MAC
05-07-2001, 02:12 AM
I have taken the liberty (no pun intended) of editing Spooky's post for the purpose of my response. What I cut out was mostly background and exposition but in fairness please review the entire post in its originality. http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001011.html
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR> originally posted by Spooky:
as edited by theMAC
Negative liberty, is simply the 'freedom from' restraint.
While positive liberty is the 'freedom to' do what one wants.
So negative and positive liberty are the answers to two distinctly different questions.
negative/ What is the area in which a subject, or person, should be free to do or be what they want without the interference of another person or body of persons?
positive/ What or who is the person or object that can control a persons action to do what they wish to do or be?
I think, that it would be fair to say that this is the central dilemma, or paradox if you will, of the very notion of liberty. On the one hand, the state appears as a threat to liberty, and on the other hand the state also appears as the guarantor of liberty. This dilemma is a classic example of the opposition of negative and positive liberty.
Which of these two concepts is more preferable?
The answer to this question is arguably that of negative liberty.
The problem, with the positive concept of liberty is thus.
Earlier on I mentioned that both Kant's and Mill's ideas of liberty were problematic. Arguably, both these thinkers, along with others of their school, were all advocates of the positive concept of liberty. That of being ones own master. Admittedly, Mill, accepted that their would be too a degree some interference, but he also noted that there ought to be a absolute boundary where one ought not be interfered. In essence both writers were champions of the notion of the individual. The problematic points of their thought are different, but arguably will lead to the same thing if followed.
/the result of Kant's concept is that man is 'forced to free'.
That man is coerced into liberty by the very nature of the belief in ones own moral code.
/Mill failed to see that almost everything that we do can harm others liberty, whether it is self-regarding or not.
The reason for this is that man is a social being.
/our individual selves are not something that we can detach from our relationship with others, for that relationship is what makes us what we are.
The flaw lies/ in/ the premiss of the individual as a detached element of existence.
Negative liberty, the freedom from things such as interference and coercion, is how liberty ought to be perceived.
/positive face is that which can lead to what it intended to avoid. The forcing of man to free, the coercion towards liberty.
/negative in comparison accepts the necessity of some from of political control, and is concerned with mans 'freedom from' and not 'to' something.
For all of us that live in the Western World I stand here now and maintain that we are all liberals.
I believe that almost all of us see liberty in the negative concept.
The freedom 'from' oppression and interference, and not the freedom 'to' do as we please. This is the liberal way.
[/quote]
Preceding are the points I found in need of address.
A lot of excellent research was done to do this comparison.
The decisions arrived at based on the research are thorough and well argued.
However I find something inherently wrong with the original premise and thus the conclusions drawn,
So here goes.....
I argue they are NOT two answers to two different questions.
I say they are two totally separate pieces of the same whole.
You cannot be liberated "from" anything you do not wish to be free of (see abused wives).
And to say that I can liberate you "to" a point is actually saying I will abandon you to your own devises. This is inevitable as the sun rise.
If society evolves into a dependant structure, such as we have today, with one group farming and one group building and one group leading and no one group being self sufficient, then we are bound to respect the liberty of others or fall back to a level of purely "positive"liberty
Negative liberty is the practice of accepting another man's voice.
Positive liberty is what the other man says.
Liberty "from" must be taken or agreed upon.
Liberty "to" is the that which you fought to achieve and will fight to keep.
I'll start with a very common metaphor.
In the US we have the right to keep and bear arms.
(Except for felons (unless they have good lawyers))
(& except machine guns (unless you can afford the license) )
hence, it is commonly accepted by many people that if we outlaw one type of gun
then we will outlaw two,
then we will outlaw three,
until we have "no" right to keep and bear arms anymore.
That same premise works in reverse though.
If we agree that people should be able to own one type of gun,
then soon it will be two types,
then three types,
then, one day, you will be allowed to own a rocket launcher, if you so choose.
This is argued as safety verses rights.
Or how one man's rights will affect another mans ability to exercise his rights.
(Note: Preceding is MY key assumption)
If we all see liberty in the negative fashion then we are all missing the first step.
We will never be free.
We will never maintain freedom.
We will be doomed to revert to the point where we are only free in the positive sense.
My belief at this point is that NO man is compelled to accept your liberty unless he understands his own.
------------------
Don't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.
<IMG SRC="http://www.tyler.net/roguewarrior/images/macsnake.jpg" border=0>
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR> originally posted by Spooky:
as edited by theMAC
Negative liberty, is simply the 'freedom from' restraint.
While positive liberty is the 'freedom to' do what one wants.
So negative and positive liberty are the answers to two distinctly different questions.
negative/ What is the area in which a subject, or person, should be free to do or be what they want without the interference of another person or body of persons?
positive/ What or who is the person or object that can control a persons action to do what they wish to do or be?
I think, that it would be fair to say that this is the central dilemma, or paradox if you will, of the very notion of liberty. On the one hand, the state appears as a threat to liberty, and on the other hand the state also appears as the guarantor of liberty. This dilemma is a classic example of the opposition of negative and positive liberty.
Which of these two concepts is more preferable?
The answer to this question is arguably that of negative liberty.
The problem, with the positive concept of liberty is thus.
Earlier on I mentioned that both Kant's and Mill's ideas of liberty were problematic. Arguably, both these thinkers, along with others of their school, were all advocates of the positive concept of liberty. That of being ones own master. Admittedly, Mill, accepted that their would be too a degree some interference, but he also noted that there ought to be a absolute boundary where one ought not be interfered. In essence both writers were champions of the notion of the individual. The problematic points of their thought are different, but arguably will lead to the same thing if followed.
/the result of Kant's concept is that man is 'forced to free'.
That man is coerced into liberty by the very nature of the belief in ones own moral code.
/Mill failed to see that almost everything that we do can harm others liberty, whether it is self-regarding or not.
The reason for this is that man is a social being.
/our individual selves are not something that we can detach from our relationship with others, for that relationship is what makes us what we are.
The flaw lies/ in/ the premiss of the individual as a detached element of existence.
Negative liberty, the freedom from things such as interference and coercion, is how liberty ought to be perceived.
/positive face is that which can lead to what it intended to avoid. The forcing of man to free, the coercion towards liberty.
/negative in comparison accepts the necessity of some from of political control, and is concerned with mans 'freedom from' and not 'to' something.
For all of us that live in the Western World I stand here now and maintain that we are all liberals.
I believe that almost all of us see liberty in the negative concept.
The freedom 'from' oppression and interference, and not the freedom 'to' do as we please. This is the liberal way.
[/quote]
Preceding are the points I found in need of address.
A lot of excellent research was done to do this comparison.
The decisions arrived at based on the research are thorough and well argued.
However I find something inherently wrong with the original premise and thus the conclusions drawn,
So here goes.....
I argue they are NOT two answers to two different questions.
I say they are two totally separate pieces of the same whole.
You cannot be liberated "from" anything you do not wish to be free of (see abused wives).
And to say that I can liberate you "to" a point is actually saying I will abandon you to your own devises. This is inevitable as the sun rise.
If society evolves into a dependant structure, such as we have today, with one group farming and one group building and one group leading and no one group being self sufficient, then we are bound to respect the liberty of others or fall back to a level of purely "positive"liberty
Negative liberty is the practice of accepting another man's voice.
Positive liberty is what the other man says.
Liberty "from" must be taken or agreed upon.
Liberty "to" is the that which you fought to achieve and will fight to keep.
I'll start with a very common metaphor.
In the US we have the right to keep and bear arms.
(Except for felons (unless they have good lawyers))
(& except machine guns (unless you can afford the license) )
hence, it is commonly accepted by many people that if we outlaw one type of gun
then we will outlaw two,
then we will outlaw three,
until we have "no" right to keep and bear arms anymore.
That same premise works in reverse though.
If we agree that people should be able to own one type of gun,
then soon it will be two types,
then three types,
then, one day, you will be allowed to own a rocket launcher, if you so choose.
This is argued as safety verses rights.
Or how one man's rights will affect another mans ability to exercise his rights.
(Note: Preceding is MY key assumption)
If we all see liberty in the negative fashion then we are all missing the first step.
We will never be free.
We will never maintain freedom.
We will be doomed to revert to the point where we are only free in the positive sense.
My belief at this point is that NO man is compelled to accept your liberty unless he understands his own.
------------------
Don't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.
<IMG SRC="http://www.tyler.net/roguewarrior/images/macsnake.jpg" border=0>