Introduction Liberty or freedom is arguably one of the most valuable things to man. Those without it may be willing to argue, fight or even lose their lives in pursuit of what they feel is so vitally important to their lives. In general when talk of liberty we mean the right to live our lives on our terms, not under the power of some external agent. That liberty is considered such a significant value is not called into question. The fact that it is thought to be so important to so many people however has meant that there has been a great deal of discussion on what exactly it is we mean by the term liberty, and under what conditions would we consider people to be ‘free’. Political philosophers have many theories in response to this and it is necessary to analyze some of the main arguments and concepts to get a clearer idea of how to be more precise about the idea of liberty. It is possible to identify three main strands of thought on the meaning and nature of liberty, although we must recognize that there are variations of beliefs about the specifics within each classification. First there is what David Miller calls the Republican family. Here liberty is set within a political framework. A person is free when there are certain political arrangements which allow for people to be self governed and for them to play an active role in this governance. (Carter, 2007) Secondly, there is the liberal tradition which conceives of liberty as something people may possess when there is no interference or restraints place upon individuals. (Warburton, 2000) Here the government may play two roles. It may either act as a constraint on freedom if it acts to interfere with individuals too much or it may serve as a protector of freedom by ensuring that peoples liberties are not infringed upon. As such, the emphasis is not on the type of political arrangements or government such as in the Republican tradition, but on the scope of government. Lastly, we have what we may call the Idealist view where the focus is more on the individual. It highlights the importance of internal forces which determine how an individual behaves as opposed to external or social arrangements. Freedom here is defined as when a person is autonomous. (Silier, 2005) By this it is meant that an individual must be following his authentic beliefs which require politics to ensure that people are encouraged to lead a lifestyle that results in rational and authentic or choice, or alternatively to discipline individuals to do so. Main text One of the main distinctions of liberty has been drawn by Isaiah Berlin. According to him we are able to think about liberty in two ways. Firstly we can look at liberty in the sense that there are no external obstacles in an individual’s path that will prevent him from doing something. (Santoro, 2003) Alternatively we can say that freedom consists in an individual being able to control and decide what he does or wants. Most simply put, negative freedom is the freedom from, or in the absence of something, whereas positive freedom is freedom to do or be something. Negative liberty sees political liberty existing in the area where an individual is able to act unobstructed by others. Coercion or the