way might be a historical exploration: The major manifestations of liberty, or
claims for liberty, throughout human history would have to be explored and
eventually a conclusion reached as to whether they could be subsumed under
one common denominator. Another approach, rather more limited, might be to
explore the functioning of liberty in practice, primarily through the workings of
constitutional and legal institutions. The advantage of this method is its ability
to address itself to "concrete," legally formulated principles, instead of dealing
with abstract and seemingly vague concepts. Liberty, from arbitrary arrest or
freedom of the press, may be exactly formulated by law and adjudication and
thus explored through clearly pronounced definitions and statements.

We shall not attempt either of these approaches. The historical survey would
involve a voluminous work that might result in positive or negative conclusions
or remain inconclusive as far as the common denominator of liberty is con-
cerned. The exploration of the institutionalized forms of liberty has already been
done in a more or less comprehensive manner, and it, too, has not resulted in
a general comprehension of the concept or its justification. Moreover, such an
examination would ignore various manifestations of liberty -- genuine or pre-
tended -- that are outside the realm of legal formulation and practical adjudica-
tion. Indeed, both approaches assume the existence of liberty, because of the
accepted usage of the term, and proceed to explore and solidify it in their own
way. Yet the assumption is in no way ensured. It is the meaning and meaning-
fulness of the concept of liberty that must be sought and established first if the
objective is not to be limited to a survey of a fragment or aspect of history or
a section of the legal system, which would be virtually arbitrary if not bound
by a viable notion of liberty. Important as such objectives may be, they do not
serve to elucidate the meaning of freedom or vindicate liberty in the best way.
We have to start from the concept and elucidate it, freely using concrete man-
ifestations, present and past, but consistently focus on the meaning of the central
idea. In this sense, our approach should logically precede the other and, looked
at from a methodological perspective, may provide a foundation for diverse
excursions into the domain of liberty as it is manifested in history and in legal
and political institutions, as well as in diverse civilizations.

It should be added that we are not committed a priori to the adoration, ad-
miration, or even approval of liberty. Its praises must not be sung before we
agree what it means. One must understand the meaning of an idea before one
approves it as a guiding norm in individual and public life. The lip service paid
to liberty -- sometimes on opposing sides of the barricades, whether real or meta-
phorical -- is no indication of its true value. Indeed, there have been some cogent
arguments against liberty, or some aspects of it, and its range and extent. These
will be taken into consideration in our investigation of freedom, which involves
not only its meaning but also its justification. Such an inquiry does not outrule
possible meaninglessness or confusion, not to mention limitations, of freedom.
An accepted meaning, as well as the common approach, will have to be more
clearly defined and circumscribed to present a consistent and well-founded ideal.

-2-