Cameron Stein

ICW #5

The view described here is that of Positive liberty; that freedom is rational action as an

agent, so to determine our life outcomes, while accounting for the influence of natural and

societal obstacles. This sort of liberty rests upon the conception of self-governance as freedom.

Reason must prescribe laws, as the universe is governed by reason. These laws might seem

restrictive, but they have been rationally proven to provide greater freedom. There will always

be those that do not understand these laws, as they fail to understand the value of individual

freedom. Once they view this way, laws or not coercive or oppressive, but instrumental to

freedom.

Berlin is critical of pure positive liberty, but does see value in its application. It poses

agent liberty as chief good, even if at the cost of negative liberty. Increasing positive liberty

requires reduction of negative liberty. For example, if education is necessary for wide options of

employment, it is necessary to require children to be educated to adulthood to equip them with

the ability to seek employment. This example seems reasonable, and is well accepted in the

US. However, it is conceivable this could be taken to radical extremes, requiring all citizens to

submit to severe oppression under the promise of future freedoms. Berlin believes a form of

Pluralism, with a stronger orientation to negative liberty, is preferable.

Mill similarly would see value in this conception, as he poses individuality as a goal of

human nature. We should be free to exercise our mental faculties as free agents, cultivating

higher pleasures, and growing as humans. Mill would argue against paternalistic legislation,

however. Laws should not be written to protect the individual from themselves, but only to

remonstrate or persuade certain behavior.