Berlin first explicitly defined the ideas of negative and positive freedom. In negative sense Berlin states “What is the area within which the subject - a person or group of persons - is or should be left to do what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons” . 'Negative freedom is the freedom from interference from others; it is the benefit of being alone and not impeded. The range of negative liberty is larger if the non-interference is larger. Berlin states that law ought to restrict the negative liberty in order to enjoy it at minimum. Complete negative freedom is possible in utopia where all the human beings will be self-directed, completely rational and everybody will stay in harmony which is pragmatically not possible. …show more content…
Negative liberty is the absence of barriers, condition and constraints and positive liberty is the acting in such a manner to control one’s life and realize their fundamental purpose of life. Negative liberty is attributed to individual entity whereas positive liberty is attributed to collectives. The answers to both the liberties may overlap. The difference between the positive and the negative liberty can be understood in terms of factors that are internal to the person and factors that are external respectively.
As Berlin states that “We cannot remain absolutely free, and must give up some of our liberty to preserve the rest. But total self-surrender is self-defeating. What then must the minimum be? That which a man cannot give up without offending against the essence of his human nature” Negative and positive liberty are not only two ideas of liberty rather these ideas are in conflict and there will be monstrous implication if implemented