The Negative Concept of Liberty

Application and Analysis Assignment #2
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Title
Professor's Name
Date
Application and Analysis Assignment #2
Question 1:
The negative concept of liberty entails an individual being inviolable; hence one does what he or she wishes to do. As a result, there are no barriers or obstacles to what individuals may wish to do. Therefore, the level of external authority that interfere with what one does is only in minimum area. According to Bowring (2015), when the areas that external authority can interfere in are minimal, the chances of human dignity getting compromised are too high. On the other hand, Bowring (2015) demonstrates that positive conceptions of liberty entail having the needed resources and the needed freedom to do things. Thus, individuals are not barred by poverty or unemployment from pursuing what they want and need. Also, through the positive concept of liberty, individuals are able to participate in the law-making process. As a result, the laws made will reflect their choices, and their needs and wants are considered in the formulation of these laws.
Both the positive and negative conceptions of liberty come with their advantages and disadvantages. The significant advantage of negative liberty is that individuals are not barred by the authority from doing what they want. However, it also comes at a cost because when there is no interference from the authorities, cases of people doing more harm may increase. On the other hand, positive liberty means that it gives individual freedom in society (Bowring, 2015). Therefore, in a society's that promotes positive liberty, individuals are able to develop. The adverse effect of a positive conception of liberty is that in order for an individual to have enough resources to fulfill their needs and wants, they have to be taken from others. Thus, when the state promotes positive liberty over negative liberty, the chances of its remaining poorer are higher than when it does not interfere.
Consequently, I believe that the government should aim to have a negative liberty conception. The main reason for supporting negative liberty is because, for positive liberty to be fulfilled, resources have to be taken from one individual and given to another. As a result, it is unfair for the individuals who have to sacrifice their resources just to fulfill the needs of another individual in a society. Furthermore, the government's financial position is likely to decrease if it continues to support positive liberty. Hence, a government should aim to have negative liberty for the sake of fairness and to avoid being poorer as it promotes the needs and wants of individuals in a society.
Question 2:
According to John Locke, humans are naturally born as free individuals to do what they please as long as they are bound by the laws of nature. Therefore, all men are equal, and none should live as subordinates to another. John Locke also emphasizes that individuals should have the freedom to do as they see fit. Additionally, on freedom of speech, expression, and religion, John Locke depicts that these rights should be accorded to every human (Itodo, 2021). As a result, no man should be limited to using speech or expression in ways.
Additionally, Catherine MacKinnon does not dispute the great value of freedom of speech, liberty, and expression. However, she is keen on portraying that freedom of speech and expression can lead to social inequality. Thus, if individuals are allowed to express how they feel without any limitations, cases of inequality will increase. Catherine MacKinnon portrays how the use of pornography as a way of freedom to express oneself goes against the rights of the individual. According to Catherine MacKinnon, there is a need to put restrictions on freedom of speech. When people are allowed to say what they please in the name of equality, cases of sexual discrimination and exposure of children to explicit material tend to increase. Thus, individuals end up suffering in the name of freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
Furthermore, the government should be able to limit freedom of speech if the words are used to promote discrimination or war. Individuals' freedom of speech should be limited in cases when if freedom of speech is accorded to people, slander may be promoted or disturb peace in a nation. Freedom of expression can also be limited if what one expresses promotes showcasing of explicit content to children. Additionally, if an individual's expression promotes social inequality, their freedom of expression should be limited.
I agree with Catherine MacKinnon that the government should be able to restrict individual freedom of speech and writing. First, through the government's having the power to limit speech, society as a whole is protected from an individual that intends to use the word to disrupt peace. Second, by limiting freedom of writing, the damages caused to children in case pornographic content is being broadcast are eliminated. It is good that freedom of speech is accorded to all citizens, but the government should also put restri...