Some philosophers have attacked the idea that negative freedom is the sort of freedom we should strive to increase. They argue that positive freedom is a far more important political goal.Positive freedom is freedom to exercise control over your own life. You are free in the positive sense if you actually constrained in any way.Most defenders of the positive concept of freedom believe that true freedom lies in some kind of self-realization through individuals,or indeed states,making their own life choices.For instance,if someone is an alcoholic and is driven against their better judgement to spend all their money on wild drinking sprees, then does this amount to exercising freedom? it seems intuitively implausible,particularly if in sober moments the alcoholic regrets these binges.Rather we would tend to think of the alcoholic as controlled by drink:a slave to impulse.Despite the lack of constraint,on the positive account the alcoholic is not genuinely free.