Scribd
Upload
6 views3 pages

Script

The document explores whether a totalitarian state can protect its citizens' liberty, concluding that it can under a specific understanding of positive liberty, as defined by Isaiah Berlin. It argues that even in a utopian totalitarian scenario, freedom remains conditional due to the potential for authoritarian structures to disguise control as protection. The discussion highlights the complexities of coercion and moral frameworks that can undermine both positive and negative liberty.

Uploaded by

alanaoliveira0109
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
6 views3 pages

Script

The document explores whether a totalitarian state can protect its citizens' liberty, concluding that it can under a specific understanding of positive liberty, as defined by Isaiah Berlin. It argues that even in a utopian totalitarian scenario, freedom remains conditional due to the potential for authoritarian structures to disguise control as protection. The discussion highlights the complexities of coercion and moral frameworks that can undermine both positive and negative liberty.

Uploaded by

alanaoliveira0109
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Name: Alana Oliveira de Araújo

Group: Tuesday 9:30-10:20

POLI3060 Sex, drugs and the limits of liberalism handout

Question: Could a totalitarian state protect its citizens’ liberty?


Answer: No, a totalitarian state can’t protect its citizens’ liberty outside utopian hypotheticals.

Could a totalitarian state protect its citizens’ liberty? At first glance, the answer seems obvious:
no. Totalitarianism is synonymous with oppression, control, and the erosion of freedom. But
what if the answer is more complicated? What if, in some twisted way, a totalitarian state could
claim to protect liberty—not by expanding it, maybe by redefining it?

My answer to this question is yes—a totalitarian state can protect its citizens’ liberty. However,
this protection is contingent on a specific understanding of liberty, one that aligns with what
philosopher Isaiah Berlin termed positive liberty— To support this answer, I will present three
main arguments:

1. Even in a utopian scenario, authoritarianism renders freedom conditional, as structures


of power can masquerade as freedom while undermining true liberty.
2. Coercion, though seemingly antithetical to liberty, can be necessary to prevent chaos
and protect a form of liberty, but it risks systemic oppression if the ruler’s intentions do
not align with the people’s.
3. In addition, clerical power and moral frameworks, in history, often tied to absolutist monarchies,
undermine positive liberty.

Before we get into the arguments, it is important to understand the concepts of positive and negative
liberty.

Let’s start with positive liberty. Positive liberty is the freedom of perspective, it is internal and reliant on
self mastery. This concept is well illustrated through Plato’s first visit to Sicily. Even prior to the
founding of the academy, Plato found himself in Syracuse, where he’d become the instructor to Dion,
intending to turn him into a “philosopher king”.

From questionable sources, or, as legends tell, Dion ends up selling Plato into slavery out of annoyance
towards his claims that “a just man is a free man” whether he’s a king or a slave. Plato’s notion that true
liberty is unaffected by outside influences ties to the concept of positive liberty, the one that Berlin
defines as “self-mastery”. A freedom that relies entirely on the individual’s internal workings.

Negative freedom, on the other hand, is a lot more simple, and refers to one’s ability to act in accordance
to their own will with no outside interference.
4.
My first argument is that even in an idealized, utopian totalitarian state, freedom remains
conditional. This is because authoritarian structures of power can disguise themselves as
protectors of liberty while simultaneously reducing what Isaiah Berlin called negative liberty—the
absence of external interference.

For example, picture a ruler that is benevolent, yet it is fundamentally authoritarian. He does not
interfere with the livelihoods of his citizens, and doesn’t seem to wish to do so. The citizens
under his rule may feel free, but their freedom is contingent on his will. This illustrates how
power structures can create the illusion of freedom while maintaining control.

To illustrate this notion, I cited philosopher Quentin Skinner, from our conjunct reading, who
further highlights this paradox with the example of the “uncoerced slave.” Even if a slave is not
actively coerced, they remain under the constant threat of their master’s power.

Similarly, in a totalitarian state, even if the state does not actively interfere in citizens’ lives, the
mere possibility of arbitrary power turns liberty —- conditional.

Now let’s analyse a second case.

The temple of Sarastro, a metaphor of enlightened despotism —- the benevolent ruler is still not
a synonym of absolute liberty.

From a paternalistic standpoint, a higher power may protect its citizens’ liberties by restricting
liberties that disrupt social order, this logic assumes that the state “knows better”, and that by
imposing the rule of law a state may free its subjects from the state of nature. To begin with, this
notion naturally undermines the negative liberty of some, even if it protects that of others to an
extent. In addition, for this logic to work, it is necessary to assume that the state is fair and
shares the same intentions as its citizens. As Isaiah Berlin mentioned on page 27 of our
common reading, Coercion without equality may lead to systemic oppression.

Up to this point, we’ve discussed how liberty can be limited in a State of non-interference.
However, how does the state influence affect positive liberty? Is such a metaphysical concept
palpable enough to be reduced by state factors?

The answer is yes. enforced moral frameworks, such as those imposed by religious or
ideological authorities, can limit positive liberty—the freedom to act according to one’s will.
Hobbes, for example, argues that the rule of action, through religion or propaganda, extends to
the very thoughts of men.

That can be explained by the very nature of men, as hobbes illustrated, a man’s nature to care
for himself compels him not to hazard his soul in detriment of his own judgement.

All things considered, I conclude that under utopian circumstances, where there is no imposed
moral framework, a totalitarian state could protect its citizens’ liberty from the state of nature.
However that liberty is limited to Berlin’s interpretation of positive liberty, as negative liberty
would remain conditional and subject to state interference.

You might also like