In Defense Of Berlin's Metaphor Of Negative Freedom

One restricts negative liberty by restricting the available options. To use Berlin's metaphor, negative freedom is all about the amount of doors that are unlocked for you. Whether or not you go through them is a different matter. For example, parking your car across somebody's drive way restricts their negative freedom, even if they choose to sit at home all day, they have lost an opportunity, or, a door has been locked to them, even if they would have never gone through it. The quality of the options available is also as important as the number of options. Berlin also reminds us that negative freedom can only be infringed upon by the actions of others. The philosopher Helvetius said "it is not lack of freedom not to fly like an eagle or swim

His concern here is with individuals being left alone to pursue their own good, rather than the development of the autonomy that is necessary for this to happen. Berlin argues that securing this area of negative liberty is as far as the state should go. Through Mill's various arguments, presented in On Liberty, he explains how liberty is also valuable to utility. John Rawls could also be said to support negative liberty through his advocacy of the harm principle and his own 'liberty principle'. (A Theory of Justice) Liberals and libertarians argue for the most extensive negative liberty, usually restricted only by Mill's harm principle. Negative and positive liberty are linked such that as one goes up the other goes down. Placing large value on negative liberty inevitably restricts the positive freedom of certain people, like the poor. If autonomy is desirable, the government should redistribute wealth so as to enable the poor in society to take better advantage of the opportunities available to them. Positive liberty as effective liberty or autonomy is a better interpretation of what liberty is because it expresses the value of liberty better. Berlin argues that redistribution is not justified because it increases liberty. By his distinction, an increase in positive liberty is both a decrease in negative

Freedom is freedom from legal constraint. The wider the extent of the law, the less freedom one has - an idea to do with negative liberty. However, in a democracy, the law expresses the will of the people. In this case, does living under the law (which restricts us) actually make us more free? The law is all about preventing criminal actions, preventing things which are interferences is in someone's life. In this way, the law promotes negative liberty. So to preserve negative liberty, one must ensure they are involved in the state and they have a say in what laws will constrain themselves. We can only attain freedom in the negative sense by making the rules we live by together, then abiding by them. Rousseau argues that if we break the rules, we aren't acting freely because we have helped to make them. We can argue that this only works if people can relate to the majority very strongly, if they are part of an oppressed minority, their disobedience of the rules is more understandable. Rousseau shows that liberty must mean more than being free from interference. When we participate in the political process we are choosing constraints that are expressions of our autonomous