The important concept of liberty in the modern sense gradually took shape with the emergence of enlightenment thoughts. With the advancement of modernization and the market economy as well as the arrival of secularization and the mass era, it gradually became the orientation of behavior that is generally recognized by members of society. Liberty is an important concept and a major symbol of modern human civilization, and it is also an important supporting concept for social justice in the modern sense. The basic purpose of social development is to enable every member of society to develop freely and comprehensively. At the same time, liberty has a wide and far-reaching influence on modern society, and it is an important driving force for the development of modern society. Freedom is so important that Marx believes “free conscious activity” is characteristic of the human species (Marx and Engels 1979). He says, “Freedom is so much the essence of man that even its opponents implement it while combating its reality… No man combats freedom; at most he combats the freedom of others. Hence every kind of freedom has always existed, only at one time as a special privilege, at another as a universal right” (Marx and Engels 1956). As Marx states in the Communist Manifesto, in an ideal society, “we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all” (Marx and Engels 1974).

1 The Definition, Characteristics, and Types of Liberty

Liberty mainly means that, within the scope of reasonable laws, members of society can do what they want without being restricted and forced by others. Locke believes that liberty refers to “a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature” (Locke 1964). Montesquieu says, “Liberty is the right to do everything that the laws permit” (de Montesquieu 1777).

More specifically, the meaning of liberty can be further refined. In terms of individual behavior, the meanings of freedom are “first, that the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself… Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishment, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection” (Mill 2001). In terms of basic institutional arrangements, freedom means that “coercion of some by others is reduced to as much as is possible in society” (Hayek 1987). Freedom, equality, and social cooperation constitute the basic conceptual basis of social justice.

Freedom has the following important characteristics:

First, individuality.

The subject of free behavior is the individual, and the individual is the basic starting point of free behavior. It is very important to clarify this issue. In this regard, there is a significant difference between traditional society and modern society. In traditional society, members of society can only be oriented toward God or society as a whole, so freedom could not become a universal behavior of the people. In modern society, with the improvement of the people’s productivity and cognitive level, their sense of autonomy is constantly awakening. In particular, the implementation of the market economy means that every member of society is a natural person competing on equal footing, so individual consciousness is bound to be generally formed and constantly strengthened. Countless individuals with self-awareness constitute modern society. The reason why the state and the collective are very important is that they can protect the basic rights of every individual. It is in this sense that modern society is based on countless individuals with equal rights. In such a society, the former consciousness of “subject” and “people” will inevitably disappear and freedom, as a universal phenomenon, will emerge.

Second, autonomy.

This feature mainly refers to the subjectivity and independence of an individual’s choice of his own behavior. This feature is a logical, further extension of the feature of freedom and individuality. Traditional society is a hierarchical society, in which the majority of people with low status show obvious dependence on the dominant minority and have no right to decide their own behavior. In this sense, Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s generalization is reasonable: “As regards the associates, they collectively take the name of people, and are individually called citizens as being participants in sovereign authority, and subjects as being bound by the laws of the state” (Rousseau 1994). In medieval western society, serfs were highly dependent on their masters, and everything they owned belonged to their masters. They were bought, sold, or transferred by their masters at will, and their descendants had to inherit this identity. In traditional Chinese society, most members of society also showed an obvious personal dependence. They either unconditionally accepted the instructions of the emperor as subjects or unconditionally accepted the instructions of their elders as the younger generation. However, in modern society, as people enhanced their individual independence consciousness, they have become their own master. “Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual”(Mill 2001). Because of this, every member of society has the right to decide his own behavior within the scope of the law. “It must be admitted that each person preserves a part of his rights, which is decided by himself and not by others” (de Spinoza 2007).

Third, rationality.

Liberty does not equate to doing whatever you want. Rationality should be an important criterion of freedom. Because the people’s freedom should be restrained, it requires rational guidance. Freedom should be a rational freedom. Rousseau believed that people should not “mistake for liberty an unbridled licence which is the opposite of freedom” (Rousseau 1985). Locke points out: “We are born free, as we are born rational, and the liberty of acting according to our own will, never from compulsion by the will of others, is grounded on the possession of reason” (Locke 1982). It should be noted that in modern society, because people make their behavior choices independently and at will, and their will is diverse, it is necessary to formulate a series of rules to determine people’s behavior boundaries, so as to avoid unnecessary conflicts. The institutionalization of this series of rules system is the legal system. Thus, rational freedom inevitably requires building a society ruled by law.

Fourth, diversity.

Since it is individual-oriented, respects the selectivity of individuals, and emphasizes rationality, the idea of liberty will necessarily respect and accommodate the differences that members of society have formed in accordance with nature. This is very different from the practice of traditional society. In traditional society, emphasis was placed on the uniformity of ideas, behaviors, and lifestyles, and those with non-mainstream ideas were often restricted, forcibly changed, suppressed, or outlawed. Modern society, however, has tolerance for the diverse behaviors and values of its members. Compared to equality, freedom focuses on the recognition that “all men are born different” and, by extension, it focuses on the inclusion of all legitimate differences among members of society. Admittedly, difference is an important characteristic that is inherent in human beings and manifests humanity. As Mill states: “Human beings are not like sheep; and even sheep are not undistinguishably alike. A man cannot get a coat or a pair of boots to fit him unless they are either made to his measure, or he has a whole warehouseful to choose from; and is it easier to fit him with a life than with a coat, or are human beings more like one another in their whole physical and spiritual conformation than in the shape of their feet?”(Mill 2001). If there are no differences in values, wishes, behaviors, and lifestyles among members of society, there will be no social vitality, and a modern society that is harmonious yet different and colorful will not exist. “If the differences are not very important, then freedom is not very important and the idea of individual worth is not very important” (Hayek 1987). In addition, the idea of liberty respects some reasonable differences of individuals in socioeconomic aspects. It also means respecting people’s legitimate differences. Various factors impact an individual’s circumstances, for example, their endowments, abilities, social circumstances, living environment, and accessibility to opportunities. Thus, people have different opportunities and varied development prospects. This means that they produce different results and have different levels of wealth, prestige, and status.

Fifth, desirability.

Desirability is a necessary expression of human nature. It is a matter of the personal, private sphere and a matter of autonomous choice, and therefore reflects the proper meaning of the idea of freedom. From the perspective of human nature, the needs, personalities, specific environments, and lifestyles of members of society are very different. Their specific goals, interests, expectations, satisfaction, and measures formed on this basis also vary widely. Moreover, the more modernized and market-oriented the society is, the more the people’s natures can be revealed and released, and the greater the differences among them will be. Clearly, it is difficult for people to adapt to a unified arrangement, because it is against human nature and does not conform to historical growth. Free choice of the will may not seem to be a big problem to some, but it can be very important for specific members of society.

The diversity characteristic of freedom emphasizes the tolerance between people from a social point of view, while desirability emphasizes the proper choice of individuals from a personal point of view. Desirability is an important part and measure of freedom; if this point is ignored, freedom cannot be said to be complete and concrete.

From different perspectives, freedom can be roughly divided into the following different types. From the perspective of the fields involved, there are intellectual, economic, political, and social freedoms. From the perspective of being active or not, there are “negative” and “positive” freedoms. “Negative freedom” and “positive freedom” can be respectively generalized into the patterns “freedom from…” and “freedom to do…”. According to Isaiah Berlin, “negative freedom” is involved in the answer to the question, “What is the area within which the subject – a person or group of persons – is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons?” (Berlin 2002). The main significance of “negative freedom” is that “we must preserve a minimum area of personal freedom if we are not to ‘degrade or deny our nature.’” “Positive freedom” is involved in the answer to the question “What, or who, is the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that?” (Berlin 2002). The main significance of “positive freedom” is that individuals are able to act depending on themselves and be their own masters. Thirdly, from the perspective of whether freedom is in modern society, there are “the liberty of the ancients” and “the liberty of the moderns.” Benjamin Constant explains in his classic works: “Among the ancients the individual, almost always sovereign in public affairs, was a slave in all his private relations… Among the moderns, on the contrary, the individual, independent in his private life, is, even in the freest of states, sovereign only in appearance” (Constant 1988).

In addition to the above classifications of freedom, the author believes that, from the perspective of social transformation, there are also two types of freedom: “disorderly freedom” and “institutionally guaranteed freedom.” From the perspective of time, these two types of freedom are successively connected.

“Disorderly freedom” often appears in the early stage of social transformation. In a period of rapid social transformation, there is often a situation where, with the breakup of the original ideological framework and constraints and the disintegration of the original economic system, the old rule system does not work effectively while the new rule system is not established in time, and a “rule vacuum” appears in society that loses control in some aspects. In such a situation, a large number of members of society obtain obvious “freedom” and “emancipation,” and sometimes the higher the degree of restraint in the past, the higher the degree of emancipation at this time. This is somewhat similar to the situation in Chinese history after many wars have been fought. In the period of social transformation, many people have gained great ideological and economic liberation after lifting the original shackles and forming unprecedented creative vitality, and their energy has been greatly released, thus pushing history forward a big step. Therefore, at the same time, it should be noted that the disorderly “freedom” present at this time, although it played a huge role in promoting historical growth, was not the freedom in a real and modern sense. More importantly, “freedom must not stand by itself as a goal, and must be held in by a suitable set of rules” (De Jasay 1991). Because the whole of society lacks a basic idea that the people all agree with, a complete set of basic systems that can guarantee the basic rights of all members of society, and in a word, a series of new substitutes, the freedom in this period is often characterized by “disorder” and “chaos”—therefore a “disorderly freedom.” This “disorderly freedom” is characterized by unevenness, uncertainty, leaps, instability, and a certain chaos. In other words, the people had varying degrees of self-awareness and freedom of choice, but there was no corresponding system of rules. “Disorderly freedom” has both positive and negative implications. On the positive side, in the state of “disorderly freedom,” members of society can sometimes make effective breakthroughs in important areas, thus promoting socioeconomic development. Moreover, in some areas where there is no competition, the success of some members of society does not harm the interests of others. On the negative side, “disorderly freedom” means that, because society as a whole lacks a basic system that protects the fundamental rights of all members of society, it is inevitable that the law of the jungle will appear when it comes to competition. The freedom of some people (often members of advantaged groups) is premised on harming the freedom of others, and the interests of those people are also premised on harming the interests of others (often members of disadvantaged groups). Moreover, since the basic ideas of modern society have not yet emerged, let alone been generally recognized by most members of society, members of society, although sometimes liberated to a great extent, are faced with the possibility of a significant “return” to the old ideology under the condition of “disorderly freedom.”

“Institutionally guaranteed freedom” often appears in the middle and late stages of social transformation. At this stage, the basic idea in the modern sense has been recognized by most members of society, and a basic system of modern society has been largely established. Under such circumstances, the basic rights of the members of society, including the rights of freedom, can be guaranteed at the institutional level. “Institutionally guaranteed freedom” is stable, regular, and sustainable, and a kind of real freedom. It can promote a large amount of energy release from most members of society, and it can also ensure that they can promote their own interests without harming the interests of other members of society.

2 The Function of Liberty

For modern society, the important idea of freedom and its behavior orientation is of great significance. This is mainly manifested in the following aspects:

First, freedom plays a vital role in promoting the innovation and development of ideology, science, and technology.

Among all living things, the most important feature of human beings is their thoughts. Although a society may possess types of ideology, science, and technology, it ultimately depends on the material and economic foundation of that society. However, ideology, science, and technology also have a vital influence on the socioeconomic situation as well. They largely determine the imagination and creativity of the human being as well as the civilization and innovation of a society and a country. However, the specific situation of ideology, science, and technology largely depends on freedom of thought. Freedom of thought can provide inexhaustible power and a huge space of development for ideology, science, and technology. “The heart of liberalism is the understanding that progress is not a matter of mechanical contrivance, but of the liberation of living spiritual energy. Good mechanism is that which provides the channels wherein such energy can flow unimpeded, unobstructed by its own exuberance of output, vivifying the social structure, expanding and ennobling the life of mind” (Hobhouse 2009).

Emancipating the mind is a necessary prerequisite for the development of ideology, science, and technology. In a power-oriented society, the influence of power will be extended to the ideological field, emphasizing the absolute dependence of ideas on power and the absolute consistency of ideas. For this reason, all kinds of restrictions are set on the development of the people’s ideas as well as science and technology, thus reducing their vitality. Berlin points out: “Few things have done more harm than the belief on the part of individuals or groups that he or she or they are in sole possession of the truth: especially about how to live, what to be and do – and that those who differ from them are not merely mistaken, but wicked or mad; and need restraining or suppressing… This makes one certain that there is one goal and one only for one’s nation or church or the whole of humanity, and that it is worth any amount of suffering if only the goal is attained.” What we need to see is that the most important characteristics of ideology, science, and technology are independence and diversity. Therefore, if a society wants to develop in terms of ideology, science, and technology, it must first emancipate its mind and get rid of blind obedience, immutable ideological superstitions and myths, and all kinds of original ideological frameworks. Only in this way can we provide a huge space for the development of ideology, science, and technology. At the same time, it should be noted that although ideological emancipation is very important, it is not the whole of ideological freedom, but only a necessary prerequisite for it.

Freedom of thought can provide a large number of indispensable references for the development of ideology, science, and technology, which depends on the normal existence of many ideas, and the mutual inspiration and promotion between various ideas, science, and technology. There is a simple reason. Different ideas, concepts, sciences, and technology are summed up and formed by many people in different specific living environments, aiming at the same or different problems and based on different feelings. Members of society have something in common. By learning from others’ experience, it is easy to improve one’s own ideas, science, and technology or to re-create and form new and valuable ones. Hayek believes: “Most of the advantages of social life, especially in its more advanced forms which we call ‘civilization’, rest on the fact that the individual benefits from more knowledge than he is aware of. It might be said that civilization begins when the individual in the pursuit of his ends can make use of more knowledge than he has himself acquired and when he can transcend the boundaries of his ignorance by profiting from knowledge he does not himself possess” (Hayek 1987). The freedom of thought will provide a large number of reference systems and experiences for the people’s ideological development and science and technology, thus making the entire society’s ideology, science, and technology develop by leaps and bounds. The history of human civilization shows that almost all the times when ideas, concepts, and science and technology have developed significantly, the society at that time provided them with a basic environment for freedom of thought. Mill thinks: “That mankind are not infallible; That their truths, for the most part, are only half-truths; that unity of opinion, unless resulting from the fullest and freest comparison of opposite opinions, is not desirable” (Mill 2001). Hu Shi also believed that the development of philosophy depended on the rise of “heresy”, and that autocratic supremacy was an important reason for the demise of ancient Chinese philosophy (Hu 1997).

Freedom of thought can provide numerous and even necessary opportunities of trial and error for the formation of profound and vital thoughts or ideas. From the perspective of the development of ideas, science, and technology, there is a regularity that a profound idea or concept and an important science and technology, especially a vital ideological system, always takes shape after numerous attempts, trials, and errors, through constant revisions and corrections. An important function of freedom of thought is that it can provide a lot of trial-and-error opportunities for the development of ideology, science, and technology, so that they can be “confirmed” or “falsified.” As Mill says: “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error” (Mill 2001). Clearly, without these opportunities provided by a free intellectual environment, many valuable and even significant ideas, science, and technology would not have been developed, and society would have suffered greatly.

Second, freedom will have an extensive and far-reaching impact on the people’s normative, secularized way of life.

Freedom has an important influence on the formation of a realistic and secularized lifestyle that conforms to humanity. Traditional societies that lack freedom and other types of societies often advocate ascetic lifestyles that are not in line with human nature, placing people’s happiness in a religious heaven on the “other side” or in a distant future. “By some process of deliberate self-transformation that enables them to care no longer for any of its values, to remain, isolated and independent, on its edges, no longer vulnerable to its weapons” (Berlin 2002). Modern society is completely different. Freedom emphasizes a realistic and rationalized way of life, the importance of realistic interests, a desirable and normal lifestyle, and a living state of the people. The concept of freedom and basic behavior orientation helps people awaken their individual consciousness, and at the same time it helps people focus on economic interests. Therefore, this creates a general sense of reality that makes people focus on their daily life, the quality of their lives, and the secular lifestyle as a legitimate thing, and accordingly abandons asceticism and over-idealized utopian behavior orientation. Furthermore, with a highly developed economic foundation and widespread advanced knowledge, people are becoming more rationalized, generally aware that they can create an environment suitable for their own survival and development and that their ideals can be fulfilled in the real world, without having to look for them in the “other world” or having a lifestyle prescribed by others (Wu 1999).

Freedom will necessarily lead to the diversity of people’s lifestyles. The wishes, ideas, pursuits, personalities, and preferences of members of society vary widely, so their lifestyles formed on this basis are also very different. The free and tolerant modern society respects their members’ choice of their own lifestyle and even respects and protects all kinds of personal privacy belonging to the members’ lifestyle. In this free and liberal social environment, as long as two necessary conditions are met—that is, not to harm the freedom and interests of others—then most personal behaviors can be tolerated to a great extent. This is a distinctive feature of modern society that is different from traditional society, and it is also the reason why modern society is vital and dynamic. As Mill states: “As it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be different opinions, so it is that there should be different experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties of character, short of injury to others; and that the worth of different modes of life should be proved practically, when any one thinks fit to try them… Where, not the person’s own character, but the traditions or customs of other people are the rule of conduct, there is wanting one of the principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress” (Mill 2001).

Freedom has an important influence on cultivating and perfecting one’s personality. In a modern society with a market economy, the members have their own independent personalities, which is often manifested as a sound and perfect personality. It should be noted that the people’s personality is not an isolated matter, and the personality that is generally possessed by members in a society determines the overall civilization of this society to a certain extent. It is in this sense that personality is one of the important foundations of modern society. “For the common good includes every individual. It is founded on personality, and postulates free scope for the development of personality in each member of the community. This is the foundation not only of equal rights before the law, but also of what is called equality of opportunity” (Hobhouse 2009). In this way, cultivating and perfecting people’s personality is also an important aspect of modern social construction. In terms of cultivating and perfecting people’s personality, freedom is an indispensable condition. As Wilhelm von Humboldt states, “The true end of Man, or that which is prescribed by the eternal and immutable dictates of reason, and not suggested by vague and transient desires, is the highest and most harmonious development of his powers to a complete and consistent whole. Freedom is the first and indispensable condition which the possibility of such a development presupposes” (von Humboldt 1969). Only in a liberal environment can one’s personality develop naturally and healthily without artificial constraints. As the metaphor John Mill used: “human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing” (Mill 2001). Clearly, once there is a lack of a free, liberal environment, it is impossible for a person to develop and perfect his personality.

Third, freedom plays an essential role in promoting economic development.

Freedom can help achieve efficient economic development. First, freedom can combine the will and efforts of members of society with their own interests, especially economic interests. Everything people strive for is related to their interests. In real social life, interests, especially economic interests, are crucial for the vast majority of people. An important function of freedom is to break all kinds of artificial restrictions for members of society, regard the pursuit of interests as a legitimate behavior, allow members to pursue their own reasonable interests as independent and equal individuals, freely choose jobs, and start businesses as they wish. This enables people to release their energy into the economy, thus providing a strong impetus for economic development. Second, freedom can play an effective role in resource allocation. With limited resources, how to rationally allocate resources in economic activities for different purposes is a key issue for a society to consider in the process of economic modernization. One of the important reasons why the planned economy is inefficient and wasteful is that it has not solved this problem. In contrast, the market economy which is compatible with freedom can effectively solve this problem. The market price system can accurately reflect the social supply and demand of commodities, which is helpful for producers to decide their own product types and production scale. Moreover, the principle of profit maximization in the market economy urges producers to try their best to reduce the production cost of their products, so as to enhance their competitiveness. This is the process of the rational allocation of resources (Wu 1993). Third, freedom can combine the pursuit of economic interests by members of society with the rules of peers. True freedom recognizes human independence and equality, which, in a market economy, is embodied in the agreements concluded between people. “The freedom of the sane adult individual… carried with it the right of concluding such agreements as seemed best to suit his own interests, and involved both the right and the duty of determining the lines of his life for himself” (Hobhouse 2009). Through agreements, society can effectively regulate and restrict people’s bad behaviors, thus integrating all kinds of freedom into orderly behaviors. In short, freedom can promote an orderly and efficient economy. Tocqueville points out: “It is certain that despotism ruins men more by preventing them from producing than by taking the fruits of production away from them; it dries up the source of wealth and often respects acquired wealth. Freedom, on the contrary, begets a thousand times more goods than it destroys, and in the nations that know it, the resources of the people always grow more quickly than do taxes” (de Tocqueville 2002). This is true in real life. Historically or realistically, economic efficiency under the condition of more freedom is usually greater than that under the condition of less freedom. For example, the efficiency of a market economy with a high degree of freedom is much higher than that of a planned economy without freedom. Another example is, at the present stage in China, the economic efficiency of private enterprises with a high degree of freedom is also much higher than that of state-owned enterprises with a relatively low degree of freedom.

Freedom can provide a broad innovation space for economic development. In a certain sense, compared with the previous economy, the modern economy is an economy of constant innovation—and economic innovation is inseparable from freedom. Under the condition of the market economy, members of society attach great importance to economic interests, which means that people will easily invest great enthusiasm in obtaining economic interests—and, so far, among all the practitioners in any society, the number of practitioners in the economic field and any related fields is the largest. Great economic enthusiasm and a large number of people, once placed in the space of free creation, will inevitably make the wisdom of wealth creation in the entire society gather and release to the maximum extent. In the environment of free creation, people try their best to carry out various economic innovation activities through diversified efforts, methods, and ways. For example, various forms of company organization, various modern financial instruments, invention patent protection systems, mortgage consumption modes, social insurance systems, and new labor and capital policies are important innovations of modern economy, and these innovations have played a huge role in promoting the development of modern economy. It is through constant innovation that the modern economy can maintain sustainable development. Some scholars have summarized the economic development of the West, saying that “the underlying source of the West’s ability to attract the lightning of economic revolutions was a unique use of experiment in technology and organization to harness resources to the satisfaction of human wants. The key elements of the system were the wide diffusion of the authority and resources necessary to experiment; an absence of more than rudimentary political and religious restrictions on experiment; and incentives which combined ample rewards for success, defined as the widespread economic use of the results of experiment, with a risk of severe penalties for failing to experiment” (Rosenberg and Birdzell 2008).

Freedom has a significant impact on domestic consumption, an important driving force of the modern economy. When a society is equipped with a modern industrial production system, its capacity is often huge or even surplus. At this point, it is important to have the kind of consumer demand that is available—and what kind of freedom a society has will have a significant impact on the overall consumption of this society. This is because, if a society has a high degree of freedom, that society has a high degree of humanization, and a higher degree of humanization brings various normal lifestyles. Additionally, people in this society have a greater choice and range of options in terms of consumption patterns and needs, which means that this society is more inclined to pursue personalized, diversified lifestyles and development paths. This humanized, personalized, and diversified lifestyle will lead to diversified consumption demands: from the perspective of consumption types, it includes not only demands in material aspects such as food, clothing, housing, and transportation but also demands in cultural aspects such as leisure, tourism, culture, and education. From the perspective of consumption level, it includes both low-level and medium-high levels of demand. More importantly, freedom can create new consumer demand. All these can help place a large number of orders for economic development; in other words, it can effectively stimulate economic development. In contrast, if a society lacks freedom, then the lifestyle of the people in this society must be homogeneous and simple, and the resulting domestic demand for consumption must also be weak. In this regard, the Soviet Union and China during the planned economy era have clearly demonstrated this.

Fourthly, freedom has a vital influence on the formation of a reasonable, just, and dynamic social situation.

Freedom helps members of society form an important motivational orientation in their behavior. Generally speaking, traditional society was hierarchical. In such a society, members achieve different positions not through their own abilities and efforts but through ascriptive qualities. Parsons explains that “ascription involves treating others in terms of particular qualities or characteristics that define their involvement in some social relationship. Family members, for example, would be treated differently from others simply because of their membership in the family” (Johnson 1981). Modern societies, however, emphasize self-motivation in the people’s behavior, requiring that each social position be obtained through their own abilities and self-motivated efforts. This kind of behavior is inseparable from freedom. Freedom emphasizes the independence and autonomy of the individual, who must be responsible for their own behavior choices. At the same time, the society should recognize their own efforts. The idea of freedom requires that the behaviors oriented towards native endowments should be eliminated, because they “reserve certain offices, certain forms of occupation, and perhaps the right or at least the opportunity of education generally, to people of a certain rank or class. In its more extreme form this is a caste system, and its restrictions are religious or legal as well as social.” The basis provided for free self-motivated behaviors is that “membership of a corporation should not depend on any hereditary qualification, nor be set about with any artificial difficulty of entry, where by the term artificial is meant any difficulty not involved in the nature of the occupation concerned, but designed for purposes of exclusiveness” (Hobhouse 2009). This kind of self-motivated behavior that aims at eliminating privileges of wealth and the associated families is not only fair and reasonable but also “desirable” for most members of society because they can do things as they wish through their own efforts. Therefore, it is relatively easy for them to find a career suitable for exerting their potentials. From the perspective of the specialized division of labor, this practice can fully develop the potential of members of society, thus effectively promoting social progress.

Freedom can effectively promote social mobility. In modern society, the increasingly specialized division of labor and the rational allocation of production factors in the market economy have become an inevitable trend. This requires a fair, smooth, reasonable, and effective flow among members of society and social strata. Compared to traditional societies, mobility (including vertical, horizontal, and structural mobility) in modern societies has substantially increased. “The dominant pattern of mobility in agrarian societies was downward. In industrial societies the volume of upward movement is so much greater that a balance is usually achieved, and, in most cases, the amount of upward movement exceeds the downward” (Lenski 1966). Fair, smooth, reasonable, and effective mobility is a prerequisite for a society to realize the value orientation of equal opportunities, for its members to seek free development, and to improve their own situation. At the same time, the entire society can realize the rational allocation of human resources through mobility, thus enhancing social vitality and improving development efficiency. Social mobility “will objectively promote the development of socialized production and form a virtuous circle in which the changes of economic structure and social structure promote each other. Such a society is known as an open society,” (Lu 2004) and free ideas and a free environment in a modern society with a market economy directly promote social mobility. Free migration, free choice of employment, free entrepreneurship, and openness are the proper meanings of freedom. In a modern society based on the concept and requirements of freedom and openness, man must eliminate all harmful factors that hinder social mobility, such as the separation of household registration status between urban and rural areas, industry monopoly, ownership discrimination, wealth discrimination, gender discrimination, regional market segmentation, and other phenomena that artificially block social mobility, so as to maximize the barrier-free status of social mobility.

Freedom helps form differentiated and just social and economic positions. In modern society, there are differences in the social and economic positions of its members. These differences are in line with the original purpose of freedom and with the requirements of autonomous choice and diverse lifestyles of members of modern society with a market economy. The existence of these differences is inevitable because (1) as the social division of labor becomes specialized, intricate, and complicated, different “career thresholds” require different majors, knowledge, and skills, which means that not any member of society can enter any professional field. (2) Different people have different wishes and abilities. “These differences consist not only in the variation of talents of the same kind (variation in strength and imagination, and so on) but in the variety of talents of different kinds” (Rawls 2001). (3) Since different members of society invest different costs and levels of energy, what they finally achieve will vary. In this sense, “it should authorize the social and economic inequalities necessary, or else highly effective, in running an industrial economy in a modern state. Such inequalities cover the costs of training and education, act as incentives, and the like” (Rawls 2001). (4) Different members of society have different contributions, so the rewards they receive in turn are naturally different. As Rawls said, “particular distributions cannot be judged at all apart from the claims (entitlements) of individuals earned by their effort within the fair system of cooperation from which those distributions result” (Rawls 2001). All these will inevitably lead to different social and economic positions of members of society. The different social and economic positions are not only inevitable but also fair and reasonable because, on the one hand, they conform to the original intention of freedom as mentioned earlier, and on the other hand, these differences are formed on the premise of eliminating various artificial obstacles, including egalitarian obstacles, and are based on the specific abilities and contributions of members of society.

Fifth, freedom plays a vital role in promoting modern political civilization.

Modern political civilization with constitutionalism and democratization at its core is an inevitable historical trend, one in which all countries must be involved. Marx points out: “Democracy is the resolved mystery of all constitutions. Here the constitution not only in itself, according to essence, but according to existence and actuality is returned to its real ground, actual man, the actual people, and established as its own work. The constitution appears as what it is, the free product of men” (Marx and Engels 1995a).

The conception of freedom in the modern sense has a natural connection with modern political civilization. It is one of the conceptual bases of modern political civilization. Freedom can remove some major obstacles and hidden dangers for advancing modern political civilization.

Freedom also helps eliminate and prevent the influence and rise of feudal absolutism and totalitarianism. The first thing that modern political civilization must end is feudal absolutism. It emphasizes the dictatorship of the minority over the fate of the majority and the exercise of power by will rather than law. In essence, feudal absolutism is anti-humanity, anti-liberty, and anti-equality. Marx states, “Despotism brutality is a necessity and humanity an impossibility. A brutal relationship can only be maintained by means of brutality” (Marx and Engels 1956). There is no limit to the power of an authoritarian ruler, which can extend to any sphere at will and can arbitrarily deprive any member of society of his interests or even his life. “Princes become tyrants, according to medieval writers, when they seize the property or invade the family of their subjects. In political life – but more widely, too – the dominance of goods makes for the dominance of people” (Walzer 1984). Totalitarianism has a similar manifestation. It is a historical reflux that emerged in the early stages of modernization. Modern political civilization, on the other hand, is completely different from absolutism and totalitarianism. Its purpose, based on the concept of freedom, is to eliminate the influence of feudal absolutism and the possibility of totalitarianism, as well as to build a free, equal, and just modern society. The concept of freedom emphasizes that modern society is a people-oriented society based on countless individuals. In such a society, every member is free and equal and has basic equal rights. Such freedom, equality, and basic rights are effectively guaranteed by constitutional governments, democratic systems, and a law-based society.

Freedom helps eliminate another major pitfall in the construction of modern political civilization, the “tyranny of the majority.” The original intent of democracy was to eliminate the authoritarian practice of the dictatorship of the minority over the fate of the majority. However, if it is simply absolutized it will raise another serious problem, the “tyranny of the majority,” which Tocqueville and others first identified in their observations of American democracy. Tocqueville states: “It is of the very essence of democratic governments that the empire of the majority is absolute… Several particular circumstances also tend to render the power of the majority in America not only predominant, but irresistible… There is the seed of tyranny” (de Tocqueville 2002). Hamilton also points out: “Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.” At this time, “anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger” (Accessed Sept 1, 2022). “Tyranny of the majority” deviates from the requirement that freedom should be based on the individual and their diverse states of existence in society, thus constituting direct and indirect, real and possible damage to the basic rights of every member of society. This phenomenon has, or is likely to have, extremely serious consequences in at least two aspects. On the one hand, it will eventually harm the legitimate interests of most members of society. The reason is simple: if the reasonable rights of the minority are not properly guaranteed, it often means that, in the long run, the reasonable rights of the majority will not have stable boundaries and be protected. Today one minority might be sacrificed, tomorrow another, and the day after that yet another. In the end this increase amounts to a large total number of people. When considered over an even longer timespan, everyone in the majority group could become a member of the minority group. Therefore, an effective protection of the reasonable rights of the minority means that the reasonable rights of all members of society will be protected institutionally, permanently, and fundamentally. On the other hand, its social harm is sometimes unprecedented. Once the minority is opposed to the majority, it means that they are confronted with the entire society. Imagine: when a person’s neighbors, former relatives, and friends become supervisors and informers, then this social oppression and psychological repression become almost pervasive, and this person will fall into an extreme “social fear.” As Mill says, “When society is itself the tyrant – society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it – its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries… it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself” (Mill 2001). The Jacobin dictatorship during the French Revolution and the various movements of one group of people to punish another during China’s “Cultural Revolution” are typical examples of “tyranny of the majority.” Clearly, in order to ensure the healthy progress of modern political civilization, it is necessary to emphasize the inviolability of individual rights and the diversification of human existence and development, which is at core of freedom.

Freedom also helps prevent the inappropriate expansion of public power. As a group of public authorities whose mission is to safeguard and promote public interests, it takes on the public characteristics that other groups do not have. At the same time, it has the mandatory capacity granted by the state to implement goals that other groups do not have. Generally speaking, public power, especially administrative power, has an instinct for expansion. “Administrative power is a kind of power, and power means a certain domination and control. It can make others obey their own will, thus influencing and controlling others; this influence and control does not require the prior consent of others. And this gives administrative power an inherent expansiveness” (Hu, 2005). Here, a paradox arises: public power groups, as professional defenders of the public interest, may sometimes take a higher position than the public and harm the public interest in real society. This leads to a very important issue: there must be a clear definition of the boundaries of the activities of public power groups, in order to prevent the possible expansion of their power to the detriment of the public interest. The boundaries should be defined by policies and laws that strictly limit their activities to the scope of public affairs. Once the boundaries are broken, the public power groups will use the obvious advantages of public power to seriously damage the interests of the public, so as to expand their own interests. If so, it will not only cause a deformity in social and economic structure but also seriously hinder the advancement of modern political civilization. And freedom is an important barrier in preventing this phenomenon, because it emphasizes the indisputable right of every member of society to freedom and the fact that public power should serve all people, not the other way around. Marx points out: “Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the ‘freedom of the state’” (Marx and Engels 1995b). It is evident that, based on the idea of freedom and the criterion of protecting the legitimate interests of every member of society, it is possible to develop a series of systems that effectively prevent the expansion of public power.

3 The Prerequisites for Liberty

There are some prerequisites that stipulate the unique boundary of freedom for real and reasonable freedom to exist. The absence of these prerequisites means that freedom lacks a minimum threshold or crosses the proper, reasonable boundary and becomes insufficient, excessive, or deformed in an unreasonable way.

At least three conditions are essential to liberty. In other words, there are at least three basic or minimum thresholds for liberty.

First, a higher level of socioeconomic development and the necessary market economy conditions.

Only in a market economy with high socioeconomic development it is possible for members of society to develop a general sense of liberty. When the level of socioeconomic development is extremely low, a few people of foresight such as some thinkers may have some awareness and ideas of liberty. However, for the majority of society, what is acceptable is often a dehumanized despotism. Although this is inhuman, it is a historical necessity. John Mill points out: “Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion” (Mill 2001). Modernization and the market economy have changed this situation. Modernization has enabled man to have a great capacity for creativity, allowing man to begin to develop a real self-consciousness and get rid of their animal instinct, further forming a sense of “liberty.” The history of human development shows that a general sense of liberty among members of society can only appear in a modern society with a market economy.

Only in a market economy with high socioeconomic development it is possible for members of society to have basic, humanized freedom options. Actually, freedom implies an important premise, which is that there should be multiple options. When a society is in a very backward and extremely poor situation, the people struggle for their basic survival, and their imagination is bound to be limited. The society cannot provide much references and multiple options are non-existent or almost non-existent, so it is impossible for people to have basic options for freedom. For example, in primitive societies, food gatherers were confined to the few miles where hunting activities were carried out; food growers were also confined to their own villages and the surrounding farmlands and pastures (Stavrianos 1982). Living spaces were small, and the people were so dependent on this space that they did not have choices beyond this narrow range; even their imagination of choice was limited. In ancient Chinese society, restricted by socioeconomic development, people were dependent on nature, and they had no other choices but to adapt to a certain form of the autocratic and totalitarian rule that was compatible with nature. As Ray Huang points out, the fine loess soil that is easy to cultivate, the monsoon rain that can bring abundant rainfall, and the Yellow River that sometimes moistens the earth and sometimes floods it are the three major factors that decide China’s fate. They directly or indirectly dictate China’s agro-bureaucratic management under a strong center (Huang 1997). With the great progress of modern production, the people’s basic survival is no longer a problem, and their lifestyles are diversified. As a result, the people have a lot of references and a lot of choices for their lifestyles. At the same time, the market economy has greatly increased the degree of social mobility, and the people’s activity space has been greatly expanded, which provides them with greater freedom of choice for various activities.

Only a market economy with high socioeconomic development can provide the necessary conditions for achieving freedom. Achieving freedom requires a certain material basis and the support of modern productive forces. When the development of productive forces is backward, there may be freedom of thought for a few people, but it is impossible for the society as a whole to achieve freedom. “If a man is too poor or too ignorant or too feeble to make use of his legal rights, the liberty that these rights confer upon him is nothing to him… liberty is one thing, and the conditions for it are another” (Berlin 2002). Only a higher level of social economy and market economy can make freedom a reality. Marx points out: “People cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. ‘Liberation’ is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse…” (Marx and Engels 1979). When the productivity reaches a certain level—that is, with modern productivity and the market economy—it is possible for most members of society to solve basic survival problems and to have a basic platform for free choice. At the same time, freedom is actually divided into different stages of development, and these stages are also determined by different levels of modern productivity and market economy. Therefore, it is unrealistic and harmful to discuss “liberty in the complete sense” without discussing the development of modern productive forces and the actual situation of the market economy.

Second, the necessary equality.

The two ideas of liberty and equality are closely related and inseparable. “Liberty, equality, and fraternity” is commonly used as a fixed term. Liberty without equality, just as equality without liberty, is unthinkable. As Pierre Leroux says, “I believe in freedom, because I believe in equality. The reason why I imagine a political society in which everyone is free and gets along like brothers is because I imagine a society ruled by the creed of human equality. In fact, if people cannot get along with each other as equals, how can we declare everyone free?” (Leroux 1988). If there has to be a distinction between the two, it is that equality focuses on the recognition and protection of the basic human species, while liberty focuses on respecting and protecting individual differences (Wu 2000).

The reason why equality is crucial to liberty is that it can provide a basic guarantee for the people’s liberty; that is, it can establish the “greatest common denominator of liberty.” Equality is a fundamental right of every member of society. With this basic right, people can not only obtain what they deserve, but more importantly, they can prevent other members or groups from harming their legitimate interests using freedom as an excuse to undermine their own freedom. It is in this sense that Spencer’s “law of equal freedom” has some truth to it, because “the freedom of each must be bounded by the similar freedom of all” (Spencer 2017). It should be noted that members of society have different abilities, resources, and status. Under such circumstances, if they lack equal protection and are allowed to exercise their free behavior, the freedom possessed by some members will often damage the legitimate interests of others. As a proverb vividly quoted by Berlin in his Liberty: “Freedom for the wolves has often meant death to the sheep” (Berlin 2002).

Evidently, “everyone should have only as much liberty as justice allows, and no more than that” (Adler 1984). If you go beyond the limits, you will hinder others from seeking freedom and equality. According to Mill, there is nothing wrong with freedom itself, “so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it” (Mill 2001). However, once the boundary of equality is broken, extreme liberals only act according to their own wishes and impulses of interests regardless of others, which will inevitably damage the freedom and equality of others and encroach on their reasonable interests. For example, “there are libertarians, who not only place the highest value on liberty but also seek to maximize it at the expense of equality. They not only want an unlimited amount of freedom, but they are also willing to try to achieve it even if achieving it results in an irremediable inequality of conditions, under which some portion of a society, usually a majority, suffer serious deprivations” (Adler 1984). If a society lacks a system of rules, and if not a few but many (and these people hold a strong position in society) want absolute freedom, then it will cause a serious social negative effect—that is, the strong become stronger and the weak become weaker. As a result, social barriers, exclusion, conflicts, and even riots may be inevitable.

Third, necessary social cooperation.

Social cooperation is essential for every individual person. Social cooperation is a necessary condition for freedom. Although the social community is composed of countless individual persons who are the basic units of social composition, it is necessary to see that the objective need for professionalization and specialized division of labor in society, the need to integrate members of society into common social life, the need for members of society to jointly cope with social risks, and the need for the comprehensive development of individual persons themselves make it necessary for individual persons to survive and develop through the basic form of social community and development. The individual person cannot leave society as a whole, and therefore social cooperation is necessary for each member of society. Their “multifaceted” needs can only be realized through social cooperation, and the resistance of the members of society to various risk factors can only be realized through the social community. “Only in community with others has each individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible” (Marx and Engels 1995c). Society has a common good that is essential for each individual and that can be shared by all, but it cannot be equated with individual interests. “The common good to which each man’s rights are subordinate is a good in which each man has a share. This share consists in realizing his capacities of feeling, of loving, of mental and physical energy, and in realizing these he plays his part in the social life, or, in Green’s phrase, he finds his own good in the common good” (Hobhouse 2009). Because of this, each individual must also have certain obligations and responsibilities toward their society. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and promulgated by the United Nations General Assembly, states that “everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.”

As you can see, there is a necessary condition for freedom, which is that the necessary social cooperation and reasonable public interest cannot be compromised. Otherwise, in the long run, it will damage the space for the development of freedom for each individual.

Once the necessary condition of social cooperation is lost, freedom becomes a polarized act of individual liberty and causes negative social effects. This is very detrimental both to society as a whole and to each individual member of society. Polarized individual freedom only emphasizes the rights of the individual and the supremacy of the individual over the social community, but ignores the obligations and responsibilities of the individual to its social community; it emphasizes the protection and convenience that the social community should provide to the individual, but ignores the public interests that are related to the personal interests of every member of the society and ignores the contribution that he or she must make to the social community. Once the extremist concept of individual freedom becomes not an isolated but a widespread phenomenon, it will inevitably undermine the sense of identity and belonging of the members of society to the community, reduce the degree of social integration and social solidarity, and weaken the vitality of the society, all of which will have a harmful negative impact on the safe operation and healthy development of the society. It should also be seen that all members of society live in a social environment of mutual cooperation, so an environment of unfavorable cooperation in society as a whole will eventually have a harmful effect on the normal survival and development of every member of society. The greater the prevalence of polarized individual liberal behavior, the more serious its negative effects will be.