Freedom is the power or right to speak, act, and change as one wants without hindrance or restraint. Freedom is often associated withliberty andautonomy in the sense of "giving oneself one's own laws".[1]
In one definition, something is "free" if it can change and is not constrained in its present state. Physicists and chemists use the word in this sense.[2] In its origin, the English word "freedom" relates etymologically to the word "friend".[2]Philosophy andreligion sometimes associate it withfree will, as an alternative todeterminism orpredestination.[3]
In modernliberal nations, freedom is considered a right, especiallyfreedom of speech,freedom of religion, andfreedom of the press.
In political discourse,political freedom is often associated with liberty and autonomy, and a distinction is made between countries that are free ofdictatorships. In the area ofcivil rights, a strong distinction is made between freedom andslavery and there is conflict between people who think all races, religions, genders, and social classes should be equally free and people who think freedom is the exclusive right of certain groups. Frequently discussed arefreedom of assembly,freedom of association,freedom of choice, and freedom of speech.
Sometimes the terms denoting to "freedom" and "liberty" are used interchangeably.[4][5] Sometimes subtle distinctions are made between "freedom" and "liberty"[6]John Stuart Mill, for example, differentiated liberty from freedom in that freedom is primarily, if not exclusively, the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do, whereas liberty concerns the absence of arbitrary restraints and takes into account the rights of all involved. As such, the exercise of liberty is subject to capability and limited by the rights of others.[7]
Isaiah Berlin made a distinction between "positive" freedom and "negative" freedom in his seminal 1958 lecture"Two concepts of liberty".Charles Taylor elaborates thatnegative liberty means an ability to do what one wants, without external obstacles andpositive liberty is the ability to fulfill one's purposes.[8][9] Another way to describe negative liberty is freedomfrom limiting forces (such asfreedom from fear,freedom from want, andfreedom from discrimination), but descriptions of freedom and liberty generally do not invoke having libertyfrom anything.[5]
Wendy Hui Kyong Chun explains these differences in terms of their relation to institutions:
Liberty is linked to human subjectivity; freedom is not. The Declaration of Independence, for example, describes men as having liberty and the nation as being free. Free will—the quality of being free from the control of fate or necessity—may first have been attributed to human will, butNewtonian physics attributes freedom—degrees of freedom,free bodies—to objects.[10]
Freedom differs from liberty as control differs from discipline. Liberty, like discipline, is linked to institutions and political parties, whether liberal or libertarian; freedom is not. Although freedom can work for or against institutions, it is not bound to them—it travels through unofficial networks. To have liberty is to be liberated from something; to be free is to be self-determining, autonomous. Freedom can or cannot exist within a state of liberty: one can be liberated yetunfree, orfree yet enslaved (Orlando Patterson has argued inFreedom: Freedom in the Making of Western Culture that freedom arose from the yearnings of slaves).[10]
Freedom from domination was considered byPhillip Pettit,Quentin Skinner andJohn P. McCormick as a defining aspect of freedom.[11][12] While operative control is the ability to direct ones actions on a day-to-day basis, that freedom can depend on the whim of another, also known asreserve control. Phillip Petit andJamie Susskind argue that both operative and reserve control are needed for democracy and freedom.[13][14]
