How Do We Define and Think About Freedom? Anarchism Versus the State

This is going to be an argument about how we think about freedom, primarily based upon my interpretations of Isaiah Berlin’s original 1958 lecture, “Two Concepts of Liberty.” In this philosophical view, freedom can be viewed in two ways, positive and negative. According to Berlin, positive freedom is freedom of choice, or freedom to do. Negative freedom is consequently freedom from, or to be free to avoid some kind of negative stimuli. When people speak of freedom, it is usually a combination of these two concepts. So in this way, people often define freedom as a combination of both positive and negative. Positive freedom posits that people must be free to choose to do as they wish, freedom to live happily and well. Whereas negative freedom is freedom from; but from what? That usually depends upon one’s politics and perspective.

When we argue about freedoms in our society, we must be very careful to both understand and properly define, as well as properly argue, exactly what we mean, how we mean it, what changes within society we advocate for, and why. For example, in context of the gun debate, both “sides” of the debate are arguing different conceptions of freedom in different meanings and contexts. Those who argue for more restrictions upon what guns are legal to buy and possess, they are simultaneously arguing for the negative freedom to be free from gun violence, specifically the consequences of mass shootings perhaps due to lax laws, and the positive freedom to express themselves, exist in society, and live safely and happily without the threat of violence.

Those who argue for greater gun rights argue for both the positive freedoms of having, owning, using, and defending themselves with firearms, while also having the negative freedom from restrictions upon that right. But there is also other dichotomies happening in this debate, with the duality between democratic freedoms, or reasonably restricted freedoms through social compromise, and ultimate freedom, or freedoms with no restriction. The third philosophical comparison being of course “left” versus “right”, individualism versus collectivism, or possibly authoritarianism versus libertarianism. Democratic or compromised freedoms can be argued from the “anti-gun side”, generally considered to be on the left, where unlimited freedoms are being argued by the “pro-gun side”, generally argued on the right; especially when one takes into account the lobbying and rhetoric of the American NRA.

On liberty, Berlin writes: “Positive liberty…is a valid universal goal. I do not know why I should have been held to doubt this, or, for that matter, the further proposition, that democratic self-government is a fundamental human need, something valuable in itself, whether or not it clashes with the claims of negative liberty or of any other goal…What I am mainly concerned to establish is that, whatever may be the common ground between them, and whatever is liable to graver distortion, negative and positive liberty are not the same thing.”

These positive and negative freedoms are not meant to be interpreted as one good and one bad, however. There are pros and cons to both approaches. Desiring the freedom of speech, especially in a country where that right is not legally guaranteed, is almost objectively good. However, one can also argue for the freedom to not feed one’s children, as right wing theorist Murray Rothbard argued. This would clearly be a negative consequence of a positive freedom. Similarly, freedom from religious, ethnic, sexual, or gender persecution may also be objectively good, while desiring to rape someone and face no legal consequences for such is a very negative and harmful exercise of negative freedom. More realistically, there are people who believe that they have all of the rights of American citizens, but are under zero legal obligation to abide by its laws. These are generally referred to as “sovereign citizens”.

The notion of right libertarian freedom does have some positivity with what a person chooses, but also negatively, when we consider sovereign citizens. By their own admission, sovereign citizens want freedom from the law, from any realistic constraints to act as they will. It is a want for freedom from responsibility, authority and consequence. On some level, the right libertarian interpretation of force, power, and how to use these comes from their notion of negative freedom, to be freed from the responsibility of the social contract at all costs, while most of us are willing to abide by the social contract in exchange for positive freedom. Here, Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “Social Contract” comes into play. The concept of the contract is that a society made up of people can agree to laws and rules that everyone should abide by, that these laws must be made in a reasonable, debated, and regularly discussed practice of compromise, in order to try to make everyone reasonably happy. It is not, and perhaps cannot be a perfect system, but it tends to generally work for all but a few thousand people.

The social contract is a compromise, and the understanding of the necessity of compromise within a fair and democratic society. Most of us want the freedom to do, but we know that it’s not absolute. We exchange our desire to pursue absolute freedoms for cooperative survival, safety, food, and shelter. We choose to live in society because it’s often better and easier. Those who don’t live in society, those who choose to opt out of the social contract, want both negative and absolute freedom. They want absolute freedom to do as they will, as well as avoid 100% of the trappings and responsibilities of society, but even then they still have to compromise.

Because by living outside of society, anarchists cannot rely upon society to feed them, clothe them, house them, or protect them. Instead, the anarchist must totally fend for themselves. Some take this responsibility up, and can thrive outside of society on their own. Anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-primitivists, and other anarchists, or non-society individualists, desire the negative freedoms to be free of societal constraint, in pursuit of absolute freedom of choice, and from choice. Freedom is their mantra, their everything, but in my opinion they pursue such uncritically, without thought or empathy for others.

It takes little more that a cursory glance at societies themselves, much less sociology, for a person to understand that on a very real level, unlimited freedom for one individual conflicts with the pursuit of such for other people. If everyone were to try to pursue unlimited freedoms without regard for society or others, society would be unable to facilitate these pursuits. From an anarchist perspective, this is a good thing, however, because the collapse of society from too many people trying to pursue ultimate freedom all at once shows the necessity of anarchy, from a kind of a “only the strong survive” mentality.

To an anarchist, a “statist” is a slave to a state that they treat as a god, who provides the people with that which, through greater effort, they can provide for themselves. The anarchist ultimately believes that the state is both ultimately unnecessary, and a hindrance to the pursuit of ultimate freedom. The anarchist may even believe that the state is evil, because the laws and compromises that society places upon individuals go too far, and thus are totalitarian in nature since they clash with man’s desire for ultimate freedom. To quote left wing anarchist Emma Goldman: “Anarchism stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion and liberation of the human body from the coercion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. It stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals…”

From the “statist” perspective however, one understands that absolute freedom for even one individual can and does harm others, and agrees to let that go to a certain extent, to give up the notion of ultimate freedoms for the sake of avoiding harm to others and social discord. An anarchist of any kind would never give unlimited freedom up however, as they believe that the freedom of one trumps all else. For an anarchist, the individual and the pursuit of individualism through freedom are absolutely good, therefore the pursuit of absolute freedoms is given a moral stamp of approval; that to do such is reasonable, ethical, and inevitable. But is it? In my opinion, physical harm and social strife can be a very real result of the pursuit of unlimited freedom. I believe that capitalism is only one example of this, as capitalists are people who exercise ultimate freedom with no regard for consequences, law, ethics, or who they harm along the way. Therefore, capitalism is the zealous pursuit of both ultimate and negative freedom.

Right wing anarchists and sovereign citizens may exert violence upon people who violate their desire of ultimate freedom to do as they wish without consequence. They call this the non-aggression principle. The NAP among right libertarians is supposed to protect freedom, but often is an excuse for violence. This brings to mind the infamous Gadsden Flag, the yellow flag with the snake saying “Don’t Tread on Me”. It could be seen as an early historical example of this. The idea, the notion of not letting someone violate our rights is fine, but to use violence on another person because they have impeded upon one’s desire and pursuit for unlimited freedoms is, in my opinion, immoral. I believe that violence is acceptable in self-defense, but not because a person has slightly impeded one’s ultimate freedoms. This is what makes the NAP as a right wing anarchist concept a total joke. I study law because I believe that the interplay between the person and the state must be examined. I believe in some balance between freedom and order. Democracy can be the fulcrum between the state and us as individuals.

My socialism is democratic and libertarian in the philosophical sense, not in the economic. I believe that we must not lose the individual in doing what’s best for all. I don’t believe in compelling someone else to sacrifice themselves for some greater good, as some Marxist traditions, and other right wing authoritarian traditions demand. I agree with sacrifice only if I’m the one doing the sacrificing, and this was Hannah Arendt’s solution to her problems with utilitarianism. Ends don’t justify the means. I’m not for conformity, obedience, or the destruction of self. But I do give of myself to those I love because I believe it’s right.

I am a humanist because I believe in humanism, in people’s innate goodness, but I do not as some classical philosophers do, conflate moral goodness with rationality. When rationality is the goal, utilitarianism often comes into play, leading to excessively planned, rigid, oftentimes caste societies. Advocates for these in my opinion miss the mark because they will at least be willing to force the individual, even kill them, for what they perceive to be for the good of the collective. That is totalitarian, and I would argue that many advocates for such don’t truly understand those implications.

In my opinion, both Hannah Arendt and Isaiah Berlin were right. It is not ethical to force a sacrifice of one for the many. When one makes that choice, one seeks the positive freedom for themselves to order that sacrifice, but also the negative freedom to avoid the consequences. And that kind of choice usually gains one some measure of political power. In my mind, it is not hard to see that with such an “ends always justify the means” kind of view, abuses will be abound. Ultimate freedom means freedom of choice, and freedom from consequence. It means utilitarianism in a way that plays god. And that is exactly why ultimate freedom is essentially evil, because it is morally and philosophically bankrupt. That is why we have law, as fair compromise.

Ultimate freedom is too dangerous for a society of compromise. That is why anarchists go live in the woods. One, because they fear and reject society’s compromises, intended for equality and justice, in the name of themselves, their ultimate freedoms, what they desire. Two, because society ultimately can’t accept them. Ultimate freedom for some sacrifices any real freedoms or equality for all. Slavery, monarchy, feudalism, fascism, authoritarian communism, these are ultimate freedom systems only as long as you are on top to lord over those on bottom. That’s really why this whole thing is wrong.

The answer is not ultimate freedom, nor authoritarianism. Power must be judiciously and carefully wielded, not irresponsibly. Power isn’t the point, responsibility and fairness are. That’s why power must be wielded by those who don’t crave it; it’s the only way to do it right. Ultimate freedom can’t really be allowed to exist in a society based on compromise, fairness, and law, in the name of having any real freedoms at all for everyone. So yes, in order to prevent everyone from being slaves, you don’t have a right to own them. That loss of ultimate freedom grants at least some freedom for all, and in this I believe that the law is a fair compromise.

My socialism must be philosophically libertarian and practically democratic, because democracy is the point. My socialism is rooted in humanism and love, simply because I care about people and democracy as ideals, as well as practical concepts. I advocate for both positive and negative freedoms, so long as they are agreed upon and debated in a fair, open, and free democratic society, this is what I choose and who I am. Humanism is the cause, and I believe that this is a solid ethics, as well as a Kantian categorical imperative. I reject Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince, I reject the selfish pursuit of ultimate freedom, and I reject power and greed. I choose to give these things up for the betterment of both myself and others. I believe in that pursuit of fairness in society. I believe in constantly questioning the law in order to achieve equality and justice.

The Muad’Dib spoke of this in Frank Herbert’s Dune. “There exists a limit to the force even the most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengeance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences.” I study the law and I will continue to study it and politics, to grow myself as a person and as a professional, and to develop my intellect as an academic. My socialism is rooted in empathy for the working class that I came from, and I will not forget those difficult beginnings.