There are two concepts of "Liberty" - Negative Liberty (Hobbes / Locke - Chrysippus) says that all shall be able to act without coercion (self-determination). Positive Liberty (Fromm / Berlin -Aristotle) says that all shall be able to act based on one's own contract with society (self-mastery).
VERY loosely speaking, Negative Liberty tends to lead toward individualism, social co-operation, and, eventually, peaceful Anarchy. It also leads towards social oppression and inequality. Also VERY loosely speaking, Positive Liberty tends to lead toward communalism, social contracts, and equality. It also leads towards tyranny and power of the few to control the masses.
These are two distinct and contradictory concepts. You must choose one.
(Philosophers quoted were not necessarily proponents of the attributed concept)
I don't think the distinction is as clear as you're suggesting here. In most of the lists of positive vs. negative freedoms I've seen listed, it's fairly easy to rephrase the positive ones as negative and vice versa.
I don't think the distinction is as clear as you're suggesting here. In most of the lists of positive vs. negative freedoms I've seen listed, it's fairly easy to rephrase the positive ones as negative and vice versa.
The distinction is pretty clear. It's not what kind of freedom you have, it's how it's offered.
Positive Liberty tends to lead toward ... equality. It also leads towards tyranny and power of the few to control the masses.
Ummm... Your statetment doesn't work, as "equality" [and liberty, for that matter] is pretty much the antithesis of tyranny and power by the few. So the two cannot be the product of the same thing, as they are mutually exclusive.
(This post was edited by rrrADAM on Dec 20, 2012, 10:43 AM)
Not loosely speaking... At the core of Liberalsism is "individual liberty" and "equality".
I am always curious which of those Conservatives have issue with.
Just say'n.
At the core of American Liberalism (the US definition is quite different from international political theories. Liberalism, in most western countries is the same as free market economics)
Also, political parties twist to find the best things to say. You can't have both. One erodes the other.
rrrADAM wrote:
Oh...
In reply to:
...equality. It also leads towards tyranny and power of the few to control the masses.
Ummm... Your statetment doesn't work, as "equality" is pretty much the antithesis of tyranny and power by the few. So the two cannot be the product of the same thing, as they are mutually exclusive.
History says no. We're not talking about equal pay, here.
What do you mean by, "based on one's own contract with society?"
That's what Positive Liberty is. Basically, one is the absence of government and the other is presence of government, or at least that's how political theorists allocate the two.
The contract is the idea that you'll behave according to the rules set out by society and be no more, and thus no less, than everyone else. Negative Liberty is the absence of aggressive human behavior toward other people. Positive is the existence of aggressive behavior toward other people.
I don't think the distinction is as clear as you're suggesting here. In most of the lists of positive vs. negative freedoms I've seen listed, it's fairly easy to rephrase the positive ones as negative and vice versa.
The distinction is pretty clear. It's not what kind of freedom you have, it's how it's offered.
Uh, no. There's actual considerable disagreement as to whether and how the terms apply. Hell, fully a third of the wiki article about positive and negative rights is devoted to arguments refuting the difference.
In any case, the distinction's not nearly as clearcut as you present it, and the objections to characterizing rights as positive or negative are reasonable.
(This post was edited by styndall on Dec 20, 2012, 2:38 PM)
I don't think the distinction is as clear as you're suggesting here. In most of the lists of positive vs. negative freedoms I've seen listed, it's fairly easy to rephrase the positive ones as negative and vice versa.
The distinction is pretty clear. It's not what kind of freedom you have, it's how it's offered.
Uh, no. There's actual considerable disagreement as to whether and how the terms apply. Hell, fully a third of the wiki article about positive and negative rights is devoted to arguments refuting the difference.
In any case, the distinction's not nearly as clearcut as you present it, and the objections to characterizing rights as positive or negative are reasonable.
we'll have to agree to disagree then. At a fundamental level you can't get away from interaction and non-interaction. There isn't a third option, in spite of what some may want to say.
I don't think the distinction is as clear as you're suggesting here. In most of the lists of positive vs. negative freedoms I've seen listed, it's fairly easy to rephrase the positive ones as negative and vice versa.
The distinction is pretty clear. It's not what kind of freedom you have, it's how it's offered.
Uh, no. There's actual considerable disagreement as to whether and how the terms apply. Hell, fully a third of the wiki article about positive and negative rights is devoted to arguments refuting the difference.
In any case, the distinction's not nearly as clearcut as you present it, and the objections to characterizing rights as positive or negative are reasonable.
we'll have to agree to disagree then. At a fundamental level you can't get away from interaction and non-interaction. There isn't a third option, in spite of what some may want to say.
The only way for a non-interactive right to exist without providing an obligation to someone else is for only a single entity with rights to exist.
I don't think the distinction is as clear as you're suggesting here. In most of the lists of positive vs. negative freedoms I've seen listed, it's fairly easy to rephrase the positive ones as negative and vice versa.
The distinction is pretty clear. It's not what kind of freedom you have, it's how it's offered.
Uh, no. There's actual considerable disagreement as to whether and how the terms apply. Hell, fully a third of the wiki article about positive and negative rights is devoted to arguments refuting the difference.
In any case, the distinction's not nearly as clearcut as you present it, and the objections to characterizing rights as positive or negative are reasonable.
we'll have to agree to disagree then. At a fundamental level you can't get away from interaction and non-interaction. There isn't a third option, in spite of what some may want to say.
The only way for a non-interactive right to exist without providing an obligation to someone else is for only a single entity with rights to exist.
That's certainly true. Of course, it can't be like that or with complete interaction either. So the theories have to diverge from there, and they do.
In any case, that's not the question. If you have to choose one, which one would you choose?
I'm an artist, so for me it has to be Negative Liberty. I need to be able to express myself. That doesn't mean I don't believe in various communal options, but it means that if I have to choose one then I need for it to suit who I am.
(btw - these theories are at least one of the basic things one must learn in a typical master's program for intl politics. It may also be the case for many other subjects, too)
This is kind of fun, but I agree with Styndall that the difference as stated seems pretty meaningless. On the one hand I agree there is this eternal conflict in human nature balancing the individual good with the group good (or even conflicts that occur between the different groups we identify with). But I don't see how these concepts of positive and negative freedom (at least as expressed here) help to clarify that.
If you say that positive freedom is absence of government and negative freedom is presence of government even that, in itself seems rather meaningless to me. For example, try to apply these concepts to the following case that is actually going on right now. There is a grass roots movement, in a small town in Colorado, that is manifesting as a local government action to prohibit fracking in the town. On the other side, the fracking industry is ganging up with the state government to tell these locals they can't make laws like this. So which is the "positive" freedom and which is the "negative" freedom? The right of the local people to choose what they feel is a clean environment for their families and neighbors? The right of the fracking industry to provide the country with natural gas, employ workers and make money? It seems strange to me to say a local government law preventing an industry from "freely" producing what people want to buy is what you call "negative freedom". If this is "negative" freedom, then I am lead to believe that ecological restrictions imposed by government on industry are a kind of "negative" freedom, On the other hand, it seems even stranger to say that the state government imposing rules on a local group (who only want self determination for their community) is the real "negative" freedom. I am lead to believe that both sides want a kind of self determination and it doesn't seem to help expressing the freedoms they desire as either positive or negative.
(This post was edited by yanqui on Dec 21, 2012, 7:32 AM)
This is kind of fun, but I agree with Styndall that the difference as stated seems pretty meaningless. On the one hand I agree there is this eternal conflict in human nature balancing the individual good with the group good (or even conflicts that occur between the different groups we identify with). But I don't see how these concepts of positive and negative freedom (at least as expressed here) help to clarify that.
If you say that positive freedom is absence of government and negative freedom is presence of government even that, in itself seems rather meaningless to me. For example, try to apply these concepts to the following case that is actually going on right now. There is a grass roots movement, in a small town in Colorado, that is manifesting as a local government action to prohibit fracking in the town. On the other side, the fracking industry is ganging up with the state government to tell these locals they can't make laws like this. So which is the "positive" freedom and which is the "negative" freedom? The right of the local people to choose what they feel is a clean environment for their families and neighbors? The right of the fracking industry to provide the country with natural gas, employ workers and make money? It seems strange to me to say a local government law preventing an industry from "freely" producing what people want to buy is what you call "negative freedom". If this is "negative" freedom, then I am lead to believe that ecological restrictions imposed by government on industry are a kind of "negative" freedom, On the other hand, it seems even stranger to say that the state government imposing rules on a local group (who only want self determination for their community) is the real "negative" freedom. I am lead to believe that both sides want a kind of self determination and it doesn't seem to help expressing the freedoms they desire as either positive or negative.
I would think your example above demonstrates Positive Liberty. In this case, the government is acting aggressively to both allow and disallow fracking (depending on which side you're on). it's the government that is attempting a resolution.
A Negative Liberty solution would be one where the governments, for the most part, stay out of the conversation. On the extreme level, cooperation between the people and the company would lead to a resolution.
The whole positive/negative liberty makes no sense to me.
Seems to me you're conflating other thing with liberty.
I'd say that liberty is liberty, but in addition to that you can either agree or disagree with the statement that "with freedom comes responsibility" and a social contract.
The whole positive/negative liberty makes no sense to me.
Seems to me you're conflating other thing with liberty.
I'd say that liberty is liberty, but in addition to that you can either agree or disagree with the statement that "with freedom comes responsibility" and a social contract.
GO
I'm not confusing anything. These are considered the two main definitions of liberty.
The whole positive/negative liberty makes no sense to me.
Seems to me you're conflating other thing with liberty.
I'd say that liberty is liberty, but in addition to that you can either agree or disagree with the statement that "with freedom comes responsibility" and a social contract.
GO
I'm not confusing anything. These are considered the two main definitions of liberty.
I looked at this in Wikipedia and it seems to me there is no general consensus about what these are (for example the Wiki blip on positive freedom mentions Fromm and Berlin, who for sure mean two very different things by this). We human beings just love to invent dualisms and for sure these sorts of conceptual distinctions can sometimes be illuminating and useful. In math we have: odd-even, finite-infinite,curved-flat, and so on. However, as far as I can see the concepts you mention vary from philosopher to philosopher and have not achieved anything like the kind of consensus that can be found for many concepts in math and the hard sciences. I read Fromm's book (about 35 years ago) and as I recall, negative freedom was a kind of psychological state where people become conscious of their base instincts, uges, compulsions, etc. and thus have a kind of freedom (the negative kind) to act against these subconscious drives. Meanwhile positive freedom was very Kantian: essentially a community of rational beings constructing the kingdom of ends. So for Fromm, negative freedom is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for positive freedom (i.e. positive freedom implies negative freedom but not the other way around). At any rate, this isn't anything like what you are trying to say.
What you call "negative" freedom reminds me very much of Robert Nozick's consept of "liberty" in Anarchy, State and Utopia. I actually read this book pretty carefully many years ago and wasn't too impressed, but it sounds close to what you are are trying to say, so you might want to take a look at it: http://en.wikipedia.org/...y,_State,_and_Utopia
(This post was edited by yanqui on Dec 27, 2012, 6:05 PM)
3 /
23%
1
