Andrew Lipson

Postive Liberty vs. Negative Liberty

            In 1690 John Locke wrote the essay, Two Treatises of Government, where he redefined the relationship between government and the people.  He declared that the state was established and erected in order to “preserve the natural rights of  it’s citizens,”^[1] and that if it failed to do so, the people had the responsibility to rebel improve their conditons.  This was a very radical and unprecedented idea at the time, for government had always been associated with the oppression and regulation of the poor. 

            In the pre-industrial days of Europe and America, the poor’s relationship with the upper classes and government was that of deference towards a fraternity which wanted little or nothing do with them.  There was always a level of exploitation between the classes, however that existed in the realms of taxes and class antagonisms.  Governmental influence and action was seen as another oppressive device of the rich, and was mistrusted and viewed with contempt by the majority of the population.   Thomas Jefferson, the main proponent for the laissez-faire policy in the framing of the United States’ Constitution, believed that the government would only prevent the people from living their lives freely, imposing regulations which would deteriorate the liberty on which the country was founded.  This idea was coined negative liberty, because the negative or absent role of the government, would ensure the liberty of the people.  Capitalism was gaining momentum, yet the intense search for maximum wealth hadn’t been developed yet, and industrialization had not yet commodified labor.  There was a less integrated system of capitalism between the rich and poor, and therefore less chance for social mobility and a defined middle class.  The lower classes had little expectations in changing their condition, and therefore they embraced their livelihood, desiring as little outside intervention as possible.

            As technology advanced and industrialization had begun its sweeping changes around the world, capital and the need for labor were growing at a phenomonal rate.  Mass production was embraced by the borgeousie, and a new self-made class of men was emerging.  The mentality of capitalism had shifted dramatically from a method of subsistence, to an enterprise of surplus and profits.  The fuels for this movemnt, coal and lumber, turned the English countryside, among other places around the world, into a sorry and polluted site.  The need for these raw materials created many jobs for the lower classes of England, yet it subjected them to harmful fumes and dangerous work conditions.  Working in the coal mines almost always put a worker at risk of death or illness, and the hours and wages that these workers were forced to accept were insufficient for the needs of a family.  The rise in industrialization and the need for maximum capital, led to a cruel neglect of the lower classes, and the conditions of their lives were deteriorating rapidly.  Unrestricted capitalism was now acting as a demorlaizing force in the lives of many poor around England, and the rise in unsanitary and slum-like conditions in the cities like London, was causing many people, rich and poor, to call for change.  Unbridled capitalism had to be controlled, and the people began to look to the government for help.  An era of reform began in the nineteenth century with Reform Bill Acts in 1832, 1867, and 1884.  Each of these acts tried to bring more representation to the lower and underprivilaged classes of England, thus providing them with the means of creating effective legislation to help their condition.  This policy was called Positive Liberty, explaining the positive or interjecting influence of the government supplying and protecting the liberty of the people.  At the time, this was a conservative movement, for then, liberalism was associated with the rise of unrestricted captalism.  The conservatives, who comprised mostly of the aristocracy and the wage laborers,  led a movement to extend power and privilages to the lower class.  Of coarse the upper class would be reluctant to relinquish their power to the poor, and that is why the reform movement that took place was not efficient and not entirely effective.

Main Menu

• Benthem vs. Spencer
• Positive Liberty vs. Negative Liberty
• Reform Act
• Links
• Conclusion