The relationship between law and liberty is a fundamental aspect of a well-organized society. Liberty can be broadly defined as an environment in which individuals have the opportunity to fully develop themselves. This atmosphere of liberty is created and maintained when the State secures and guarantees rights that are necessary for the maximum development of individual capacities. Law plays a pivotal role in this context, as liberty is inherently legal. Without law, true liberty cannot exist. As Barker succinctly puts it, “liberty and law do not quarrel.”
However, there are some scholars, such as Mill, Humboldt, and Spencer, who view liberty, law, and authority as contradictory concepts. According to their perspective, the state should minimize its interference in individual lives. The only valid reason for the state to exercise its sovereign powers and restrict individual freedom is “to prevent harm to others.” In matters concerning himself, the individual should be sovereign, as Mill argued in his essay “On Liberty.” Consequently, less legislation leads to greater individual liberty.
This viewpoint, which considers law as inimical to liberty, is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of liberty and the individual’s relationship with society. It erroneously places the individual as paramount and assumes that the individual shapes the character of society. In reality, the individual’s character is significantly influenced by the society to which they belong. Furthermore, society and the individual are not distinct entities; society is the collective sum of its individual members, each interdependent and interconnected. The distinction made by Mill between “self-regarding” and “other-regarding actions” is, in practice, meaningless, as most actions have some impact on others. Therefore, an individual’s conduct is an integrated whole, subject to control and regulation.
Hence, liberty cannot be absolute, unconditional, or unregulated. Every individual’s freedom must be relative to that of others, and their liberties should be adjusted accordingly. Unrestricted and unregulated liberty amounts to mere license, providing the strong with opportunities to oppress the weak. Liberty, under all circumstances, must be rationed. This rationing of liberty is achieved through law, aiming to make it accessible to all. The law determines and defines liberty based on the need for each individual to enjoy similar and equal liberty with others and the need for all to realize specific capacities. State action, wisely organized and directed, increases individual liberty rather than diminishing it. As Hobhouse observes, the entire challenge of establishing liberty has evolved into a problem of organizing restrictions. As Laski aptly notes, “Liberty involves restraints in its nature.”
In conclusion, law and liberty are not contradictory terms but rather correlative. An “excess of liberty,” as Hobhouse points out, “contradicts itself.” The interplay between law and liberty is crucial in shaping a just and balanced society.