A free man, is he, that in those things, which by his strength and wit he is able to do, is not hindered

to do what he has a will to do Chapter 21 Leviathan by Hobbes

For centuries, philosophers have struggled with defining the meaning of freedom and tracing its historical development. Libertarians identify freedom with the absolute right of individuals to control their own lives and want sharp restrictions on the power of government to interfere with the social and economic market place. Freedom is derived from the word liberty which means absence of restraints. Liberal writers use the word liberty and freedom synonymously. For them, liberty or freedom is the supreme value which must be the guiding principle of all public policy. Liberty has been portrayed as the absence of restraint or the absence of constraint or coercion. The earlier most formulation of the concept of liberty came in as a liberal-individualist approach originally put forward by the spokesperson of the new middle class Europe- the merchant industrial (Bourgeoisie) class which sought to establish a free market society against the mercantile policies of the state. It derived strength from the Laissez-faire (Let them be) theory which included, freedom of trade, freedom of enterprise, free competition of market forces, and natural liberty of a human being. Sir Isaiah Berlin, in his 1958 essay and inaugural lecture, Two Concepts of Liberty, expands on the ideals of liberty that were synthesized and inculcated by earlier political philosophers. Frustrated with the then-current views of liberty, Berlin saw the need to expand the concept and break it into two distinct parts freedom from human interference and freedom to do as I please within a civil society. Berlins argument was that there are, indeed, two concepts of liberty positive and negative branches.

Negative freedom or Negative Liberty:

The concept of negative freedom centres on freedom from interference. This type of account of freedom is usually put forward in response to the following sort of question: What is the area within which the subject a person or group of persons is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons? Liberty as a concept began in the seventeenth century during the Industrial Revolution in Europe with an emphasis on negative liberty, particularly in the economic sphere. This concept emerged at the time when every individual was struggling to be free from the unnecessary restraints of arbitrary government (Rule of the King, the Clergy and the Feudal Lords) and when individual choice determined the allocation of resources. This concept was based on Thomas Hobbes idea that Human beings are rational and they know what is good and bad and that the STATE should not decide the ends and purposes of any individual. According to this concept, State represents a Negative State, a necessary evil, which is required not to interfere with the Natural Liberty of men, but only maintain their liberty by protecting their person and property from the onslaught of other individuals. Thus, the role of a State is restricted only to that of a police state which ensures Law and Order. The early Liberals like Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, Herbert Spencer, etc who stood for liberty in all spheres argued that, the law must enforce all the contracts (except for the Master-Slave contracts) since each individual was the best judge of his own interest and the State should not be allowed to impose its own conception of good on the individuals and their mutual dealings. This concept of Negative Liberty led to the doctrine of Laissez-faire, that is freedom from government interference in economic affairs which proved instrumental in the establishment of Capitalist system in Europe wherein the forces of production which were earlier blocked by the Feudal System got released marking the end of Middle ages and the Beginning of

Modern Ages. The concept of RIGHTS under Negative Liberty protects an individual from coercive interference by others who have duties and disabilities in relation to relevant domain. However, such rights can be possessed without having the power to use them which leads to disparities in the implementation of such rights by the powerful and the powerless ultimately leading to mounting oppression, exploitation and injustice in the society. These flaws and drawbacks within the flourishing concept of liberty led to widespread discontent among the Industrial workers (Proletariat) and consumers who now demanded justice. Thus came in a whole new concept of Welfarism within Liberty, giving rise to Positive Liberty.

Positive Freedom or Positive Liberty:

It was John Stuart Mill who first introduced the conception of Positive Liberty and the consequent transition from Negative Liberalism to Positive Liberalism. According to Mill the Laissez faire theory has certain flaws that need to be modified and for that to happen, the involvement of State into the affairs of an Individual is inevitable. Positive freedom as a concept refers to the removal of impediments in the way of an individual in exercising his freedom and this is ensured through the positive role of a State in removing these restraints and hindrances which inhibit Human development. Mill was the first prominent liberal thinker who realized that the working classes were being denied their share into the capitalist economy based on Laissez faire Individualism. He sought to discover an area of intervention by the State which would stand justified and so he came up with a distinction between two actions of men: Self-Regarding actions which were concerned with the individual himself and Others-Regarding Actions, which affected others. Mill advocated complete freedom of conduct for the individual in Self-Regarding Actions unless it would jeopardize his existence due to ignorance. However, for the Others-Regarding Actions sphere, Mill conceded the right of the community to coerce and individual if his actions were prejudicial to its welfare. Thus, Mill tried to exhibit the sphere where an individuals actions can be regulated in the interest of the community and thus trying to contemplate a positive role for the state in securing social welfare even if it implied curbing the liberty of an individual to some extent. After J.S Mill, T.H Green, L.T Hobhouse and H.J Laski further developed the concept of Liberty. But, there are three major contradictions to Mills concept of Positive Liberty which are:

1. Mill confuses two distinct notions. One is that any form of coercion be it to prevent greater evil is bad, while freedom be it in any form is altogether good even if it results in a JungleRaj. The other notion is that Human being should endeavour to achieve truth by being fearless, imaginative, independent and non-conforming to centrism. Since these two notions are contradictory, Mill seems to have been stuck in a dilemma. 2. This Doctrine is comparatively modern and there seems to be scarcely any discussion of individual liberty as a conscious Political ideal (as opposed to its actual existence) in the ancient World. 3. The third contradiction to Mills argument was that this kind of notion is not suitable for all types of governments like autocracy or self-government. But, there have been many instances of people enjoying various forms of freedom which even people in a democracy dont enjoy.
By combining Berlins two concepts into a single descriptive concept of liberty, we arrive at the same explanation of this concept as Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes model of liberty is simultaneously negative and positive in Berlins sense as even if others are not hindering a person from doing what he/she has a will to do, he/she is not probably said to be free until and unless he/she becomes an agent i.e. he is willing to do something.

CONTEMPORARY DEBATE:
Out of all the contemporary debates on Freedom, the right to freedom of belief, expression and dissent has always been the object of tension, struggle and contest, between the State and the

citizens and within society itself. Nowadays though, it is contested from within and increasingly from without, as the communications revolution means that in reality the scope of state actions and monopoly which is limited basically to the national boundaries, does not match the far reaching scope and range of communication technology. In defending freedom of expression, Mill in his book On Liberty and Freedom states that:

"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person was of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
Analysing the present state of Liberty and Freedom in the contemporary World, one is shocked to witness that practically Liberalism driven by Capitalist forces remains unchanged and ideally the same but what has changed or rather withered away is the value for an Individuals existence. The Rights are definitely there but, the primacy and central role played by, and given to, these rights has vanished. History tells us very clearly that above all freedom of expression has been defined in relation to, and more often than not, in context with, religion and culture. This is further complicated by the fact that the relation between expression, on one hand, religion and culture on the other, has been defined through norms, later embodied by the law, and enforced through the use of force, both of which eventually sit in the hands of the state. As Michael Scammel well shows, the European practice of censorship is directly correlated to the rise and decline of the Church. Once established as the official religion of Rome, the Church itself made haste to consolidate its position by suppressing all competing views and dissent, which it labelled heresy. Similarly, 9/11 marked the beginning of defamation Resolutions on Religion by the UN, hate speeches, etc. This does not end here the even latest example of Censorship (the act of removing something which could result in violence) involves the Burqa Ban in many Western countries where the Women are being denied their Right to freedom of belief. Also, another area of debate that has cropped up is that everyone has the right to express their sexual orientation, with due regard for the well-being and rights of others, without fear of persecution, denial of liberty or social interference. However, in many countries throughout the world lesbian, gay, a bisexual and transgender person face discrimination, intimidation, harassment and also attacks to their personal safety. The ideal of true freedom is the maximum of power for all the members of human society alive to make the best of themselves. Freedom in todays scenario is a much required privilege as it would enable a Human Being to claim what is rightly his and what he ought to achieve in life. This calls for another intervention into the current system by someone like Berlin or Mill who through their rich perspectives and thought-provoking ideals would lay the foundation for a future mode of thought.