Abstract
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. (J.S. Mill) "It is the responsibility of the state ... to maintain the conditions without which a free exercise of the human faculties is impossible". (T.H. Green) The aim of this document is to explain and critically assess these different accounts of freedom. The idea of distinguishing between a negative and a positive sense of the term liberty was first examined by Isaiah Berlin in 1958 during a lecture entitled "Two concepts of Liberty". He defined negative liberty as the absence of constraints, barriers or obstacles on agents' possible actions and positive liberty as the possibility of acting in such a way as to take control of one's life and realize one's fundamental purposes. Positive liberty is associated with the idea of self-mastery, control, self-determination, and self-realization. On one side, theorists in the classical liberal tradition, like Constant, Humboldt, Spencer and Mill, typically argue that it is not desirable for the state to promote the freedom of citizens on their behalf and defend a negative concept of liberty.
