This seems simple enough, but how this liberty is defined, its extent, and how it is achieved are all matters for debate even within liberal ideology. Indeed, differing perceptions of liberty are at the heart of the divide between the two major liberal schools of thought - classical and modern.
Liberty - freedom from or freedom to?
Classical Liberalism - Freedom from
The version of liberty as described by early liberal thinkers focuses in large part on 'freedom from', also known as negative freedom. It describes a range of basic freedoms (sometimes known as natural rights) to which all humans are entitled: freedom from harm, imprisonment etc. These were pithily summed up by two key thinkers: John Locke (1632-1704) and Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826):
- Locke - '...life, liberty and estate [property].'
- Jefferson - '...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'
These ideas developed out of:
a) The (relatively new) Enlightenment view of the world as a rational place that could be understood by individuals, who were rational beings, and who did not need the church, or the aristocracy, to interpret and intercede for them.
b) The furnace of revolution, especially in America and France, which focussed people's minds on the tyranny the state could impose, and how this was best avoided.
Important to this classical version of freedom are laws that curtail the power of the state over the individual (consider the American Bill of Rights), and that distribute the power of the state, to prevent too much power being held in the hands of any one individual or small group. As Thomas Hobbes expressed, 'the definition of liberty is power cut into pieces.'
This focus on protecting the freedoms of the individual from the impositions of others, trying to delineate exactly when others (or the state) had a right to step in, remained a major focus for liberalism up until the end of the 19th century. For example, Jeremy Bentham explored how laws were essential for guaranteeing liberty, and J.S. Mill explored the difference between self-regarding and other-regarding actions - the harm principle.
Modern Liberalism - freedom to
By the end of the 19th century, some liberals were becoming concerned that an increasingly liberal world, and in particular a free (that word again) market, had not provided benefits for all. This was most obvious in the urban slums that had grown up to serve the mills and factories that were the bedrock of the industrial revolution. They began to conceive of another form of freedom: positive freedom, or the freedom to fulfil one's own potential.
As they saw it, humans had the right to be free to achieve all that they could. They perceived that the world did not gift everyone the same advantages at birth, and that some were 'freer' than others to do well in the world - a comfortable home, a good education and a full belly are useful foundations for success, but in the 19th century, they were most certainly not available to all.
This led Modern liberals to develop a different view of the state. Instead of seeking a 'nightwatchman state' (Locke), which made sure people did not impinge on each other's freedoms and not much else, they saw the state as having a duty to generate greater equality of opportunity, and to create greater social justice. The early flag-waver for this movement was T. H. Green, but it is probably best exemplified by the increasing drive by Liberal governments to promote universal education and a basic pension, and in the recommendations of the Beveridge Report, out of which grew the welfare state. It is to be remembered that, although many of the reports recommendations were implemented by Atlee's post-war Labour government, Beveridge himself was a liberal.
As they saw it, humans had the right to be free to achieve all that they could. They perceived that the world did not gift everyone the same advantages at birth, and that some were 'freer' than others to do well in the world - a comfortable home, a good education and a full belly are useful foundations for success, but in the 19th century, they were most certainly not available to all.
This led Modern liberals to develop a different view of the state. Instead of seeking a 'nightwatchman state' (Locke), which made sure people did not impinge on each other's freedoms and not much else, they saw the state as having a duty to generate greater equality of opportunity, and to create greater social justice. The early flag-waver for this movement was T. H. Green, but it is probably best exemplified by the increasing drive by Liberal governments to promote universal education and a basic pension, and in the recommendations of the Beveridge Report, out of which grew the welfare state. It is to be remembered that, although many of the reports recommendations were implemented by Atlee's post-war Labour government, Beveridge himself was a liberal.
So, whilst both classical and modern liberals place great value on liberty, different influences mean that they perceive it in different ways. This in turn leads to different views on the role of (and therefore the size of) the state, and gives examiners plenty of scope to ask questions about whether the two strands can really be considered one ideology. What would your answer be?
