Liberty

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Liberty is the state of being free within society from restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views. It sounds simple. The trouble starts the moment you ask what those words actually mean. The same Latin root that gives us the word also gives us an archaic English meaning, 'man' or 'person', a hint that liberty was always bound up with what it means to belong to a people. That root traces back from Latin through Proto-Italic louðeros to a Proto-Indo-European form meaning 'people'. The word turns up in slogans everyone half-remembers. It anchors the phrase 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'. It opens France's national motto, 'Liberté, égalité, fraternité'. But a slogan is not a definition. Is liberty the freedom to do whatever you have the power to do? Or is it the absence of arbitrary restraint, weighed against the rights of everyone else? Can it be taken away, and if so, by whom? Philosophers have circled these questions since the earliest times, and they have rarely agreed. What follows is an attempt to trace where the idea came from, how rulers and citizens fought over it, and why people who all claim to love liberty cannot stop arguing about what it is.

• 2. Freedom And Liberty

  ›

  "A liberty for everyone to do what he likes, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws." That was Sir Robert Filmer's definition, and John Locke set out to demolish it. Locke argued that freedom is constrained by laws in both the state of nature and political society. In the state of nature, he held, liberty consists of being free from any superior power on Earth, bound only by the law of nature. In political society, liberty means being under no other lawmaking power except that established by consent in the commonwealth. A person has the right to follow their own will in everything the law has not prohibited, and to escape the inconstant, uncertain, and arbitrary wills of others.

  Thomas Hobbes, who lived from 1588 to 1679, had defined a free man differently. For Hobbes, a free man is one who, in the things he is able to do by his strength and wit, is not hindered from doing what he wills. Locke rejected that account. He did not name Hobbes directly, but attacked Filmer, who held the same view. The disagreement turned on a single hinge: whether laws limit freedom or make it possible.

  Sometimes the two words are split apart deliberately. In this usage, 'freedom' means the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do. 'Liberty' means the absence of arbitrary restraints, taking into account the rights of all involved. By that reading, the exercise of liberty is limited by capability and by the rights of others. Liberty becomes the responsible use of freedom under the rule of law, without depriving anyone else of theirs. John Stuart Mill, in his 1859 work On Liberty, was the first to recognize the difference between liberty as the freedom to act and liberty as the absence of coercion.

• 3. Negative And Positive

  ›

  Isaiah Berlin gave the split its sharpest formulation. In his 1958 lecture "Two Concepts of Liberty", he framed the difference as two opposite concepts. Negative liberty designates a condition in which an individual is protected from tyranny and the arbitrary exercise of authority. Positive liberty refers to the liberty that comes from self-mastery, the freedom from inner compulsions such as weakness and fear. One guards against the tyrant outside. The other contends with the tyrant within.

  The United States built this balance into its constitutional law. Ordered liberty, in that tradition, means a society where individuals have the freedom to act without unnecessary interference, the negative side, alongside access to opportunities and resources to pursue their goals, the positive side, all inside a fair legal system. The two halves of Berlin's distinction were never meant to stay apart. The hard work is fitting them together.

• 4. Ancient Roots

  ›

  To the Greeks, to be free was not to have a master, to be independent from a master, to live as one likes. That was the original Greek concept of freedom, and it was tied closely to democracy. Aristotle stated one of its notes plainly: "a man should live as he likes," the privilege of a freeman, while not living as one likes is the mark of a slave. From this came the claim that men should be ruled by none if possible, or rule and be ruled in turns. Yet it applied only to free men. In Athens, women could not vote or hold office and were legally and socially dependent on a male relative.

  The Persian Empire extended freedom further than the Athenian model. Citizens of all religions and ethnic groups were given the same rights and the same freedom of religion. Women had the same rights as men, and slavery was abolished in 550 BC. The palaces of the kings of Persia were built by paid workers in an era when slaves typically did such labor. In the Maurya Empire of ancient India, citizens of all religions and ethnic groups had some rights to freedom, tolerance, and equality. The Edicts of Ashoka the Great emphasized tolerance in public policy, condemned the slaughter or capture of prisoners of war, and slavery appears to have been non-existent. Even so, according to Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, "Ashoka's orders seem to have been resisted right from the beginning."

  Roman law embraced certain limited forms of liberty even under the emperors, but only for Roman citizens. Marcus Aurelius, who ruled from 121 to 180 AD, praised "a polity in which there is the same law for all" and "a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed." Many liberties established under Roman law endured through the Middle Ages, but were generally limited to the nobility and ruling classes, seldom reaching common people. The idea of inalienable and universal liberties had to wait for the Age of Enlightenment.

• 5. The English Charters

  ›

  In 1215, Magna Carta was enacted and became the cornerstone of liberty in England, then Great Britain, and later the world. It did not appear from nowhere. In 1066, as a condition of his coronation, William the Conqueror assented to the London Charter of Liberties, guaranteeing the 'Saxon' liberties of the City of London. In 1100 the Charter of Liberties set out certain liberties of nobles, church officials, and individuals. In 1166, Henry II of England passed the Assize of Clarendon, a forerunner to trial by jury that began the abolition of trial by combat and trial by ordeal.

  The statutes kept coming. Between 1187 and 1189 came the Tractatus de legibus et consuetudinibus regni Anglie, containing authoritative definitions of freedom and servitude. In 1628 the English Parliament passed the Petition of Right, setting out specific liberties of English citizens. In 1679 the Habeas Corpus Act outlawed unlawful or arbitrary imprisonment. The 1689 Bill of Rights granted "freedom of speech in Parliament" and reinforced existing civil rights, with the Scots law equivalent, the Claim of Right, passed the same year.

  The principle reached the question of slavery in 1772, when the Somerset v Stewart judgement found that slavery was unsupported by common law in England and Wales. A different kind of liberty followed in 1859, when Mill's On Liberty argued for toleration and individuality, warning that to silence an opinion is to assume our own infallibility. British representatives tried in 1948 to add a legal framework to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but were prevented. It was not until 1976 that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights came into force, giving legal status to most of the Declaration.

• 6. America And France

  ›

  "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" named a natural right in the 1776 United States Declaration of Independence. That declaration was troubled for 90 years by the continued institutionalization of legalized Black slavery. Slave owners argued that their liberty was paramount because it involved property, their slaves, and that Blacks had no rights any White man was obliged to recognize. The Supreme Court upheld this principle in the 1857 Dred Scott decision. In 1866, after the American Civil War, the Constitution was amended to extend rights to persons of color, and in 1920 voting rights were extended to women.

  By the later half of the 20th century, liberty had expanded to prohibit government interference with personal choices. In the 1965 decision Griswold v. Connecticut, Justice William O. Douglas argued that liberties relating to personal relationships, such as marriage, hold a unique primacy of place in the hierarchy of freedoms. Jacob M. Appel summarized the principle by noting that his most cherished rights were those he possessed in his bedroom, hospital room, and death chamber, and that people care more about controlling their own bodies than about petitioning Congress.

  France took a bloodier path. It supported the Americans against English rule, then in 1789 overthrew its own monarchy with the cry of "Liberté, égalité, fraternité". The bloodbath that followed, the Reign of Terror, soured many people on the idea of liberty itself. Edmund Burke, considered one of the fathers of conservatism, wrote that "The French had shewn themselves the ablest architects of ruin that had hitherto existed in the world."

• 7. The Social Contract

  ›

  The thinkers of the Enlightenment reasoned that law governed both heavenly and human affairs, and that law gave the king his power, rather than the king's power giving force to law. Social contract theory, most influentially formulated by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, though first suggested by Plato in The Republic, was among the first to provide a political classification of rights through the notion of sovereignty and of natural rights. This conception of law found its culmination in the ideas of Montesquieu. Law came to be seen as a relationship between individuals rather than families, with individual liberty treated as a fundamental reality given by "Nature and Nature's God."

  Mill sharpened the central tension. In On Liberty he sought to define the nature and limits of the power that society can legitimately exercise over the individual. He described an inherent and continuous antagonism between liberty and authority, making the prevailing question how to make the fitting adjustment between individual independence and social control.

  The old story that liberty was a Western invention has come under challenge. According to a 2024 study, a global conception of liberty took form during the late Middle Ages, roughly 1000 to 1600. Terms used across Afro-Eurasia to denote liberty were interconnected through translingual practices arising from multilingual governance, courtly encounters, and the spread of religions. Words for liberty paralleled each other in bilingual legal documents and bureaucratic glossaries. The study concludes that the globalization of liberty did not begin with the global expansion of the Euro-American empires but has a history that predates them.

• 8. Rival Ideologies

  ›

  "Good ideas don't require force." That elevator pitch belongs to libertarianism, which the Encyclopædia Britannica describes as holding liberty as its primary political value. Libertarians oppose any governmental coercion beyond what is necessary to stop individuals from coercing each other. Their guide is the Non-Aggression Principle, which asserts that aggression against an individual or their property is always an immoral violation of life, liberty, and property rights. Under it, rape, murder, deception, involuntary taxation, and government regulation all count as violations.

  Liberalism takes a different starting point. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics defines it as the belief that the aim of politics is to preserve individual rights and maximize freedom of choice. John Gray argues that its core belief is toleration: liberals grant others freedom to do what they want in exchange for the same freedom in return. William Safire notes that liberalism is attacked from both sides, by the Right for defending abortion, homosexuality, and atheism, and by the Left for defending free enterprise and the rights of the individual over the collective. In modern America, liberals in the original sense see equality as necessary to freedom, progressives stress freedom from business monopoly, libertarians prize economic and individual freedom, and the Tea Party movement treats big government as the enemy of freedom.

  Republican theorists such as the historian Quentin Skinner and the philosopher Philip Pettit locate liberty not in the absence of interference but in the absence of arbitrary dependence, what they call non-domination. A citizen is free when not subject to the discretionary will of any other party, public or private. This view originates in the Roman Digest, and its advocates cite Machiavelli, who held that one must belong to a free self-governing republic to enjoy individual liberty.

  Socialists insist freedom is a concrete situation, not an abstract ideal, requiring the material economic conditions that make it possible. Influenced by Karl Marx's concept of alienated labor, they understand freedom as the ability to engage in creative work without alienation. For Marx himself, meaningful freedom is only attainable in a communist society of superabundance and free access, with the workday progressively shortened to expand the "realm of freedom" for each person, a vision he treats as radically individualistic. The anarchists go furthest, opposing the authority of the state, of capitalism, and of nationalism. For the Russian revolutionary Mikhail Bakunin, liberty in its positive sense meant "the fullest development of all the faculties and powers of every human being," realizable only in society, and in its negative sense "the revolt of the individual against all divine, collective, and individual authority."