Author: Afiya Adhem Nawaz Khan, Pes University
Introduction
The concept of liberty has long held a central place in philosophical, political, and legal discourse. Far from being a straightforward ideal, liberty is a complex and contested principle, derived from the Latin word liber, meaning free or independent (Liberty, 2025). While often celebrated as the cornerstone of individual autonomy and societal progress, liberty is frequently misunderstood as the simple absence of all constraints. It has inspired profound debates, revolutionary movements, and legal frameworks across history, fueling struggles for autonomy and justice in societies worldwide.
Traditionally, liberty is associated with the absence of oppressive restrictions, enabling individuals to act according to their own judgment and interests. Yet, this notion immediately raises essential questions: Does true liberty truly equate to a life without any boundaries, or is it inherently shaped or enabled by certain constraints?
The pursuit of unrestricted freedom, while alluring, can paradoxically lead to new forms of dependence, inequality, or even disorder suggesting that boundaries and responsibilities may be intrinsic to any workable theory of liberty (“Political Theory and Thought: Western and Indian Traditions,”)
Many philosophers distinguish between negative liberty (freedom from external interference) and positive liberty (the capacity to realize one’s potential and act autonomously).
Capitalism, as the dominant economic system in many societies, fundamentally shapes what people perceive as liberty. At its core, capitalism ties liberty to economic freedom: the ability to own property, make contracts, choose employment, and freely engage in markets. However, this version of liberty is closely linked to one’s economic standing and access to resources.Moreover, the legal and economic contexts in which liberty is defined, especially within capitalist societies, strongly shape who possesses liberty, how it is granted, and who ultimately benefits from it.
Abstract
This paper critically examines the modern conception of liberty, questioning the widely accepted notion that liberty simply equates to the absence of constraint. Through philosophical, legal, and socio-economic lenses, it argues that contemporary interpretations of liberty—particularly within capitalist and libertarian frameworks—are distorted to function as privileges reserved for the few rather than universal rights accessible to all. Central to this distortion is the influence of praxeological thinking from Austrian economics, which conceals ideological assumptions beneath an abstract, anti-empirical method that redefines liberty as inherently tied to private property and individual autonomy, while ignoring structural inequalities and historical context. Through this exploration, the paper exposes how liberty, when stripped of material and institutional support, becomes a tool of domination rather than empowerment.
Legal Jargons
Liberty
The concepts of positive liberty and negative liberty were first distinguished by Sir Isaiah Berlin in his influential 1991 essay, “Two Concepts of Liberty.” Essentially, Berlin differentiated between two ways of thinking about freedom. (Mahajan & Mahajan, 2018)
Positive liberty is the possession of the power and resources to act upon one’s free will and to realize one’s fundamental purposes. It entails not only the absence of external constraints but also the presence of conditions enabling individuals to actively shape their own lives. Positive liberty emphasizes autonomy, self-determination, and the possibility for self-realization, often facilitated by societal or state support (“Positive and Negative Liberty,” 2021)
Negative liberty refers to freedom from external obstacles, barriers, or interference. It is the absence of constraints or coercion imposed by others, particularly the state or individuals allowing the person to act as they wish within a given sphere (“Positive and Negative Liberty,” 2021)
Praxeology as Ideological Justification for Absolute Liberty
Praxeology, as famously advocated by Ludwig von Mises and other Austrian economists, claims to uncover immutable a priori laws of human action derived “from first principles,” without recourse to empirical verification. This approach mirrors the libertarian conception of liberty i.e., not as a social condition to be cultivated and constrained for the public good, but as an absolute, formal, self-evident fact of individual action. (Sandifer, 2017)
Praxeologists assert that social and economic order arises spontaneously from uncoerced individual action, therefore, any constraint, especially by the state or collective institutions, is inherently a distortion or violation of “natural” liberty. In dismissing the need for context, history, and empirical observation, praxeology enables its practitioners to treat existing inequalities or hierarchies (results of capitalist and property-based liberty) as natural, timeless, and beyond critique. This is a form of the “distorted liberty” my topic interrogates: a liberty defined by abstraction and exclusion, rather than by material social conditions.
Praxeology, a school of thought, rejects any attempts to mitigate economic exclusion through measures like redistributive laws, regulations, or collective bargaining. It views such interventions as illegitimate constraints on individual liberty. In doing so, praxeology effectively defends existing inequalities, reframing what might be considered privileges as inherent or “natural freedoms.” This perspective, therefore, can be seen as structurally limiting the freedom of the majority by opposing efforts to create a more equitable distribution of resources or opportunities. (Sandifer, 2017)
Praxeology promotes an a-historical universalism, asserting that the principles of liberty and a market economy apply everywhere, regardless of historical or social circumstances. This allows its proponents to overlook how “liberty” often functions as a privilege under capitalism, meaning that unchecked freedom for some necessitates limitations for others.
By arguing that any constraint is against liberty, praxeological ideology either denies or rationalizes the restrictions that come from unequal power, inherited advantages, or systemic coercion, all of which are vital considerations for a comprehensive understanding of freedom. It frames efforts to re-distribute liberty as attacks on freedom itself, while simultaneously ignoring the legal and social structures that protect the advantages of the wealthy. This approach ultimately justifies current inequalities by obscuring their historical and political roots, effectively redefining liberty as something primarily for a select few, and rightfully so.
The Proofs
Socio-economic hierarchies significantly restrict the practical enjoyment of liberty. Legal systems often promise universal rights, but in practice, those with greater resources or higher social status have broader real-world freedoms.
As inequality increases, so does the selective enforcement of the law, benefiting the wealthy and powerful while the disadvantaged remain vulnerable. The very machinery meant to guarantee liberty instead sustains hierarchy and exclusion, making the promise of liberty largely illusory for the poor and marginalized.
Society often reacts vastly differently to the same horrific act, depending on the social standing of those involved. For instance, while rape is always a heinous crime, the public response can vary dramatically. We frequently witness massive protests and widespread condemnation when an upper-caste woman is raped by a lower-caste man. However, when a lower-caste woman is raped by an upper-caste man, there’s often a deafening silence and little to no public outrage. (Jeevan P.)
This stark contrast highlights a deeply troubling societal issue: one scenario is perceived as a shocking transgression, an “outrage,” while the other is tragically seen as almost normal, easily overlooked, and therefore often ignored. When individuals from dominant castes or classes commit acts of violence, the very systems that grant them privilege often shield them from accountability. This disparity profoundly impacts the concept of liberty. True liberty should extend to everyone, ensuring equal protection and justice regardless of social standing. (Queiroz, 2018). However, this selective outrage and the impunity enjoyed by the privileged demonstrate that liberty is often distorted, applied unequally, and denied to those who are already marginalized.
“The entire police and judicial systems are designed for the protection of those at the top of these hierarchies and their properties, and these legal systems are utilized for maintenance of these oppressive hierarchies…” (Jeevan P.)
Specific Examples of Bias
Persistent social and economic inequality leads to the invisibility of the poor, the demonization of dissenters, and the legal immunity of the privileged. This erodes the core ideal of equal legal protection and makes liberty a substantive reality mostly for those with status and wealth.
Marginalized communities often face harsher penalties and more frequent policing, even for minor offenses. In stark contrast, financial crimes committed by the rich frequently go unpunished, highlighting a clear double standard.
Legal systems are designed to prioritize the protection of property, which inherently benefits those who already possess assets. This structure effectively disadvantages and disenfranchises those without property.
Freedom of Speech and Assembly, while theoretically protected for everyone, the reality is different. Protests by the underprivileged are far more likely to be met with legal repression, surveillance, and intimidation, effectively curtailing their right to free expression and assembly.
Conclusion
This paper challenges the common belief that liberty simply means freedom from limitations. Instead, it argues that such a narrow view actually distorts the true meaning of freedom and restricts it to a select group.
Through philosophical exploration, legal analysis, and real-world examples, the paper demonstrates that in many modern societies, liberty isn’t a universal right enjoyed equally by everyone. Rather, it’s heavily influenced by socio-economic status, class power, and unequal access to legal and institutional resources.
Furthermore, ideologies like praxeology worsen this distortion. They present liberty as a purely individual concept tied to property, detached from social realities and resistant to evidence-based examination. This kind of rhetoric not only hides the underlying power imbalances but also legitimizes systemic inequality. In essence, it allows the freedom of a few to be preserved by limiting the liberty of many.
To rectify this inequality and ensure liberty becomes a genuine, shared reality, several measures are necessary. First, the law must be interpreted and practiced in a way that upholds substantive, not just formal, equality. Legal aid must be universal. Second, social and economic policies must provide the necessary foundation for all individuals to meaningfully exercise their freedoms including access to healthcare, education, housing, and fair employment. Third, lawmaking should democratize, reflecting the needs and voices of the broader public rather than only the privileged few. These are just some of the vital steps needed to move towards a more inclusive and equitable understanding and experience of liberty for all.
FAQs
1. How is “liberty” defined in this paper, and how does this compare to common or legal definitions?
In this paper, liberty is understood not merely as the absence of external constraint but as a complex social condition that includes the material ability and opportunity to act . This definition challenges the classical liberal and legalist view that liberty is a static, individual right protected by minimal state interference. The paper argues that liberty, in reality, is shaped by one’s social and economic position, and therefore must be contextualized.
2. How are concepts like positive and negative liberty distinguished, and why is this distinction important?
Negative liberty is defined as the absence of external interference on the other hand, positive liberty is defined as the freedom to realize one’s own potential. The distinction is crucial because it shows that liberty is not just about not being stopped but also about being able to act meaningfully. Focusing only on negative liberty overlooks the enabling role of state, law, and social institutions in ensuring people can actually use their freedom.
3. What role does capitalism, praxeology, or legal ideology play in shaping concepts of liberty?
Capitalism and praxeology are shown to redefine liberty as personal autonomy tied to private property and free markets. Praxeology, by rejecting empiricism and context, frames liberty as something that arises from individual behavior, not structural conditions. This logic justifies hierarchy and inequality by claiming that any state intervention is a violation of liberty, even when such interventions would broaden liberty in material terms.
4. Does the paper successfully demonstrate that liberty operates more as a privilege than a right for all?
Yes, through philosophical critique and empirical insight, the paper demonstrates that liberty, while legally framed as universal, is experienced as a privilege by those with resources, education, and influence. Those without these tools find their rights restricted or unenforceable.
5. How does acknowledging the material realities of liberty change one’s understanding of rights and freedoms?
It highlights that rights can’t be fully understood or exercised in a vacuum. Acknowledging material barriers such as poverty, homelessness, systemic bias makes clear that “freedom” must be actively built and defended through institutions, not just assumed to exist the moment restrictions are lifted.
6. How do the arguments relate to current civil rights, inequality, or state-power debates?
They strongly relate. Debates about protest rights, police abolition, wealth gaps, and access to healthcare all hinge on questions of who really enjoys liberty. The paper illuminates these issues by asserting that unless justice addresses structural inequality, liberty stagnates as an illusion.
References
Federal Defenders of New York. (n.d.).
Jeevan, P. Liberty without Equality is Privilege and Injustice, Equality without Liberty is Slavery and Brutality.
Liberty. (2025, 06 25). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty
Mahajan, D. K., & Mahajan, D. M. (2018). Understanding Liberty. Political Theory and Thought: Western and Indian Traditions.
Political Theory and Thought: Western and Indian Traditions. Political Science, 12.
Positive and Negative Liberty. (2021). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Queiroz, R. (2018). Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. Individual liberty and the importance of the concept of the people.
Sandifer, P. (2017). Neoreaction a Basilisk Essays On and Around the Alt-Right. Eruditorum Press.
