Advocates of the positive view of freedom believe that state intervention is necessary, to ensure individuals make the appropriate decisions so that he or she may promote the higher self (Mintz, Close, and Croci, pg.60). In this view state intervention is often required to level the playing field, so that everyone may have an equal chance at reaching their true potential. State intervention is required in some cases to help provide equal opportunities for individuals residing in a state. The state often ensures that an equal chance is given to all individuals to get ahead in life, regardless of personal characteristics or background (Mintz, Close, and Croci, pg.63). Poverty and unemployment often restrict individuals from achieving his or her potential, which is seen as a constraint on freedom in a positive sense. Advocates of the positive view believe it is the job of the state to create social conditions, in which all individuals have the required necessities to reach their potential. Government funding such as welfare, is available to individuals below the poverty line, thus helping in leveling the playing field.
Advocates of the positive view of freedom agree that to achieve an equality of outcome high class individuals pay heavier taxes then lower class individuals (Mintz, Close, and Croci, pg.63). This way the differences in wealth and power are limited. In this view the state is responsible in ensuring that people have the appropriate resources such as the right to education and the right to healthcare. Through education individuals develop the skills and confidence to be members of their political community, and reach their potential. New laws are many times introduced, alongside an increase in policing to ensure laws are being followed through. In contrast to negative freedom, supporters of the positive view believe coerciveness should be involved to ensure individuals come to a self-realization to be truly free. Although, acts of coerciveness is contradictory to individual freedom.
Advocates of negative freedom believe that freedom is achieved when individuals are free to do as they please, without any restraints (Mintz, Close, and Croci, pg60). In this sense, the common notion is that when government intervention is left to a minimum, individuals have the privacy and the power to do as they may to reach their potential. And, freedom is restricted when involvement of any kind occurs. In contrast to positive freedom where order is seen as necessary towards individuals reaching their potential, advocates of negative freedom argue that freedom and order are opposing values (Mintz, Close, and Croci, pg.53).
Supporters of negative freedom believe individuals should be in control of how they meet their ends, with the privacy of making their own decisions. The common notion believed is that self- interest ultimately promotes the social interest (Valencia, 2003). In contrast to positive freedom, it is believed that the government’s involvement economically hinders the overall level of wealth in an economy, whilst creating special privileges to those able to influence the government (Mintz, Close, and Croci, pg.63). In this sense, a free competitive economy is the most efficient way of producing goods and maximizing the total wealth of the community (Mintz, Close, and Croci, pg.63). Ultimately, while positive freedom advocates believe government intervention is necessary towards reaching equality. Supporters of negative freedom believe, extreme versions of equality and individual freedom do not coexist. The notion being society is not free, if everyone is required to conform diligently and ultimately required to act the same way.
Democracy in a form is a “rule by the people,” in a state. The rules and laws in a democratic state are vastly the opinions of majority of the citizens residing. Ideally, individuals that promote democracy believe it is the best way achieve the common good (Mintz, Close, and Croci, pg.69). Direct democracy and negative freedom can be seen as complements to one another, when citizens themselves are making the governing decisions (Mintz, Close, and Croci, pg.67). In a direct democracy the governing decisions vastly represent the majority residing within the state, such as low class families. This can be contradictory to the belief held by advocates of negative freedom. Democracy where elections are held to choose the representatives to make the governing decisions of the state, best complements the notion of positive freedom. The elected representatives make the governing decisions with the common good in mind that at best helps individuals reach their potential, to be truly free. In a democratic state, citizens are provided with the legal resources to participate in their political community, all on equal footing. Therefore, democracy protects the positive and negative freedom of the people, by allowing legal values of all its citizens to be upheld.
Negative freedom and positive freedom, can be seen as complements or substitutes. In a state, it is clear that one does not overcome the other. In fact both views of freedom are clearly intact, in different forms of the state. In a democratic state negative freedom and our positive freedom is protected. An individual is free to act and say as he or she may and receive protection doing so, which is an aspect of negative freedom. An individual can also be held accountable for his or her actions in a court of law, an aspect of positive freedom. In conclusion, it is clear that negative and positive freedom can be seen as complements towards one another. Ideally, finding a balance between both aspects of freedom is best for achieving the common good within a state, and its citizens.
Works Cited
Eric Mintz, David Close, and Osvaldo Croci 2011 Politics, Power And The Common Good – An Introduction to Political Science by
Jad Salfiti 2002 “Define the difference between Negative and Positive Freedom, Outline the implications of the state in each”
Gabriella Belmar-Valencia 2003 “Compare and Evaluate Positive and Negative Freedom”