Our aim is to identify the most significant meanings of freedom—where the criterion of significance is, so to speak, their persistent presence in philosophical debates, which in turn stems from their existential relevance—without attempting to determine which of them is semantically fundamental. We will then proceed to a careful analysis of these meanings, including their relationship to law. We contend that there are three principal meanings of freedom: inner (positive) freedom, external (negative) freedom, and political freedom. 
The first of these—inner freedom—differs from the other two in that it refers to the individual as such, rather than the socio-legal context in which the individual exists. A person who exercises self-mastery, who governs their passions and is the true author of their actions, may be said to possess inner freedom. 
In contrast, external or negative freedom refers to freedom from coercion—it denotes the absence of obstacles posed by other individuals or institutions to the pursuit of one’s goals. It implies the lack of arbitrary interference in one’s actions.