Positive Freedom Vs Negative Freedom

Individuals have the ability to act or think as one wish, and pursue own interests by making own choices. However, there is a distinction between the two types of freedom. Since freedom has different political ideologies on philosophers in different ways, each interprets it diversely. According to liberals, positive freedom is to control the passions, and negative freedom is freedom from interference. For republicans, positive freedom is collective self-determination, and negative freedom is non-domination. Marx defends positive freedom by arguing that real freedom lies in realizing the true nature. To Hegel, freedom is the recognition of necessity, and positive freedom creates the background for negative freedom. The distinction between positive

And the distinction affects the philosophers on how the individuals and the government should act for freedom that is necessary in the society.
To better understand the concepts of freedom, in one of the essays from Isaiah Berlin, “Two Concepts of Liberty, 1958”, he explains the distinction between negative and positive freedom. The great contrast between the two concepts is asking “Who governs me?... and How far does government interfere with me” (126). These two questions are logically distinct from one another since one is about thinking it from an internal side, and one is thinking about how the external forces influences the one itself. Individual liberty is concerned due to the interference of others. First of all he argues that negative freedom restricts the options available to people. Instead of looking at the good side, Berlin’s metaphor of negative freedom is about losing an opportunity, and the amount of options. And negative freedom can

Most liberals do not want intervention from government or restrictions to allow privacy and choice. Therefore, according to Friedman, he thinks that the restrictions on economic freedom have affected the freedom of people in the First Amendment of the Constitution. This is a negative side of freedom for liberals, because liberals do not like interference in freedom. So in economic freedom, he explains what freedom is about and what it allows for people to choose to do. First of all, “economic freedom is freedom to choose how to use our income” (218). He points out this because during that time almost half of the income that they get were spent on federal, state, and local governments. So in order to avoid this, people have to go through the majority rule which is to participate in the voting system. Secondly, “economic freedom is freedom to use the resources we possess in accordance with our own values” (219). He wants people to able to do anything as an individual in any business. It is restricted that you are not free to engage activities, work as a lawyer, etc. Lastly, he states that “freedom to own property is essential for economic property” (220). This is very important because during that time, the federal government owned 46 percent of everything in the economy. So these restrictions affect freedom according to the First Amendment of the Constitution because it does not