positive liberty is the freedom to be enabled to do something
to be autonomous is to make and act upon decisions which you endorse
but most people suffer from internal conflict
between their 'higher' more rational selves and
their lower' selves of bodily pleasures
berlin argued that positive freedom
can force people to be free and can
even justify an authoritarian state if
they claim they know how to make
its citizens aoutonomous. instead he
argued that we should focus on
negative freedom
the extent of our negative freedom depend on the
opportunities available to us, what they are and how
difficult or easy it is for us to take advange of them
Adam Swift argues that there are 3 ideas of positive liberty that reject negative
liberty: 1st formal freedom is the absence of interference effective freedom
involves the power to act. 2nd someone can do what they want without being
autonomus. 3rd it is freedom from political interference or freedom of political
partisipation, you can't have both.
to be free you must be able to do it, so enabling someone via education is giving them freedom.
berlin argues that what's happened is
freedom and conditions to take advantage of
that freedom have been confused, you are no
less free if you can't do something just unable
to take advantage of that freedom.
positive liberty can reply that freedom which isn't valuable shouldn't be considered freedom