The classical liberal Benjamin Constant noticed a worrisome confusion over ancient and modern liberty during his life. With a clear understanding of the difference, he used his knowledge to write the infamous essay, The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with That of the Moderns. In its most basic form, everyone agrees that liberty is good, but we often disagree about, specifically, what it means. If you were to ask an American on the streets of New York, Houston, Miami, or Raleigh what liberty was, how would they define it? Some might answer, “The ability to do what I want.” Others may say, “The freedom to exercise my rights granted in the constitution.” The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines liberty as, “The state of being free, and the power of choice.” Benjamin Constant believed there was a difference between modern and ancient liberty. The two are not the same, and problems surface when they aren’t distinguished as independent from each other. This essay will explore Constant’s essay, the differences between modern and ancient liberty, and why ancient liberty is insufficient for communal well-being.
First, what is ancient liberty? In Greece, it meant governmental participation. All of the governments around the world were monarchies (the rule of a king) or oligarchies/aristocracies (the rule of the elite). The end result was a few ruling over many. The people’s interests often became neglected for the elite’s betterment. However, many of the Greece city-states like Athens had a different government, where the overall population received a voice in their government.
What do I mean by that? It wasn’t a representative government like the Congress in America, but all the citizens could vote and participate in discussions surrounding war. Moreover, the citizens were free to examine, criticize, and remove the magistrates from power if they neglected their duties. By all the simplest understandings, the people had power, since a public officer who was found delinquent could be stripped of his authority and ostracized. Unfortunately, this was a double-edged sword. Innocent politicians, and even civilians, could be ostracized by a popular vote without any evidence against them. The ancients defined liberty as participation and a voice in public affairs, which gave the whole group more importance than the individual.
Unlike the ancients, we understand modern liberty as the rule of law and the freedom to exercise our rights within the bounds of the law. Principally, the government or the populous cannot infringe on the law at the expense of one of their citizens. All individuals are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If their actions don’t infringe on the law or other people’s rights, they are free to do whatever they want, regardless of what the populous thinks. Modern liberty is appalled by the thought of someone being ostracized for no reason, simply because the mob wants it. That is not liberty, that is tyranny of the many.
While ancient liberty meant the citizens had rights as a member of the people, modern liberty means we have rights as individuals. The difference between ancient and modern liberty is drastic. In modern liberty, nobody is above the law; but in ancient liberty, the people are the law. As one can see, that definition of liberty became insufficient for the moderns who wanted something more concrete, that didn’t depend on the whims of a dictator or a mob.
The United States of America and so much of the Western world adopted modern liberty. Why? After centuries of fighting tyranny, they came to one conclusion. They wanted to be governed by the rule of law, not the rule of men.
Asher Sisneros 