system of education and limit his freedom. If external hindrances are considered borders of the freedom, the notion chances are substituted by the notion of realization. It is necessary for eliminating internal barriers at realization of the freedom. For overcoming of external barriers it is necessary to act when for realization of freedom action is not required: Overcoming of external barriers is connected with the action, but it does not mean that the given liberty is above chances of action [32]. analysis of the presented positions gives the possibility to make the following conclusion: the negative freedom is the ensemble of the chances of the individual; the difference of the negative (absence of the external barriers) and positive (overcoming of internal barriers) of freedom is comparative, their correlation has the dialectical nature; the individual possesses the negative freedom at absence of internal and external barriers; these barriers are the product of human activity; the negative freedom is connected with conditions of the individual freedom. law is unable to regulate the positive freedom of a person; it can only determine its negative forming, indicating the concrete limits of the action of the free will of a person. At the same time, the positive law addresses to consciousness of the subjects of legal relations, indicating to them models of possible or due behaviour. It means that the legal regulation directly installs the frames of the negative freedom of a person and at the same time forms the necessary conditions for the person to feel free. The analysis of evolution of a freedom of a person shows the indicative unceasing expansion of borders of the negative freedom of a person, steady renewing of the list of the individual liberties (freedoms), and constant increase of possibilities for all-round development of the human individuality. suppressing majority of researchers keep to the point of view that subject of the freedom is the single individual. However there are expressed other opinions on this subject. In particular, the British philosopher G.Kohen defines the subject of freedom as relations between freedom and slavery: Separate proletarian are free as they can abandon the rows of the proletariat.- Writes G.KOEN, - But it does not change their slave position since they can not collectively come out of the working class. Under the capitalist economy the social carrier can be achieved by any proletarian. But such chance can not be given to all as capitalism is impossible without mercenary labour. But it will disappear if majority of workers achieves social carrier [33]. And G. Cohen has formulated the following thesis about freedom in conditions of modern state-monopolistic capitalism: position of modern workers is similar to position of prisoners, from which only one has the chance of flight; all can not run away; therefore the modern worker class is collectively non-free and is total slave. philosophers dispute the idea of ??collective subject of the freedom (slavery). It is extremely surprising presentation, according to which all individuals have no freedom on all actions if it can be not realized by all simultaneously, - says John. Gray, - Of course, all can not simultaneously demand the unemployment benefit, to become fitters or professors of political philosophy. But it does not mean that we don t have freedom for such actions. [34]. Actually, identification of the potential possibility to behave in a certain way with real achievement of the desired result should be not enough correct. our opinion, the freedom of the individual should not be opposed to the freedom of collective subjects. Moreover: freedom of the group is possible only in condition of the freedom of each of its members. The people can not be free when alongside with the free there are not free persons dependent on the will of other persons. The collective can not be as free or not free, as the individual will. However herewith it is necessary to bear in mind that difficulty of forming of the uniform to be proportional to the amount of subjects forming it. can do the free subject what should be considered the barrier of the freedom? The most unambiguous answer is: The individual is not free when actions of other individuals do not give him the possibility to realize any action. The individual is free if acts independently [35]. Threats and sanctions do not deprive anybody of the freedom as the individual can be responsible for his own actions. In fact, threats and sanctions are identical to chances: neither this, nor that reduces the freedom; in both events the obstacles modify desires, but not the possibility of the action. s consider arguments in favour of such conclusion. Other subjects limit my freedom if they lower attractiveness of the certain behaviour. G. Steyner considers that if barriers limit the actions of the individual, freedom depends on desir...
