Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

only "negative" but, as Hayek points out, it "refers
solely to a relation of men to·other men, and the inf
r i n gementon itis coe r c ion by 0 the r me n • " ( 37 ) De fin ­
ing freedom in this fashion means that in a libertarian
society everyone would have an equal amount of freedom,
i.e., the right to engage in any non-violent activity
they desired. But it is important to realize that this
does not mean that everyone would have an equal abil i ty
to use that freedom. While the poor would have the
same amount of freedom as the wealthy, the range of opt
ions is undoubtedly more 1 iroi ted for the poor than the
wealthy. Unlike the wealthy, the prospect of an ocean
cruise on the Car ibbean or a vacation on the French
R i v i era w0 u I d not be wi t h i n the ran g e of effect i ve
choice for most poor. The cognition that the ability
to use one's freedom is partly a function of one's economic
position is probably what Harold Laski meant by
his remark that "liberty in a laissez faire society is
attainable only by those who have the wealth or
opportunity to attainit."(38)
Not only Harold Laski, but "progressives" such as
J. R. Commons and John Dewey and "idealists" such as T.
H. Green also define freedom as the "effective power
t 0 do s p e c i f i c t h ings ," thereby viewing itin t e r mS 0 f
the number of options open to a person. Libertarians,
however, maintain a strict distinction between the absence
of coercion and the power or ability to engage
ins p e c i f i c t hi ngs, and res e r vethe t e r m "f r e e dom" for
the former. While acknowledging that the range of opt
ions open to an individual is an important question,
it is, argues Hayek, not synonymous with freedom:
the roc k eli mb e ron a d iff i cuI·t pit c h wh 0
seeson Iyone wa y ou t to s a ve his I i f e i sunques
t i onably free, though we would hardly say
he has any choice. Also most people will
st i II have enough feel ing for the original
use of the word "free" to see that if the
same cl imber were to fall into a crevasse and
were unable to get out of it, he could only
fig u rat i vel Y be called "un f r e e ,n and t hat t 0
speak of him as being "deprived of liberty"
or of being "held captive" is to use these
t e r msin a sensed ifferen t from t hat in wh i c h
they apply in social relations.(39)
Since in a libertarian society no one would have the
right to initiate violence, such a society would, aee
0 r din g t 0 Ro t hbar d , be "t 0 tally f r e e . " That is, si nc e
240