About Opentopia
Opentopia Directory Encyclopedia Tools

Freedom (political)

Encyclopedia : F : FR : FRE : Freedom (political)

 

For other uses of Freedom, see Freedom (disambiguation).
Political freedom is the right, or the capacity, of self-determination as an expression of the individual will.

Contents

Philosophy of political freedom

Philosophers have identified a positive and negative aspect to the concept of "freedom". "Positive freedom" may generally be defined as the ability of an individual to act to fulfill their potential (see positive liberty). "Negative freedom" may generally be defined as the absence of constraint upon an individual (see negative liberty).

For example, according to Thomas Hobbes an individual is free to act when the law does not prohibit an act or is otherwise silent on the matter. Isaiah Berlin and others examined the difference between the positive and negative views of freedom in his 1958 essay Two Concepts of Liberty.

One of the most notable contributors to the modern concept of political freedom was the Victorian philosopher John Stuart Mill who, in his magnus opus On Liberty, outlined several freedoms that were not recognized during the Victorian period in Britain. He largely based his political philosophy on the harm principle, which essentially posits that people should be allowed to do as they wish provided others are not harmed.

Following from this distinction, when an individual is free from social and political ills they may enjoy safety or security, while an individual who is free to act generally enjoys liberty.

Types of freedom

The concept of political freedom is closely allied with the concepts of civil liberties and human rights, and the fundamental idea of positive and negative freedom corresponds with the concept of negative and positive rights. Most democratic societies are characterised by various freedoms which are afforded the legal protection of the state. Some of these freedoms include (in alphabetical order): The constitutions of many nations specifically codify some of these freedoms in a bill of rights.

Different views on political freedom

Various groups along the political spectrum naturally differ on what they believe constitutes "true" political freedom. Germane to the debate are Friedrich Hayek's comments [[wikiquote:Friedrich Hayek|on the meaning of words]]. It is interesting that, following those comments in his book, he wrote that the most abused words have been "liberty" and "freedom".

In libertarianism, freedom is defined in terms of lack of government interference in the individual pursuit of happiness, as long as others' freedom is not thereby harmed; for example, capitalists place a high value on freedom from government interference in the economy. This kind of freedom may be referred to as a kind of negative liberty.

On the other hand, those on the political left place more emphasis on freedom as the ability of the individual to realize one's own potential and pursue happiness. Freedom in this sense may include freedom from want, poverty, deprivation, or oppression. These kinds of freedom may be referred to as positive liberty, however nearly all such freedoms involve a cost of negative liberty. For example, providing many of these freedoms may require the services (time or money) of others, such as doctors for 'free health care', restricted employer freedoms for 'freedom of opportunity', lower economic freedom (in taxes) to provide 'free legal representation', and so forth.

Since virtually no positive liberty can be enforced without sacrificing the freedom of others, the weight assigned to specific freedoms are controversial. Often some deem fundamental freedoms (as in freedom of speech or religion) more important than others.

Many anarchists (but not anarcho-capitalists) see negative and positive liberty as complementary concepts of freedom.

Some treat freedom as if it were almost synomymous with democracy, while others see conflicts or even opposition between the two concepts.

Environmentalists often argue that political freedoms should include some social constraint on use of ecosystems. They maintain there is no such thing, for instance, as "freedom to pollute" or "freedom to deforest" given the downstream consequences. The popularity of SUVs, golf, and urban sprawl has been used as evidence that some ideas of freedom and ecological conservation can clash. This leads at times to serious confrontations and clashes of values reflected in advertising campaigns, e.g. that of PETA regarding fur.

In jurisprudence, freedom is the right to autonomously determine one's own actions; generally it is granted in those fields in which the subject has no obligations to fulfill or laws to obey, according to the interpretation that the hypothetical natural unlimited freedom is limited by the law for some matters.

Recent trends in political freedom around the world

In modern times the expansion of "freedom" around the world is considered by some to be synonymous with increased participation in democratic political systems.

During the 20th century overall, there was a dramatic growth in democracy, especially among the more developed countries, and decline in autocracy and colonialism. However, there was also an increase in various types of authoritarian regimes, and currently 33 percent of people in less developed countries live in countries subject to some kind of authoritarian rule.

In the last several decades, there has only been moderate growth in freedom, and as of 2000, about 40% of people in developing countries still live in countries which lack political freedoms.

Quotes about political freedom

(see also Quotes about Freedom)

See also

External links

 

From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.

Search Titles
0123456789
ABCDEFGHIJ
KLMNOPQRST
UVWXYZ?

E-mail this article to:

Personal Message: