The concept of negative freedom, as explained by Berlin, centers on the notion of being unfettered from interference. It deals with determining the scope within which individuals should be permitted to act or exist without any hindrance from others, highlighting one’s authority over their own existence. Theories regarding negative freedom set limits for acceptable intrusion in an individual’s life, and curtailing this liberty constrains one’s options concerning their own life.
According to Berlin’s metaphor, the extent of my lack of freedom is dependent on the quantity of choices and accessible pathways. Additionally, the significance of various types of choices also plays a role. It is clear that not all choices carry equal weight; some hold greater importance than others. For many individuals, the ability to freely express their opinions holds more value than having ten options for laundry detergent, even if they do not utilize this opportunity.
The presence of opportunities does not dictate my freedom; rather, it is the power to decide whether or not to make use of them. My understanding of freedom centers around having the option to take action, as opposed to the actual act itself. Even if I possess the ability to walk through open doors but choose inactivity, my freedom remains unaltered. Freedom encompasses the opportunity for action rather than solely fixating on the action itself.
Regardless of my decision to stay in bed and listen to my CDs all day, parking your car across my drive limits my freedom to get my car out. This restriction remains true even if you hadn’t parked there. Similarly, even without a reason or intention to strike, if the state prohibits me from going on strike, it still restricts my freedom. Negative freedom is determined by the opportunities available rather than by personal choice.
However, not all limitations on my potential options violate my negative liberty. According to Berlin, only constraints imposed by other individuals impact my freedom. In everyday language, we might acknowledge that as humans, we are unable to leap ten feet in the air or comprehend the meaning of a complex passage in a Hegel book. Nevertheless, when examining political freedom, which is our focus here, these types of restrictions on our actions are not considered impediments to freedom, despite their potential distress. It is the actions of others that curtail our freedom.
The concept of political freedom remains constant regardless of the limitations set by the universe or the human body. It revolves around power dynamics among individuals and between individuals and the state. The most evident cases of restricted freedom arise when someone forces you to perform specific actions. For example, if you live in a country where military service is obligatory, you may have to enlist in the armed forces. Likewise, legislation might mandate wearing a helmet while operating a motorcycle.
Your partner may compel you to stay in rather than go out to the cinema, or to tidy up the kitchen rather than do another hour’s study. It may have seemed to stem from Berlin’s explanation of negative freedom that poverty could not be considered a constraint on individual freedom. It is true that poverty effectively restricts many opportunities. However, these limitations are not necessarily imposed by other individuals; poverty can have other, nonhuman, origins. It could be a result of unforeseen weather conditions leading to famine, or perhaps sudden illness or accident. Whether poverty is regarded as a limitation of negative freedom entirely depends on one’s perspective of the causes behind the specific poverty being discussed.
