The document discusses different perspectives on the concept of liberty. It outlines several coordinates of liberty, including negative liberty (freedom from constraints), rule of law, political liberty, freedom of choice, autonomy, tolerance, and welfare. It compares how classical conservatism and liberalism versus modern left-wing liberalism link these different coordinates. It also examines ideas around natural rights and equal liberty, and discusses how the ultimate goal of rules should be increasing welfare and freedom of choice since preferences are subjective. Autonomy is discussed as a psychological approach to defining coercion more broadly than just physical aggression.

1. Ceestelibertatea? VladTarko

2. Doua perspective Exista o intelegere “corecta” a libertatii – mizapolitica a discutieidesprelibertate: Intelegerealibertatii => anumiteopiniipolitice Libertatea are maimultecoordonate: care sunt partial complementare carora le dam prioritatidiferite Diferitioameniprioritizeazadiferit => mizapolitica a discutiei se pastreaza 2

3. Istoriaintelegeriilibertatii O abordareistoricafavorizeazaperspectiva “libertatea are maimultecoordonate” Exemple de autori: Orlando Patterson (1992), Freedom, Vol. 1: Freedom in the Making of Western Culture Quentin Skinner (1998), Liberty before Liberalism David Schmidtz and Jason Brennan (2010), A Brief History of Liberty 3

4. Coordonateleconceptului de libertate Libertatea de constrângeri (libertatea negativă); Libertatea sub lege – opusul stării în care ne aflăm la cheremul deciziilor arbitrare ale anumitor persoane; Libertatea politică(independenţa politicăsidemocraţia) – capacitatea de a determina conţinutul regulilor la care suntemsupusi; Libertatea de alegere – abundenţa de opţiuni, opusul rarităţii; Autonomia(libertatea psihologică) – opusul manipulării; Toleranţa– lipsa costurilor semnificative asociate exprimarii identităţii de grup şi protecţia de care se bucură un asemenea grup (apărarea diversităţii); Bunăstarea– cantitatea de bunuri şi servicii de care ne bucurăm. 4

5. Cum se leagaintreelecoordonatelelibertatii? Douaabordari: Conservatorismsiliberalismulclasic: Negativa-> Domnialegii -> Democratie -> Bunastare -> Libertate de alegere Toleranta& Autonomianeglijatesau considerate preocuparipoliticeilegitime Stangasiliberalismul modern: Negativa+ Autonomie -> Domnialegii -> Democratie -> Bunastare (-> Libertate de alegere) + Toleranta 5

6. Cum se leagaintreelecoordonatelelibertatii? Douaabordari: Conservatorismsiliberalismulclasic: Negativa-> Domnialegii -> Democratie -> Bunastare -> Libertate de alegere Toleranta& Autonomianeglijatesau considerate preocuparipoliticeilegitime Stangasiliberalismul modern: Negativa+ Autonomie -> Domnialegii -> Democratie -> Bunastare (-> Libertate de alegere) + Toleranta 6

7. Libertatea de constrangeri “I am normally said to be free to the degree to which no man or body of men interferes with my activity. Political liberty in this sense is simply the area within which a man can act unobstructed by others. If I am prevented by others from doing what I could otherwise do, I am to that degree unfree; and if this area is contracted by other men beyond a certain minimum, I can be described as being coerced, or, it may be, enslaved.” (Berlin) Dacalimiteleconstrangeriisunt bine definite “the difference between aggression and defence to be recognized” (Popper) obtinemideea de piatalibera (Friedman, Buchanan). 7

8. Problema cu conceptul de libertatenegativa “Coercion ... cannot be altogether avoided because the only way to prevent it is by the threat of coercion.” (Hayek) Incercari de rezolvare a problemei: Drepturinaturale (Nozick, Rothbard): limitelelegitime ale coercitieisuntobiective; drepturileexista in sine, si nu in virtuteaunornormesiaranjamentesociale => societateapoate fi criticatapentrucaincalcaacestepresupusedrepturinaturale. Egalitatealibertatii (Kant, Spencer, Mill etc.): o ideeintuitivadargreu de operationalizat Libertatea sub lege (Buchanan etc.): drepturile nu sunt “naturale” sau “obiective”, ci exista in virtuteaunui “contract social” implicit si, in plus, a negocierilorintreparti Libertateapsihologica (existentialistii, darsi Hayek!): definitiacoercitieidoar in sensulagresiuniifiziceesteprearestransa; conceptul de coercitietrebuieintelesintr-un sensmailarg 8

9. Ideea de drepturinaturale “Liberty is the absence of physically coercive interference or invasion of an individual's person and property.” “ownership titles are ‘distributed’, where, in short, no man's property in his person or in tangibles is molested, violated, or interfered with by anyone else. But this means that absolute freedom, in the social sense, can be enjoyed … by every man in any society, no matter how complex or advanced.” (Rothbard) Problema: Conceptulinsusi de “coercitie”, distinctiadintre “agresiune” si “aparare”, e foartegreu de definitclar (vedetiDukeminier et al., Property pentrudescriereamultorcazurireale din justitie) Frauda nu presupuneinitiereafortei (cf. definitiei de maisus) sitotusi e inacceptabila => ideea de contract nu poate fi fundamentaastfel, ci e un concept suplimentar Diferentadintrefrauda, manipularesieroare e fuzzy: Frauda: promiticevasi nu respectipromisiunea Manipulare: ma lasi in mod intentionatsa cred ca-mi promiticeva (sa se subinteleagaceva), dar de faptpromitialtceva Eroare: eu cred in mod gresitca mi-aipromisceva, candtu mi-aipromis de faptaltceva (si n-aiavutintentia de a ma induce in eroare) 9

10. La ce conduce eseculabordarii de tip “drepturinaturale” Relativismulnormelor: Existaintotdeaunaregulisociale de delimitare a “agresiunii” de “aparare”, dar nu exista meta-criteriiobiectivedespremodalitatea “corecta” de delimitare. Ceeste “coercitie” difera de la societate la societatesi diversioameni au opiniidiferite in aceastaprivinta. E.g. neclaritateaideii de “tulburare a linistii/ordiniipublice” Totusi: Existacriteriidespre cum trebuiesa fie procesul de selectare a normelorsi de definire a drepturilor, i.e. existaprocese de alegerecolectivalegitimesirespectivilegitime. 10

11. Egalitatealibertatiisilibertatea sub lege Acceptamca nu poate fi eliminatacoercitiadarimpunemanumiteconditiiasuprafelului in care poate fi exercitata in mod legitim: Trebuiesadecurga din reguliprestabilite – forta nu trebuiesa se manifestediscretionar Regulile nu trebuiesa fie scrise “cu dedicatie”, i.e. trebuiesa fie nedistriminatorii (aceleasiregulipentrutoti) Altfelpusaproblema: putereaautoritatilortrebuielimitata. Definirea “spatiuluiprivat” unde “tot ce nu-i interzis explicit e permis” Stipulareaexhaustiva a puterilorautoritatilorcarora “tot ce nu le estepermis explicit, le esteinterzis” 11

12. Cum facemcaregulilesa fie bune? Separareaputerilor in stat “The fundamental threat to freedom is power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority. The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest possible extent and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated – a system of checks and balances.” (Friedman) Democratie “To govern oneself, to obey laws that one has chosen for oneself, to be self-determining, is a desirable end. … [T]o live in association with others necessarily requires that [people]must sometimes obey collective decisions that are binding on all members of the association. The problem, then, is to discover a way by which the members of an association may make decisions binding on all and still govern themselves. Because democracy maximizes the opportunities for self-determination among the members of an association, it is the best solution.” (Dahl) Foartemult de discutataici: public choice (esecuriledemocratiei) sisocial choice (paradoxurilemecanismelor de agregare a preferintelor) 12

13. Care estescopulultim al regulilor? Bunastarea Bunastare = cat maimultabogatie = oameniisaaibaacces la cat maimultebunurisiserviciipe care le doresc. Analiza cost-beneficii a legilor Relativlimitatadatoritacomplexitatiicelormaimultesituatiisi a dificultatiiidentificariiefectelorneintentionate Evolutionismul legal Descentralizaresiexperimentareinstitutionala Superioritateadreptuluicutumiar Libertatea de alegere 13

14. Subiectivitateapreferintelorsilibertatea de alegere Cum asiguribunastareadacapreferintelesuntsubiective? Raspuns: Crestinumarul de optiunipe care oamenii le au si-i lasipeeisaaleagasinguri. In general oameniistiuce e in interesullor=> bunastareageneralatindesacreascaastfel. Daca ne intoarcem la regulisilegi – o schimbareimportanta de perspectiva: In loccaautoritatilesa se intrebe: 1. “De cebunurisiservicii au oameniinevoie?” sau “Care-i moduloptim de furnizare a serviciului X?” trebuiesa se intrebe: 2. “Celegisporesclibertatea de alegere a cetatenilor?” “Maximizarealibertatii de alegere a omuluiobisnuit” = un criteriu general de abordare a analizeioricareipoliticipublice. 14

15. Cum se leagaintreelecoordonatelelibertatii? Douaabordari: Conservatorismsiliberalismulclasic: Negativa-> Domnialegii -> Democratie -> Bunastare -> Libertate de alegere Toleranta& Autonomianeglijatesau considerate preocuparipoliticeilegitime Stangasiliberalismul modern: Negativa+ Autonomie -> Domnialegii -> Democratie -> Bunastare (-> Libertate de alegere) + Toleranta Autonomie -> Domnialegii Autonomie -> Toleranta 15

16. Autonomia, abordareapsihologica a conceptului de coercitie “By ‘coercion’ we mean such control of the environment or circumstances of a personby another that, in order to avoid greater evil, he is forced to act not according to a coherent plan of his own but to serve the ends of another.” (Hayek) Conform acesteidefinitiifraudasimanipulareadevinsieleforme de coercitie. Ideea de coercitie e deciextinsadincolo de strictaagresiunefizica. De aici Hayek deduce necesitatealibertatii sub lege: Dacarezultateleaplicariilegiisuntimpredictibilecelor care o fac (legiuniversale, dreptateprocedurala), atuncilegeavaprotejaautonomiaindivizilor. Numaiastfellegile nu suntunelte de control siingineriesociala, iarcetatenii nu suntmanipulatisaactionezepentrurealizareaunor “scopurisociale” stabilite de autoritati (e.g. politicile de crestere a natalitatii). 16

17. Ideea de “autenticitate”: Autonomiasilibertatea de alegere Nu oricecrestere a numarului de optiuniesterelevanta, dacaoptiunilesunttoateproaste. Dewey: relevanta e “crestereapotentialului” uneipersoane. Critica de stangaa consumerismuluisau a actiunilorcorporatiilor in lumeatreia. Preamulteoptiuni pot genera confuziesi e casi cum n-ar fi exemple date de Sunstein & Thaler in Nudge Optiunilesuntrelevantedoardaca nu suntprezentate manipulator. Si Milton Friedman acceptaasta: “The possibility of co-ordination through voluntary co-operation rests on the elementary - yet frequently denied - proposition that both parties to an economic transaction benefit from it, provided the transaction is bi-laterally voluntary and informed. Exchange can therefore bring about co-ordination without coercion.” 17

18. De la autonomie la toleranta Democratiapoateveni in contradictie nu numai cu libertateanegativa, ci si cu dorintaminoritatilor de a-simanifesta public apartenenta la grup. Criticaseparariidintre “spatiuprivat” / “spatiu public”: Anumiteforme private de intolerantasidiscriminare pot sa nu fie acceptabilepentrucaobligamembriiminoritatilorsa se comporteneautentic (sa-siascundasausarenunte la identitateape care o au). Definirea “spatiului public” exclusivprinpreferintelemajoritatiiesteintolerantafata de grupuriledefavorizate (e.g. homosexualiivorsieisa se poatasarutasi in public, nu doar in privat). 18

19. Cum se leagaintreelecoordonatelelibertatii? Douaabordari: Conservatorismsiliberalismulclasic: Negativa -> Domnialegii -> Democratie -> Bunastare -> Libertate de alegere Toleranta & Autonomianeglijatesau considerate preocuparipoliticeilegitime Stangasiliberalismul modern: Negativa + Autonomie -> Domnialegii -> Democratie -> Bunastare (-> Libertate de alegere) + Toleranta In ciudaacestorlegaturisicomplementaritatiintrediferitelecoordonate, existacazuri in care apar trade-off-uriintreoricare 2 concepte. Complementaritateadintreele e decidoarpartiala. Celesapteconcepte nu suntreductibileunul la altul. 19

20. Structurareaunordezbateriimportante (1/2) Binelecomun Individualism Negativa Autonomie Libertatea de alegere Bunastare Comunitarianism Democratie Egalitatea in fata legii Toleranta Libertarianism Negativa Pozitiva Autonomie Libertatea de alegere Bunastare 20

21. Structurareaunordezbateriimportante (2/2) Dreptateasociala Proceduri Negativa Autonomie Democratie Egalitate in fata legii Rezultate Numar de optiuni Bunastare Toleranta Stanga vs. Dreapta Conservatori Negativa Libertatea sub lege Libertatea de alegere Progresisti Autonomie Democratie Bunastare Toleranta 21