ry to force the citizens to execute public duties and support freedom, which falls under its dependence solely on individuals. Modern liberals try to clean the political scene from all notions, except for the personal interest and rights of the individual. Therefore liberalism threatens rights and freedoms simultaneously [46]. thesis of K. Skinner about freedom under protection of the law is convincing since emphasizes the contrast of free people and slaves. But other positions of Skinner (institutes of self-management protect freedom by means of rights of the person; liberals are enemies of freedom since emphasize rights of individuals, and laws are consider the shackle of laws) are considered disputable. It is difficult to qualify the law as the necessary condition of freedom. The problem is that it is difficult to make the strict difference between liberal and republican interpretation of freedom. traditions of political thought emphasize the role of institutes of control over political power (law and order, constitutional rule, division of authorities) for preservation of free society. But the republicans and liberals differently understand control. The republicans prefix this function to the government. It controls political institutes, promoting political participation of the citizens and responsibility of executive authorities. The republicans offer to intensify the state for the sake of increasing of responsibility of the representative and executive authorities and enforcement of individuals to execute duties of the citizen. The liberals deny the political institutes as the way of control of authorities. Political institutes do not allow diffusing the power and realizing social (not political) division of the powers. The liberals recognize the necessity of institutional control, but consider the concentration of the power the greater of freedom. The liberal accent on rights and freedoms of the individual on account of the civil duties is directed to restriction of state authorities by reduction of the sphere of public policy. The reasons of such reduction are connected with freedom. first reason has described by J. St. Mill. The power will convert active and fair part of society of the government. Any act of concentration of capable and talented people in powerful-management structures of the state is dangerous. Finally the better part of the society is absorbed by the government. And in the society there remain no people, capable not only to criticize, but also to control professionally the government. For decision of any social questions there should be required smart people. Increase of state power weakens the public life. If to radicalize this thesis, it would be better to have on all positions on powerful-management hierarchy of the state untalented people. second reason is specified by E.Berk: The state should be limited with its own deals, rather than they try into deals of the society. However at the level of lowering from the state level to the level of provinces, its power falls. The people possessing power are unable to execute the duties of the lower levels, and if they manage to do it, they do not reach success at the higher level. Usually people possessing the power do not have presentations what falls into sphere of the law, and what is regulated by the common law [47]. With expansion of rights of the state it can worse and worse support order and safety required for freedom. The increase of functions of the state weakens the control of the society on the executive power. above mentioned concepts of freedom are embodied in the political-legal practical activity of the USA, Canada, Japan and, somehow, in Great Britain. However the countries of the continental Europe both Eastern, and Western, gravitate to another ideology of freedom - freedom in condition of the social state, when requirement to the state not to interfere affairs of the person is not absolute and is complemented by requirement to create the necessary conditions for all-round free development of each person. disintegration of the Soviet Union and socialist camp has brought to spreading of extremely critical attitude to their ideological, standpoint bases. At the same time, analysis of development of political-legal thought on the problem of freedom of a person would be far from full without consideration of the contribution, which the soviet school of law has put into decision of the above mentioned problem. The given school based on strict party positions, came from the fundamental postulate of Marxism-Leninism, including that the highest manifestation of freedom of a person is liberation of a person from exploitation [48]. the point of view of Marxist-Leninist philosophy freedom is ability of a person to act in accordance with their own interests and purposes, basing on cognition of objective necessity. Freedom is not absolute, but relative and is carried out in life ...
