Concepts of Liberty; J. B. Kizer

568 his power to do so, simply because he cannot provide the services required. But, as Berlin points out, the deceptively phrased "positive liber ty" has some nasty consequences. One of them is that since positive liberty is unrelated to freedom as we usually understand it, then being "liberated" (and we often find this usage of the word in current libera tion movements) is being fot:ced to do something against our will be cause someone else thinks it is good. This encourages confusion in the discussion of freedom. To call nega tive liberty "freedom" and positive liberty "power" is to make a dis crimination which is fundamental. To call them both liberty, as coer cionists often do when it suits their argument, leads to confusion. For example, if legislators believe 1976 TWO CONCEPTS OF LIBERTY 569 that men ought to be taught only by those with a Ph.D., then they might pass a law that only Ph.D:s be allowed to teach. The coercionists would not consider this a limitation on people's freedom to choose their teachers because those who accept the concept of positive liberty feel that some men may act irrationally and, therefore, must be coerced to be "free;' meaning by that to do what they should do, which is always choose a Ph.D. for a teacher.

Now most people can see this conception of liberty stands totally opposed to the common sense notion of freedom. Why, then, do some philosophers hold this position? Berlin explains this. He says that it is an extension of the so-called mechanico-rationalist approach to life. Stimulated by the success of scientists or natural philosophers in finding the laws of the universe in the 17th and 18th centuries, the social philosophers of that age began to believe that they could find the social laws by which men must rationally act, the social "system of the world" which would correspond to the Newtonian Principia (sub titled The System of the World). This led to the belief that those who do not accept their system must be coerced into accepting it, as it is the "rational" social system. Libertarians, those who accept the Berlin concept of "negative liberty;' know, though, that human values may not all be compatible and, in principle, may not be capa ble· of being harmoniously realized in one way of life. That is, people are inherently different so they may, for their happiness, need and demand a different lifestyle from the majority of their neighbors. Thus the liber tarian is, of necessity, a pluralist.

He tolerates different communities with laws of entirely different types. He knows that one cannot homogen ize the differences among men or among the differing environments in which man finds himself. Conver sely, the coercionist is, of necessity, a social monist and will not tolerate social differences. It is interesting that the liber tarians and conservatives, the social pluralists, are the ones who are likely to encourage social experiment by all'lwing community differences which might actually lead to progress in the under standing of the relations among men. It is the monists, on the other hand, who constantly proclaim themselves in favor of progress and sometimes (as Marx did) proclaim that their social system is scien tific; these are the most anti-pro gressive and anti-scientific in the sense that they oppose any social experiment which might lead to real progress. Libertarians realize that there is 570 THE FREEMAN September no perfect sociai system. There never will be a final answer as to how everyone should behave and, because of this realization, they refuse to coerce others to hold to their beliefs.

The only unfortunate aspect of Berlin's analysis, and in this Berlin is merely following tradition, is that libertarians have again lost the semantic battle of connotation as they did when the socialists usurped the word "liberal?' "Posi tive liberty;' which is actually coer cion, sounds so much better than "negative liberty;' which is really freedom. This minor cavil does not detract from the outstanding conA uthors of Values tribution to the philosophical mean ing of freedom which Berlin makes. Since individual differences among people demand pluralism if real freedom (Berlin's negative liberty) is to be achieved, it is interesting to note the foresight of the founding fathers. One of the essen tial ideas behind the founding of this country was that it was to be a federal republic, that is, a nation in which the individual govern mental units of the federation agree concerning the general principles of government but retain the right to enact the laws of their choosing, insofar as the details of govern mental action are concerned. , IDEAS ON LIBERTY FOR IF THE ESSENCE OF MEN is that they are autonomous beings-authors of values, of ends in themselves, the ultimate authority of which consists precisely in the fact that they are willed freely-then nothing is worse than to treat them as if they were not autonomous, but natural objects, played on by causal influences, creatures at the mercy of external stimuli, whose choices can be manipulated by their rulers, whether by threats of force or offers of rewards.

ISAIAH BERLIN A REVIEWER'S NOTEBOOK JOHN CHAMBERLAIN CHILE: .The Balanced View LONG before the Marxist Salvador Allende took over Chile as a minority President in 1970, Chilean economists were studying on an exchange program at the Univer sity of Chicago. So, when Professor Mil ton Friedman visited Chile last year - the second year of the mili ary junta that succeeded the depos ition of Allende, who had tried to impose socialism on his country by shifty extra -legal means - he had a ready audience. Friedman's advice to the j unta was to use "shock treatmen t" to overcome the infla tion' which had been running at 700 per cent. He urged the generals to get their government out of the business of spending money that had to be extorted from the people either by taxes or inflation. Fried man's three lectures, published in Spanish, are a popular staple in the local bookstores. But the "Chicago school" had had the ears of the junta government before Friedman had arrived per sonally on the scene. So pervasive have been the free market theories of Frank Knight, Henry Simon and 571 572 THE FREEMAN September Milton Friedman in Chile that economists in general are referred to in fashionable Santiago circles as "Chicago boys." Some of the economists (those who have studied in the U.S. at Columbia or Harvard) resist the term. Whether they went to Chicago or M.1.T., however, they all acknowledg~ that the Chilean economy under Allende's Statism had been acorn plete disaster.