Having in view of the Isaiah Berlin article the two conception of liberty apart from

the general discussion on negative and positive attitude of liberty being stated in
this article my interest here is to look beauty of liberty with a different vantage
point with a question in mind that, is democracy the only legitimate expression of
liberty? The idea came into my mind by reading a passage regarding Benjamin
constant views that why men care about being crushed by popular government,
monarch, or any other oppressive law, one who wants to exercise individual
freedom only concerns about the quantification of authority and power, devolution
of power seems to me the way to transform ancient version to modern one but end
is same as previous “suppression of will” rather worst then the previous, conflict
resolution becomes conflict production, inappropriate disintegration of authority
and decentralization of power either men or institution constrained by the limits of
law created by incomplete rationality, throughout history progressive growth of
rationality can be seen within different paradigms of pre- modern, modern and post
modern thoughts, but is it legitimate to create laws within this progression? It looks
to me like jumping from burning aero plane into the mist with umbrella in hand!

Self mastery is used to explicate self generated laws creates maze for itself in order
to draw meaning, Darida argues that ‘ half of it always “not there” and the
other half always “not that.’ we use words for words in order to understand words,
our understanding lacks full meaning and when we use words other then the words
used we use to destroy the complete and the self created maze becomes more
complex.

Nevertheless if law making is inevitable either by fear or to produce innumerable

ways to limit individual freedom then how is it possible to create consensus about
the authoritative source of such productive limitation? Although we can refer to
Rousseau argument that the community must retain the law making power and not
delegate it to others, what can be delegated is only the power of government or
executive power, on the other hand Hayek hold that law making should be in the
hand of peoples representatives, it