Law in Politics

It can be said that freedom is not solely about outlining the borders of a dominion in which an individual is free to conduct themselves in the way they choose to even if the end result leads to one doing nothing at all. Freedom can be considered to be the ability to make use of the possible choices on offer to a person. A major criticism of the negative concept of liberty is that it does not recognise this but instead makes to sharp a distinction between liberty and the possibilities of making full use of that freedom. When an individual fails to enjoy his freedom this does not mean that he is unfree. Very few candidates were unable to offer at least a single-sentence, accurate definition of individualism, although in weaker cases this sometimes amounted to little more than a description of how attitudes changed through the transition from feudalism to capitalism. There were, however, many developed discussions of the nature of individualism, some of which helpfully focused on different forms of individualism, notably egoistical (or possessive) individualism and developmental individualism.

Some also mentioned methodological individualism and ethical individualism, although the linkages between these classifications were not sometimes spelled out. For example, methodological individualism and egoistical individualism share strong similarities, as both place heavy emphasis on self-reliance.

Even weak answers tended to recognise that individualism has usually had negative implications for the state, though poor responses merely stated this rather than explained it. Strong responses were often constructed on the basis of the difference between egoistical and developmental individualism, explaining how and why the former suggests rolling back the state while the latter has been used to roll it forward. In many cases, candidates were able to demonstrate a breadth of understanding drawn not merely from liberalism but also from conservatism, anarchism and elsewhere.

24. To what extent do classical liberals and modern liberals disagree about freedom? (June 09)

Classical and modern liberals disagree about the nature of freedom and its implications for the state, as follows:

 Classical liberals have endorsed a 'negative' view of freedom. By this standard, freedom consists of noninterference - the absences of external constraints on the individual. Freedom is thus associated with privacy or choice. The principle checks on negative freedom are laws and physical constraint. Support for negative freedom thus implies 'rolling back' the state.

 By contrast, modern liberals believe in 'positive' freedom, the ability to grow and develop (achieving individuality), and realise individual potential (self-realisation or selffulfilment). By this standard, the principle checks on freedom are social in nature - poverty, homelessness,