The Compatibility of Freedom and Equality (7): Negative and Positive Freedom
(source)
It think it’s fair to say that both the libertarian and egalitarian conceptions of freedom are wrong. Libertarians traditionally adopt a negative kind of freedom. More precisely, they believe that individuals should be free from interference, especially interference by the government, and with their property. They don’t accept that it makes sense to view freedom more positively as the possession of resources and capabilities that are necessary to make a really free choice between alternatives and opportunities. The freedom of those without certain resources and capabilities (such as education, health and a basic income) is futile because they can’t exercise their freedom, not because they are actively interfered with but because they can’t choose between opportunities.
Such a positive freedom is preferred by egalitarians (also called social-democrats, progressives, or even liberals). These, however, often make the mistake of denying the importance of negative freedom. In their effort to equalize freedom they often show disdain for non-interference and property rights (which are important).
There is a relatively easy way to bring these two points of view a bit closer together. The main worry of libertarians is that egalitarians will use the power of the state to redistribute property. (Remember the uproar over the claim by Obama that he wants to “spread the wealth around“). As I stated here, there are good reasons to encourage voluntary redistribution by citizens, without enforcement by the state (enforcement should only be necessary when citizens fail to engage in charity). If the resources and capabilities necessary for an equal positive freedom are redistributed voluntarily by citizens, then there is no interference and negative freedom and property rights are safeguarded.
This may sound naive, but I don’t think it is. There’s already an enormous amount of private charity – see here – and remittances are also a very important source of financial aid.
Read other posts in this series.
Some people might think you ideal of volunteerism is too optimistic. Not enough people are willing to give up wealth (etc.) on their own. These people might be correct. But the reason is because people’s wealth is already being taken from them, namely by the state through coercion. One way it does this is through taxes. Taxing has the effect of reducing the incentive to donate. So the cynics who say volunteerism is unrealistic are correct insofar as the state continues to coerce citizens by mandating they give up their wealth to the state.