Two views of liberty

Many of today's political problems exist because the Constitution was written with one definition of liberty in mind, whereas today a different definition predominates. To wit:

There are two kinds of liberty, negative and positive. Negative liberty is freedom "from" things; positive liberty is freedom "to do" certain things. ...each concept attracts a different kind of political soul.

Negative liberty means simply that one is free from interference by the state and others, that one has a zone of liberty and in that zone there can be no interference so long as another's liberty isn't constrained. What you do in the zone of negative liberty is your business.

Positive liberty takes a dim view of simple negative liberty, arguing that it is meaningless unless a person has a real, positive freedom - the power "to do" vital things. Being left alone, in the world view, is meaningless if you don't have the power "to do" the important things, whatever they may be – get an education, earn a fair wage, live in an alienated society.

Negative liberty is the ethos of classic liberalism, not 'liberalism' in the partisan sense that the word is typically used in America today. Its essence is, "I know what's best for me, leave me alone."

Positive liberty, according to Berlin, is the ethos of idealism and great political dreams. Not content with "leave me alone liberalism," the positive libertarian thinks people must have the power to do and be certain things in order to be free in "meaningful" ways. ...The great impulse of positive liberty is: "I know what is best for you." (emphasis added)

That impulse, in history and in personality, is elitist and, at its worst, totalitarian. It is the impulse that allows Marxists, Communists, theocrats and nationalists to curtail negative liberties and slaughter people – all in the name of their own best interests.

America, of course, is the model community of negative liberty. It's a country explicitly founded on its principles.

Focusing the power of government to achieve 'positive liberty' is the great temptation of man, and has huge emotional appeal ("it's for the children;" "somebody has to do something," etc). This is why Thomas Jefferson said "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." It's easier to 'let the government provide happiness' than seek it through individual effort.

But always remember: a government strong enough to give you anything you want--'positive liberty'--is powerful enough to take away everything you have, destroying 'negative liberty' in the process.