Positive/Negative freedom

We may be talking about different hippies.

I suggest several interpretations of freedom, not only (indeed never explicitly) of oneself, but also which can be afforded to others. How would you define freedom?

 

Well, I use words the way they have been used throughout history, and tend to discount modern unschooled usages. I read a lot of history and so I encounter words' original meanings a lot.

As you said there are different definitions and concepts of "freedom".

For me, freedom is the absence of foreign domination.

In this sense, only a few nations are free --

- USA
- Russia
- China
- Switzerland
- Australia
- Singapore
- France
- Germany
- Saudi Arabia
- India
- Pakistan
- Turkey

"Individual freedom" is something else and simply means living in a democratic society.

"Personal freedom" is the yet another thing -- the freedom to change jobs and/or move where you want to live.

For me personal responsibility to society does not interfere with freedom, but rather it is the price to be paid for this freedom. Pretty sure Plato said the same thing.

 

Just how do you imagine either could be unimportant - or, for that matter, that either can exist without the other?

 

The feeling of moral responsibility to help someone in need is Christian, not "hippy".

"Hippy" has been assigned by society elements of irresponsibility (whether warranted or not). Helping someone or some class of persons is not irresponsibility.

Jesus wasn't irresponsible.

 

great, positive and negative, however you used teh terms incorrectly, you cannot use them politically and philosophically the same time correctly which is what you and every one else has done which only serves as I pointed out to add to the confusion.

Your thread as a result is a plonk.

 

Well, negative freedom is a subset of positive freedom. If you are enslaved, you cannot do what you want. However, it could be that you can't do what you want even if you're not enslaved. As such, one being important doesn't mean that the other is unimportant, but one can still choose one of them to focus on.

Either way, I find that some issues, in particular on the liberal/libertarian axis, rely specifically on this distinction.

 

yeh 1000 years ago, today we have whats called 'free range slavery' where you can move where ever you want do what you want and you are still a slave.

So this does not fit nice and neat into a little box.

 

In what sense is it incorrectly? I have shown exactly what I mean by the terms. The fact that you have another interpretation of a related but different word is not really a problem.

 

That seems to me orthogonal to the question at hand. Positive and negative freedom can be phrased both with respect to a person who can or who can't move, so that doesn't actually resolve anything.

 

So take for example this "personal freedom", does that only include someone keeping you from being able to move/whatnot or also being hindered by things other than people dominating you?

 

you are the one who said:

as I said you commingled using it in reference to politics.

 

Sure, a slave might be allowed to choose some things, that doesn't make them free ultimately.

 

sure, they even make movies about it that are grand slam hits.

 

Not sure which category this would fit in, but freedom to me is the right of personal sovereignty over ones mind and body. That is, one is free to do what one wants, as long as it is not directing injurious to another person. And basic freedom begins here with personal sovereignty. No law should be made that gets in the way of this sovereignty.

 

Okay, do you think that things other than laws can get in the way? I mean, obviously another person can by crimes or whatnot get in the way, but if, let's say an animal or a natural disaster or an unpredicted disease gets in the way, does that also infringe on the freedoms?

 

Negative - you've gotta look after yourself and your own.
Healthcare you have to take care of yourself.


I mean, it's a Bitch, compared to Socialised healthcare, but at least it's Freedom.

As soon as I was born, I got signed up to the national health service and reaffirmed at working age when they sent me my National Insurance card, basically to pay for my own birth.

 

Such things are beyond human law, and while one may see a disease as infringing upon personal freedom, this is a horse of a different color. Humans taking away freedom by law, by imposing their own values, is their choice. Nature isn't choosing to do anything, it just IS. Right?

 

Freedom is always freedom from something.
Liberty is always liberty to something.

Freedom can be freedom from anything.
Liberty is always liberty to the same thing.

Liberty is the individual's authority over and responsibility for them self.

Many seek freedom from liberty. The idea of others having authority over themselves terrifies them; they equate liberty with chaos. But the idea of having responsibility for themselves frightens them even more.

There is now coming to age, here in the US, an entire generation of people who have never been unsupervised. To this generation, as with all other authoritarian prone generations before them throughout history, the only freedom they care about is freedom from liberty.

 

In what sense is it a horse of a different colour?

I'm talking about this in the context of what our laws are there to prevent (although I haven't been clear about this context, so I don't blame you for talking in another context if you do). Are laws there to prevent only hardship that comes from someone's choice, or should they provide equal relief for someone who's hardship comes from natural causes? For instance, universal healthcare falls under the second of those umbrellas, but not the first.

In my opinion, there is something morally off-putting about the idea that it's someone's choice that justifies punishment. At that point, what justification is there for the law in the first place if it's not to help people?

But maybe I'm waffling.

 

So if a natural accident caused a person to be paralysed, i.e. not have authority over themselves, is the application of a tax-funded healthcare system justified by appealing to helping the person regain authority over themselves?

 

Well, to exercise the freedom of personal sovereignty can involve a cost. If exercising this freedom one creates a hardship for oneself, there should be no law against screwing up. No law against stupidity. But should there then be a law, policy that rescues people from exercising personal sovereignty when they screw up? Well we already have some of that policy and law that governs the social safety net.

We are talking about this in relationship with personal sovereignty, right?

 

I'm considering the idea that freedom equates to minimised taxation. My argument here is in particular against libertarianism (even though I agree with them on many points, and I'm fully aware of the fact that not everyone I'm talking to is a libertarian, I'm just gathering some different perspectives).

It seems to me that libertarians must think there is some distinction between hardship caused by people and other hardships. Those who argue for a night-watchman state are willing to justify taxes when it comes to protection against for instance aggression, but not against health issues which do not originate from someone else's aggression. So it seems the justification of taxation depends on there being a conscious aggressor, someone to whom blame can be assigned. Personally, I think it's weird that a person's right to rectifying a problem depends on there being a conscious aggressor, it seems perversely occupied with punishment instead of actually making a better world.

Now, I appreciate that this is going in a slightly different direction, and the reason I didn't write all of this in the OP is that I wanted to see where other people's ideas might take the discussion. I don't write this as an attack on your views, I just felt I should be clear with what sort of sovereignty I'm talking about (I appreciate you may be talking about another interpretation, or another aspect of sovereignty).

 

One's degree of need is no good measure of another's degree of ability, let alone responsibility (ability to respond).

 

So then you would argue that also police and courts are unjustified? What's the difference between an injured person's need for healthcare and a robbed person's need for law enforcement?

Taxation usually happens on an income basis, i.e. we have some measure of ability already.

 

You've actually touched upon the real gun debate. The gun debate is not at all about guns; it's about who is responsible for the defense of self-possession (one's ownership of them self); and therefore by extension, life, liberty and private-property. The problems arise from the fact that for every measure of responsibility there is a concomitant and commensurate measure of authority.

On one side, there are those who are left to believe that individuals can, at best, on occasion, aid in their own defense. On the other side, there are those who are left to believe that the government can, at best, on occasion, aid in the defense of individuals. This goes for the vast majority of the goals and activities attempted by the legal use of force (government).

I argue that the only justification for the use of force, legal or otherwise, between equals, is in defense of self-possession. For example: any infringement upon private-property, other than private-property of others, is an unjust infringement upon self-possession. Any infringement upon liberty (the individual's authority over and responsibility for them self), other than the liberty of others, is an unjust infringement upon self-possession.

I argue that self-possession should be defended by force, legal or otherwise. I acknowledge that the use of such force is a sacrifice. I argue that the only justifiable degree of liberty and/or private-property that should be sacrificed to a public authority is that tiny fraction of a percent that maximizes the liberty and/or private-property secured.

Taxes are not a moral issue, and equal outcomes is not a noble goal. In short, I do not believe that government should be vested with the authority to impose the best intentions of some upon others. I argue that government should be constrained to the defense of: the individual's authority over and responsibility for them self, and private property.

Most of what is currently attempted by force of law cannot be done by force at all. For example: Charity has a mutually voluntary nature; government cannot conduct charity. Education has a mutually voluntary nature; that is why public education is a failure. By definition, tyranny is an attempt to do by force of law what cannot, or should not, be done by force at all. As C.S. Lewis wrote, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." This next part reminds me of our current political situation. "It would be better to live under a robber baron than under omnipotent moral busy bodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep; his cupidity may, at some point, be satiated. But those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end because they do so with the approval of their own conscience."