorates, Hayek was driven to propose extravagant limits on democracy and to
embrace traditionalism; a different Hayekianism might limit inequalities of wealth and
encourage the ability to learn from experimentation.

Nozick on Liberty
In Anarchy, State and Utopia, Robert Nozick defended a minimal state slightly more
restrained than traditional classical liberalism. This minimal state arises through
natural market forces from statelessness, and serves to enforce contracts and produce
monopolistic law. Nozick, although countering his fellow academic Rawls, was also
responding to the natural law anarchists, who criticized coercive states for violating
human rights which, in many interpretations, boil down to rights of property.
However, before arriving at the minimal, night-watchman state, Nozick articulates an
ultra-minimal state, i.e. a private protection agency that claims exclusionary right over
the use of force for a given geographical area. It has its voluntary clients; the
extension of coverage to others makes the agency a “state” as it introduces taxation.
Nozick claims that no more than the minimal state is justified, because any state with
more extensive powers would violate the natural rights of its citizens. Thus the state
should not have the power to control prices or to set a minimum wage, because doing
so would violate the natural right of citizens to dispose of their property, including
their labour, as they see fit. For similar reasons, the state should not have the power to
establish public education or health care through taxes imposed on citizens who may
wish to spend their money on private services instead. Indeed, according to Nozick,
any mandatory taxation used to fund services or benefits other than those constitutive
of the minimal state is unjust, because such taxation amounts to a kind of “forced
labour” for the state by those who must pay the tax.

Social Liberalism
Social liberalism is the ideology of collective liberties and rights that favours social
welfare and justice. It comes in a political and economic form. It is one of two
dominate types of liberalism.
Like classical liberalism, social liberalism is a left-wing ideology of liberty and
equality. Unlike the classically left-wing classical liberalism, which favours liberty on
issues of state, social liberalism mixes in classically conservative planks like taxation,
regulations on individuals, groups, and businesses, and more in an effort to ensure
social justice and social welfare via government. Social liberalism is considered a
socially left wing ideology. It generally comes in populist and elitist forms that can
differ in their positions on how government should be used to ensure social justice.At
an extreme, social liberalism can, given the above, become puritanical and
authoritative with its use of collective power. Its focus on social progress puts in direct
odds with its antithesis social conservatism on most, but not all, issues.

Rawls on Liberty
Rawls‟ liberty can be explained by a reference to three items:
1. The agents who are free
2. The restrictions or limitations which they are free from.
3. Finally, what it is that they are free to do or not to do.
Rawls questions what functions the individuals and organisations are free to do. If
they are prevented from performing very vital functions, then the progress of the
agents will receive great set back. It is also to be seen that whether the basic liberties
are restricted or not. While considering liberty we must see that in its application if
there is any type of discrimination. That is, if liberties are equally distributed or not.
Rawls is remembered by students of political science for his thought- provoking
analysis of the theory of justice. But his theory of justice is only a part of his
philosophy and the philosophy is liberalism. A close analysis of his political ideas
reveals that his liberalism comes very closer to classical type. What he has said in his
A Theory of Justice as Fairness constitutes the core of his liberalism.