Most people think freedom is a pretty simple concept: lack of restrictions.
But Isaiah Berlin showed that isn’t true, on the contrary freedom is complicated.
Berlin said the main misconception was that there was just one kind of freedom, when in fact there were two diametrically opposed freedoms: positive and negative.
Positive freedom is the freedom most of us recognise, it is the freedom TO DO something.
But there is another kind: the freedom FROM something.
Berlin said the two freedoms are antithetical: the more you have of one, the less you have of the other.
For instance, a positive freedom would be the freedom for everyone TO carry a gun.
But this would reduce a negative freedom, the freedom FROM gun violence.
To increase the negative freedom FROM gun violence, you would need to ban guns.
But this would decrease the positive freedom TO carry guns.
So when you turn the dial up on one freedom, you turn it down on the other.
By increasing the positive freedom TO drive as fast as you want, you decrease the negative freedom FROM road accidents.
By increasing the negative freedom FROM road accidents, you decrease the positive freedom TO drive fast.
This is what Berlin meant by the two freedoms being antithetical.
The positive freedom for everyone TO make as much money as they want means some people will become fantastically rich.
But it also means they will have more than the average, so some people must go without.
Which means it removes the negative freedom FROM hunger and poverty.
If we decide on equality for everyone we increase the negative freedom FROM poverty, but we decrease the positive freedom TO get more money by working harder.
This is obviously the conflict between extreme capitalism and extreme communism.
But the conflict between the two freedoms isn’t just economic.
What bearing does this conflict between the two freedoms have on what we do?
Well the freedom TO make advertising that everyone enjoys and admire means a concentration on quality and time to produce it.
But that means more money spent on making the advertising, which means less freedom to make massive profits.
Conversely, the freedom TO make advertising as cheaply and poorly as possible removes the freedom FROM boredom and irritation.
Then again, the freedom TO make advertising that is innovative and exciting reduces the freedom FROM insecurity, where advertising must be predictable.
But increasing the freedom FROM insecurity means only running ads that have had been made predictable, so they are dull.
The freedom TO be different and to stand out decreases the freedom FROM feeling insecure by being different.
But the freedom FROM feeling insecure, means reducing the freedom TO DO something that’s innovative and unexpected.
So Isaiah Berlin was right, it’s always a conflict between the two freedoms.
Neither is right or wrong, but it is always a choice.
Sometimes the right choice is the freedom TO do something unusual, sometimes the right choice is the freedom FROM taking a risk.
The only choice that’s wrong is to pretend that it isn’t a choice.
To pretend that we can have it both ways.
That’s how we fool ourselves, and that is always the wrong choice.