'Too much freedom is a dangerous thing.

Discuss what limits, if any, the state should place on

individual liberty. (50 marks)
The phrase 'too much freedom is a dangerous thing' is a view which is likely to be attributed to the
political ideology of conservatism. Conservatism was formulated in the years following the French
revolution, and was a reaction to the rapid political and social changes that followed it.
Conservatives looked back fondly on 'old order' and dedicated themselves to trying to resist change,
and to conserve social order and stability. In the view of conservatives, traditions provide stability
and security which is important since their view of human nature is pessimistic, and would thus agree
with the claim posited by the question. Throughout this essay, I will evaluate the contrasting views
'Liberty', or 'freedom' itself is much debated issue, and has been broken down by Isaiah Berlin into
two sections; negative liberty, the idea that freedom is to be free of interference; and positive liberty,
the idea that we must be in control or be able to do something in order to be free. The notion of
positive liberty has been broken down again by Adam Swift, whose main concern was that of
effective freedom the freedom 'to do'. If we are provided with the tools to do as we wish, our
freedom is increased.
The political ideology of conservatism was formulated as a rejection of the idea of negative liberty,
notably in the 'failure' of the French Revolution. Edmund Burke, a conservative, argued that the
French Revolution failed because it did not combine liberty with other values, and the new
constitution did not restrain the liberty of the people. Burke held a pessimistic view of human nature,
and believed that humans are selfish and irrational, and abstract concepts such as liberty and equality
do not come naturally to us. Burke thus argued that societies should recognise the value of tried and
tested traditions and institutions from the past, which provide security an stability, which is important
given the dangerous reality of human nature. For this reason, people need security and order, which
is best achieved by a strong state, strict laws, and stiff penalties. He compared the change in the state
to a living plant it respects the past, the authority, law, religions and customs that are traditional in
society. Looking at this, it is clear to see that Burke (and other conservatives) would agree that too
much freedom is indeed a dangerous thing. Particularly, they rejected the idea of negative liberty.
They argued that negative liberty in the abstract cannot meaningfully be said to be good, and in order
to be good, it must be combined with political goods such as the government and the rule of law. He
argued that without past customs and traditions to use as a guide, we can never know how liberty
may be promoted and defended. Burke argued that the failure to place limits on negative liberty
ultimately led to the tyrannical rule of Napoleon. Thus, limits on individual liberty is justified as it
allows for a strong and stable government, which is necessary to prevent humans from causing harm
to one another, and to prevent a complete disintegration of society.
However, I don't find the conservative justification for placing limits on liberty to be particularly
convincing. When examined in detail, it seems that conservatism has no issue with limiting the liberty
of government and the aristocracyyet has no issue with constraining the liberty of individuals. In this
sense, it seems that Burke's criticism of Napoleon doesn't seem to weigh up. If his issue with the
French revolution was that the excessive amount of liberty led to tyrannical rule, whereby the state
exerted ultimate authority, that in itself could be interpreted as a form of conservatism. Although
Burke may have argued that freedom depends on an alliance between the traditional social
authorities and the business class, the business class has always defined its own agenda of what it
calls 'freedom'. Moreover, the argument about conserving institutions is mostly
untrue. Most institutions are less fragile and more dynamic than conservatives
claim. Large amounts of institutional innovation happen in every generation. If
people lack a rational analysis of institutions, that is mostly a product of
conservatism rather than an argument for it. And although conservatism has
historically claimed to conserve institutions, history makes clear that
conservatism is only interested in conserving particular kinds of institutions:

the institutions that reinforce conservative power and freedoms. Conservatism

rarely tries to conserve institutions such as Social Security and welfare that
increase the effective freedom of the individual. By placing limits on the
negative liberty the freedom from interference, and positive liberty the
freedom to do, conservatism seems to not only limit the freedom of the
individual, but remove it entirely. This is a dangerous route to go down, as it
would leave the fate and freedom of the individual entirely in the hands of the
state, ultimately leading to the justification of totalitarianism. For these
reasons, I disagree with the conservative view that too much freedom is a
dangerous thing, and I am not convinced by any of the arguments for placing
limits on individual liberty, particularly having assessed the implications of the
theory in detail.
Perhaps a more convincing argument for placing limits on individual liberty can
be found in the contrasting views of positive and negative liberty. Whilst
negative liberty is concerned with freedom from interference, positive liberty is
concerned with being 'effectively' free, I.e being in control or able to do
something Acting autonomously requires being able to act upon decisions that
we endorse. But people can suffer from internal conflict e.g they act to get
something they want, even though they know their action is morally wrong.
From Plato onwards, this experience has been described in terms of a conflict
between a higher 'rational' self and a 'lower' desiring self. To be autonomous,
and so to have positive freedom, involves being able to choose and act in
accordance with one's higher, rational self. However, Berlin disagreed with
this, arguing that it led to a dangerous paradox if we can force people to act
rationally, then we can actually force them to be free. Restricting their
negative freedom can increase their positive freedom. He argued that this
would be a terrible political mistake, and could justify totalitarianism in the
sense that only the state knows what is best for the individual, and so
negative liberty is the only form politics should be concerned with. This
argument seems to confirm the criticisms of conservatism, and I would tend to
agree with the criticisms given by Berlin on positive liberty. Again, I don't see
any good reason why the state should place limits on individual liberty, and
remain unconvinced that too much freedom is a dangerous thing.
However, a strong argument for the state placing limits upon individual liberty
can be found in Karl Marx's criticism of laissez-faire capitalism, in which he
argued that excessive amounts of negative liberty has led to the exploitation
of the working classes, whereby ruling classes profit from the workers labour,
keeping them in poverty whilst they increase their wealth. Under capitalism,
the worker (the proletariat) suffers from alienation, a kind of estrangement
resulting in a loss from: the products of his labour, which are taken away by
the capitalist; their work, as their work is meaningless and repetitive; from
their 'species being', which is their true human nature; and finally from others,
as capitalism forces us to work for production, rather than satisfying our
natural needs and desires. Marx argued that all history is a history of 'class
struggle', I.e the capitalist vs the workers (the proletariat vs the bourgeoise).
The oppressors own the means of production, and so control the government
and society. The struggle will eventually lead to a revolution, and he argued
that under a different system, the workers lives would be more fulfilled. The
new system would allow the worker to enjoy their work, express their creative
powers, and produce things that are satisfying to our mutual needs. He coined

the phrase 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' to
illustrate this. People would be contribute to society according to their ability,
and this would be distributed according to the needs of individuals. It's clear to
see that Marx rejected the notion of negative liberty, and rejected the idea
that true liberty is freedom from interference. He argued that liberal ideas
imply that we are innately bad to each other, and it is only the capitalist world
that has made us selfish, and the implementation of communism would allow
us to return to our true human nature. Marx thus rejected the notion of
negative liberty, and believed that limits should be placed into order to
prevent to exploitation of the worker. He argued that liberty lies in the
realisation of our 'species-being', and that achieving liberty means an end to
extreme negative liberty and freedom from interference. For Marx, liberty is
not a sphere of non-interference, but something we find in our connection to
other people. I find this to be the strongest argument for placing limits upon
individual liberty, since the exploitation of the workers under capitalism is
something which is still evident in our society today, especially given that as
laissez-faire capitalism has increased, the effective freedoms of individuals
have decreased due to wealth inequality. The increasing lack of interference
within the free markets has led to dangerous conditions for the most
vulnerable in society such as those working long hours in dangerous sweat
shops for incredibly low wages. Placing limits upon the freedom to manipulate
markets may be justified as it would increase the social of autonomy of the
individuals, and thus allow them to become more free. Although Marxism can
be criticised since the success of the theory depends entirely on the notion of
a 'true' human nature, and that some people know what it is and can act to
help everybody realise it. Again, marxism is subject to the same criticism as
the rest of those endorsing positive liberty- that it can lead to totalitarianism,
in that the state decides what is best for the majority. However, all political
theories have a generalised view of human nature. This isn't just a criticism
which can be given to Marx, it is a criticism which can be given to all political
theorists, and so I don't find this to be a particularly strong argument against
Marx's rejection of negative liberty.
With this in mind, I do agree that some limits should be placed upon individual
liberty, particularly the marxist criticism of the capitalist state. Although it may
not be entirely necessary to completely abolish private property as Marx calls
for, I do think that he produces a convincing argument for limiting the liberty
of those manipulating the free market for their benefit, since it decreases the
effective freedom of those in society. It provides a far more convincing account
for limiting some liberty than the conservative argument, which when
examined in detail seems to not only restrict the liberty of individuals, but
completely deny it, this is evidenced in its rejection of positive and negative
liberty. For these reasons, I would conclude that limits on individual liberty can
only be justified when it increased the overall autonomy and effective freedom
of the individual.