The Necessary Paternalism of ‘Positive Freedom’

There are three major conceptions regarding to concept of freedom (or liberty) which is one of the most important topics of political philosophy. One can juxtapose these conceptions in the following way: 1- Negative Freedom as “the absence of intervention” or “freedom from”, 2- Positive Freedom as “rational autonomy” or “freedom to” and 3- Republican Freedom as “the absence of a domineering force” or “freedom as non-domination”. The systematic distinction of negative - positive freedom owes its origin to T. H. Green. The concept of republican freedom has been developed as “a third way”, according to one of its advocates, Philip Pettit. The negative concept of freedom known as a conception favored and defended by classical liberal worldview. The positive concept of freedom stands out as the conception of freedom which is owned by Marxist, socialist and communitarian standpoints. The republican concept of freedom on the other hand is a notion of freedom whose roots are embedded in the Republicanism which has an important place in the history of political thoughts. Accordingly, it is a notion of freedom which is reinforced by approaches like ‘participatory democracy’, ‘deliberative democracy’ and ‘citizen initiative’ and ‘new social movements’. In this article, after the mentioning the basic assumptions of these three conceptions briefly, I will try to explain why positive freedom is intrinsically (therefore necessarily) a paternalistic concept, conception or notion.

Keywords

Negative freedom, Positive Freedom, Republican Freedom, Paternalism, The State