drugs, for example. Needless to say, no tax-based provision of welfare services
can be countenanced by a libertarian, to whom the sanctity of private property
is the core value. The starting point for libertarian thought is the idea that there
is no way of legitimizing the rule of one person over another except by his
consent, and that such consent must be specifically limited to situations where
it is in the objective interest of the consenter to accept very specific orders from
the ruler.
Liberty
Liberty (orfreedom) is often divided by political theorists into two types, for
analytic clarity. Negative liberty refers essentially to ‘absence of external
constraints’ (seestate of nature). Thus, as long as there is no law or social
practice preventing me from doing something, or forcing me into some course
of action, I can be seen as free in that respect. This is the idea of liberty most
commonly found in modern Western democratic societies and in classical
liberalism. The emphasis is on what other people might do to stop me
carrying out my will. But what I choose to do is taken as outside the bounds of
the concept. If I choose to be a drug addict, I am either free or not depending
on what society does to stop me buying my preferred drugs. Often, though not
invariably, this will be linked to the idea that the political system is only entitled
to infringe on someone’s freedom when it is preventing actions that would
hurt another person, and that what an individual does to themself is their own
business. This concept of liberty is the basic one found in English social
thought fromHobbesandLockethroughutilitarianismand onwards.
The more continental European tradition of liberty, often referred to as
positive liberty, has its roots originally in classical Greek thought, and later, in
European Idealist philosophy like that ofHegelorKant. More recently it has
been found particularly in some Marxist thinkers, especially those like
Marcuse. The stress here is on actual internal freedom of choice, rather than,
as in the English liberal tradition, external constraints on putting a choice into
action. Basically the argument rests on the idea that the essential human nature
will produce rational and good choices. But this inner human nature can be
warped by social forces and ideological manipulation so that the individual
does not realize what they truly want, and makes false choices. Ultimately it
goes back to the Platonic doctrine that no one can ever freely choose what is
wrong, and that evil is a fault in understanding, not a weakness of will. In the
hands of later theorists it becomes the doctrine that society, especially capitalist
society, alienates people from their true nature, and produces apparent needs
and desires which are convenient for the rulers of that sort of society. Some-
times the doctrine has obvious sense: those addicted to dangerous drugs can,
perhaps, be said to be unfree in pursuing their desires. But often the theory
Liberty