There are two philosophical types of freedom: “positive freedom” and “negative freedom.” Conflicts occur when one person’s freedom impinges on another person’s freedom. Laws, societal standards, and government attempt to strike a balance in such situations. If a society wants to increase freedom broadly, it must establish policies and institutions that ensure people have positive freedom, which means realistic options in making choices about important opportunities.
(Note: If you find my posts too long to read on occasion, please just skim the bolded portions. They present the key points I’m making. Thanks for reading my blog! Special Note: The new, more user-friendly website for my blog presents the Latest Posts chronologically here: https://www.policyforthepeople.org/blog. The new home page, where posts are presented by topics, is here: https://www.policyforthepeople.org. Please click on the Subscribe Today button to continue receiving notification of my posts. I plan to retire this site at some point.)
My last four posts have been a reflection on the state of our democracy, as well as what we need to do to restore American democracy and belief in it. They are a review of the book by George Packer, Last best hope: America in crisis and renewal.
Just beneath the surface of the discussion of American democracy is the question: What does freedom mean in a democratic society? Packer writes that the greatest obstacle to economic freedom today is businesses’ monopolistic power over consumers, workers, and government. This is one piece of freedom.
There are two philosophical types of freedom: “positive freedom” and “negative freedom.” Negative freedom is characterized by the absence of imposed, explicit external constraints on personal decision making and behavior. Libertarians and Packer’s Free Americans are proponents of this type of freedom. (Note: The terms “freedom” and “liberty” are generally used interchangeably by political and social philosophers.)
Positive freedom is characterized by conditions where individuals are enabled and empowered to realistically pursue any opportunity that interests them. Positive freedom requires the absence of implicit external constraints such as discrimination, a lack of access to or unaffordability of desired goods, services, or opportunities (e.g., jobs, education, and where one would like to live).
In shorthand, negative freedom is referred to as “freedom from” and positive freedom is referred to as “freedom to.” In other words, freedom from constraints of external forces versus freedom to make choices and take advantage of opportunities, to pursue happiness, and to be safe and secure.
Conflicts occur when one person’s freedom impinges on another person’s freedom. These situations are where laws, societal standards, and government attempt to strike a balance between one person’s freedom and another’s.
Traffic laws and their enforcement are examples of where the balancing of freedom from versus freedom to play out. If traffic laws are lax and/or laxly enforced, freedom from constraints is the priority. However, the safety and enjoyment of other drivers and road users (e.g., pedestrians and bicyclists) is compromised. If freedom to is the emphasis, there are strict traffic laws and enforcement. For example, in Finland, speed limits tend to be lower than in the U.S. (at least in heavily populated areas), speed cameras for enforcement are ubiquitous, and tickets are assessed, not as a fixed fine, but as a percentage of one’s income. As a result, drivers’ behavior is more civilized and roads are safer for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. The road death rate is one-third of what it is in the U.S. (Interestingly, late at night in Finland, most traffic lights are turned off!) [1]
Another Finnish example of a focus on freedom to is the way that income and opportunity are spread across the lifespan through taxes and benefit programs. Although taxes are high on income during one’s peak earning years, they are used to support young families and seniors. This effectively evens out income over one’s lifespan and enhances positive freedom in the early years of raising a family and in retirement (i.e., the ability to make choices and take advantage of opportunities, to pursue happiness).
In Finland, the costs of child-raising are significantly subsidized (e.g., through paid parental leave and subsidized child care) when parents are young and their earnings may be low as they’re early in their careers or furthering their education. This allows parents to make relatively unconstrained decisions about when and how many children to have.
In the U.S., the tremendous expense of child raising is the most common reason given by women for seeking an abortion and is a reason many parents have fewer children than they would like. Reproductive freedom isn’t just about birth control, it’s about the ability to choose (and afford) when and how many children to have.
To help with the high costs of child raising, the U.S. enacted an enhanced child tax credit as part of Covid pandemic relief in 2021. It reduced child poverty by 46% (from 9.7% to 5.2%), lifting 3.7 million children and 5.3 million people out of poverty. (Child poverty is basically non-existent in Finland.) It reduced hunger, homelessness, and low birth weight babies, while improving maternal and mental health. It improved the well-being of children and families of color even more dramatically than for white children and families. [2] (For more detail on the benefits of the enhanced child tax credit see this previous post.)
However, when the initial program expired in December 2021, congressional Republicans and a few Democrats refused to extend the program. Apparently, a majority of congressional lawmakers don’t believe in positive freedom, even for families with children. As a result, in January 2022, child poverty increased by 41% and hunger rose 25%. The arguments against continuing the enhanced child tax credit were that families would misuse the money, that they would reduce their workforce participation, and that they didn’t really need the money. However, research showed that families had spent the money on food, housing, and other things that benefited children, like education; and that it didn’t reduce the amount they worked.
Having guaranteed health insurance also contributes to positive freedom. Everyone in Finland has guaranteed health insurance but not in the U.S. This means that in Finland people’s choices aren’t constrained by concern about losing health insurance, such as when quitting jobs, starting a business, or losing a job. Moreover, they don’t have to worry about having to change doctors when they switch jobs, go back to school, or their employer switches insurance plans.
All human societies are complex and people are interdependent in innumerable and often unapparent ways. Negative freedom (freedom from) and individualism only get you so far – to the end of your driveway or to when you have a serious health issue.
If a society wants to increase freedom broadly, it must establish policies and institutions that ensure positive freedom (freedom to) so people have realistic options in making choices about important opportunities throughout their lives. Freedom is NOT maximized when some people are allowed to indulge their every whim, no matter the consequences to others or our planet.
[1] Cooper, R., 9/14/23, “The Nordic way of freedom,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/world/2023-09-14-nordic-way-of-freedom/)
[2] Covert, B., & Konczal, M., 9/1/23, “We have the solution to child poverty. Republicans are blocking it.” The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/economy/child-tax-credit-poverty/)
Lippitt's Policy and Politics Blog 