Positive/Negative freedom

I like this post. It's well laid out, it is concise yet exhaustive, well phrased, comprehensible.

Aye, I think a lot of politics fundamentally boil down to this, or similar, quite abstract concepts.

Agreed.

Here, I think our disagreement lies. You say that defence of self-possession is the only justification for force. I don't really understand your justification there. In most things, I would probably agree with you, but if we want to understand how that value measures up against other values, we will want to know what justification there is for this.

Maybe it's that I'm not quite clear on what you mean by self-possession. Is a person whose leg was broken by a mugger robbed of his self-possession? Is a person whose leg was broken by a falling rock in the woods robbed of his self-possession? It seems to me the answer to the former is obviously yes, but I'm not so sure about the latter. If no, then the distinction seems arbitrary, and not actually aimed at justice so much as a perverse interest in punishment, but if yes, then the government is justified in doing anything it sees fit.

I agree, save for the inclusion of the word "only" (depending on how we resolve the previous point).

I'm not sure I agree that the duties of the state amount to the "best intentions" (at least any more than the idea of minimising the state does). The idea that the statist approach is merely a realisation of pity-morality seems to me to miss the mark by a bit (I use statist here to mean basically any idea opposed to libertarianism, rather than any more extreme version). I appreciate that that narrative certainly exists in rhetoric and even beliefs among those groups, but I think they are missing the more interesting point too. It seems to me distributive politics and charity are different things, and I always saw it as a bait-and-switch to equate the two.

On the view I have suggested, the individual's authority over themselves includes several things which libertarians don't acknowledge. On that view, a person who is starving to death (or perhaps a single option) is not free, has not had his liberties successfully protected. I'm using more inflammatory language than necessary here, but I'm just trying to highlight the issue. If we have to examine the state's authority over our lives, should we not examine starvation's authority on our lives? Or the market's authority (the market insofar that each agreement, while mutual, has an impact on other people's lives, people outwith each contract)? It just doesn't seem to me like a viable way to think about politics.

My rhetoric here may suggest that I am for some Marxist view instead, but that is not my intention. I have similar problems with those views, and I consider the "correct" solution to be a careful balancing act, not massively far from the situation we have today (although with many disagreements on specific issues).

As mentioned, I don't think we should be thinking about it in terms of benevolence (imagine this, a political discussion where both sides are trying to distance themselves from benevolence ). The "statist" view also thinks in terms of what differences are justified, but it doesn't stop after having looked at the state. We're not arbitrarily giving authority to the state, so much as removing all authority from every source, and trying to work out how to act when no instructions whatsoever are given.

 

Another way of looking at 'freedom' is to take a look at its counter. Slavery.

Are you a 'slave' to any particular thing in your life? How long can you go without 'freedom'? Then you are a 'slave' to 'freedom'.

And it's for this reason that 'freedom' is deifyed as a 'goddess' or 'god'.

Libertas (Latin for Liberty) is the Roman goddess and embodiment of liberty.

Libertas
Goddess of liberty

Libertas with her attributes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertas


Sashay, Shantay. 'supermodel'.






The question is not if this is 'wrong'... the question to this thread might be, 'are you free with this' or 'are you a slave to this'?



The Statue of Liberty is a figure of a robed woman representing Libertas, a Roman liberty goddess. She holds a torch above her head with her right hand, and in her left hand carries a tabula ansata inscribed in Roman numerals with "JULY IV MDCCLXXVI" (July 4, 1776), the date of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. A broken chain lies at her feet as she walks forward. The statue became an icon of freedom and of the United States, and was a welcoming sight to immigrants arriving from abroad.

Statue of Liberty
Liberty Enlightening the World



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty


Libertas was also recognized in ancient Rome by the rod (vindicta or festuca),[8] used ceremonially in the act of Manumissio vindicta, Latin for "Freedom by the Rod"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertas

vindicta, vindictae.
noun.
Definitions:
ceremonial act claiming as free one contending
wrongly enslaved.
vengeance.

http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/38852/vindicta-vindictae


festuca, festucae

Definitions:

1. ram for beating down earth, piledriver
2. stalk (used in manumission)
3. straw

http://www.latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/festuca


Manumissio

Definitions:

1. freeing of slave
2. manumission, release from authority of manus

http://www.latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/Manumissio


manus, manus

Definitions:

1. gang, band of soldiers
2. hand, fist
3. handwriting
4. team

'handwriting' could also refer to any written 'law' now days.


'Free' to beat? Which would be 'positive' and which would be 'negative'?

 

I could be mistaken but I think the OP might be thinking of positive and negative "rights". Never heard of positive or negative freedom. Negative rights are what are in the constitution basically preventing the government from doing certain things like taking away your property without due process or silencing your political speech etc. Positive rights are things like believing everyone is entitled to a house or health care or a car. Negative is superior in ever conceivable sense because once you start down the path of announcing everything as a positive right you end up in ruins and bankruptcy and with a lower quality of life than before.

 

Yeh he sort of blew the opening, negative and positive are legal terms which refers to rights, not freedom.

The counter is actually considered being under yoke, or in 'servitude' through 'subjugation'.

slavery on the other hand many people went into slavery as a means of paying off a debt to someone.

many immigrants came to the us and went into slavery to pay the debt for transport.

Indentured servitude in the Americas
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Indentured servitude in the Americas was a means by which immigrants, typically young Europeans under 25,[1] came to the Americas from the early 17th to the early 20th centuries. Immigrants would contract to work for an American employer for a time period, usually between one and seven years, in exchange for the employer paying for their passage to the Americas. The employer provided subsistence for his indentured servants, but no wages; he could restrict some of their activities such as marriage, could sell or transfer their contract to another employer, and could seek legal sanctions, such as prison, if they ran away. At the end of the agreed time period, the servant would become free to go his own way or demand wages for his work. In some cases, the newly freed person also received an item of value such as a small parcel of land or a new suit of clothes.[2]

By these standards the gubmint enslaved everyone with the national debt.

The only difference in slavery then and slavery now is that instead of the master providing for your subsistence you provide for your own and have the ability to serve other masters to pay off your debt while the contract remained with the original master, at least in theory.

Today we have attorneys buying junk debt one master selling the debt contract to another.

There is little to no difference between a master providing subsistence and no wages compared to someone who is poor and forced to spend the bulk their wages to survive and pay a debt.

Its rather laughable how we change the words and imagine its different when in reality its SSDD.

 

Yes there is!
There are winners and losers.
The old saying "Follow the money trail"
Slavery makes the gubmint is the big loser because someone is exchanging goods or services and they are under the tax radar. No surprize they freed the slaves. No surprise the big push to promote atmospheres designed to break up families. Why have only one taxpayer when you can have more! Pretty soon children will be paying a consumption tax!

 

So with what you said, are there positive and negative, 'freedoms', in a society where human ownership is not allowed?

An example of positive freedom could be: 'I am free to work and earn monies so I can pay off debts'...

An example of negative freedom could be: 'I am not free to get into debt'...


But these 'freedoms' and ideas of both positive and negative is also subjective to the place/people/culture and Government Type.

In Socialist Countries, their 'even spread' idea to the civilians didn't really allow for 'possible' my debt is higher than your debt possibility but allowed for them to live more as a union, maybe something like the Italian 'fascio'.

Fascio (pronounced [ˈfaʃʃo]; plural fasci) is an Italian word literally meaning "a bundle" or "a sheaf", and figuratively "league", and which was used in the late 19th century to refer to political groups of many different (and sometimes opposing) orientations. A number of nationalist fasci later evolved into the 20th century Fasci movement, which became known as fascism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascio


Following the defeat of the Axis Powers in World War II, the term "fascist" has been used as a pejorative, often referring to widely varying movements across the political spectrum.[63] George Orwell wrote in 1944 that "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism


Professor Richard Griffiths of the University of Wales wrote in 2005 that "fascism" is the "most misused, and over-used word, of our times"


Current misunderstandings of words such as fascism is what causes others to be misunderstood, such as 'born this way' concept of 'gay' lifestyle due to a certain 'brain' finding by Medical Doctor Simon LeVay.

LeVay cautioned against misinterpreting his findings in a 1994 interview: "It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. The INAH3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_LeVay


Professor Richard Griffiths of the University of Wales wrote in 2005 that "fascism" is the "most misused, and over-used word, of our times"

But since these 'rumors' are being spread all around the streets but not in education/learning centers, etc... it could go to show that the 'blind are leading the blind'...

If Dr. LeVay himself says that he did not find a genetic cause for homosexuality in gay males, would he be more correct in interpreting his work or would the general public be more correct in interpreting his work?

He himself says he did not find 'a' cause... not 'the' cause but not even 'a' cause.

He found 'similar differences' between the two groups, homosexual and heterosexual males, but he did not state that those 'similar differences' was even 'a' cause. It could be 'assumed' that those 'similar differences' would be 'a' cause but without true empirical evidence, it can't show that those 'similar-differences' is a, the 'cause' or 'reason' for the different 'orientations', or 'eye to stimulation' processes. These 'similar-differences' could show a relationship with those who has more 'attraction' to one particular 'sex upon birth' person but it would still not show why or what a cause or the cause for males being 'gay' would be... Attraction. If gay males had similar INAH3 properties as hetero women, then an 'attraction' comparison could be made. And based upon average 'density' of the INAH3 of hetero males and hetero females, any 'gay male' can be placed in an association place on the 'sexual line' to either the hetero male or the hetero female based on their INAH3 properties.

Example:

| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|

^extremely hetero female .......... ^extremely hetero male.

 

And one other thing... I'm not sure which was to 'pay' off a debt, either slavery or indentured servant, such as 'yoke or servitude' but here is a little on 'indentured servitude'.

An indentured servant or indentured laborer is an employee (indenturee) within a system of unfree labor who is bound by a signed or forced contract (indenture) to work for a particular employer for a fixed time. The contract often lets the employer sell the labor of an indenturee to a third party. Indenturees usually enter into an indenture for a specific payment or other benefit, or to meet a legal obligation, such as debt bondage. On completion of the contract, indentured servants were given their freedom, and occasionally plots of land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude

 

The term positive freedom is a layered euphemism for positive and negative rights. Its a deceptive way to to place layers on top of the fact that its basis or core foundation is individual rights.

Positive rights are positive coded, (statutes) which are privileges.
Negative rights are freedom to exercise religion, I choose which religion and I practice it openly without undue interference.

The states hijacked it and in most state constitutions they changed the original rights agreed upon in the federal constitution to the right to pray, completely abolishing the right to exercize clause in the agreement. They deceive you at every corner.

Liberty and when the word freedom is used to represent liberty is a set of privileges granted to you by the gubmint. Positive.

Unalienable Rights, the right to exercise religion are negative rights, rights the individual chooses for themselves without gubmint interference, or so the fantasy goes, since the overlords never have and never will honor the contract.

isnt that what I said? the subjugated against ones will version is what is meant by slavery, like the national debt for instance, a debt that the parents pass on to the children.

 

Your theoretical person with the broken leg has lost the same in both cases, and by all means, that same person should use, if necessary, force against an equal or a subordinate or an inanimate to defend their ownership of them self, or that part of them self in question here.

"Distributive politics" are called 'distributive politics' because collective politics is too transparent.

To have a logical discussion about politics we must measure 'apples to apples'. To compare the best intentions of some to the less-than-best intentions of others is to frame a context to suit a pretext to hide a subtext. In other words, it's comparing 'apples to oranges'.

Politics, in any form, is nothing more or less than public relationships.
Government, in any form, is nothing more of less than the legal use of force.

Liberty and freedom are two very different things. They are as different as round and red. They can refer to the same thing, but they are, in and of themselves, opposites. Freedom is always freedom from something, above you cite hunger for example. By the proper use of the word, your above theoretical person is also free from food. My point is that one can be free from just about anything, including liberty. Quite unlike freedom, liberty is always liberty to something, and it is always liberty to the same thing. Liberty is the individual's authority over and responsibility for them self. Many people seek freedom from authority over and responsibility for them self. Many people equate liberty with chaos or anarchy.

A statist does not consider having their best intentions for others imposed upon them by force of law to be a usurpation of other people's best intentions for themselves. They consider it the only reasonable alternative to chaos or having their counterpart's best intentions imposed upon them by force, or by mere exposure. In my opinion, such political benevolence should be reserved to the parents of small children. It can be well argued by anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history that benevolence has killed, ruined or otherwise harmed far more people than malice has. The twentieth century is replete with good intentions killing tens of millions.

The one thing all communists, fascists, socialists, progressives and islamists have in common is the sincere desire to impose their very best intentions upon others by force of law.

From each according to their ability and to each according to their need is a great way to organize a family, but it's a terrible way to organize equals. The least worst way to organize equals is from each according to their will and to each according to their ability.

Charity is to will for another as one wills for oneself. Charity is integral to a civil society. Charity has a mutually voluntary nature. Government, by definition, cannot conduct charity. Compulsory collectives and their redistributions can have no net benefit because they cannot give more than they take. Charity can have a net benefit because individuals can produce more than they give. Governments, in general, produce nothing.

The statist believes that differences between equals are an injustice and that the role of the state is to impose justice by force of law. The libertarian believes that the only just role for the state is to defend the differences between equals. The one thing that both sides agree on is that it's the differences between us that necessitate the use of force between us. As long as we live, it will be this way because the only place men are equal is in the grave yard.

 

Right, but how come the state is justified in interfering with one and not the other?

Which comparison are you talking about here? Breaking your leg to having your leg broken? Distributive politics as charity to distributive politics as correction of injustice? What pretext and subtext are you talking about?

I mean, I disagree, but I think the best way of resolving that is the rest of these posts.

So, how would you position those within politics? Which ones do you think are important and in which contexts? It seems to me that you could say welfare protects the liberty of the starving person (by affording them the liberty to do anything that living people do that dead people do not), whereas arguably, the liberty afforded by decreasing taxation is relatively small.

What confuses me is that libertarians use the above logic to argue for reduced government, whereas I interpret the logic to support extensive government.

Well, together with pretty much anyone who isn't libertarian, which in the grand context is not a lot of people. With possibly the exception that I have already pointed out, thinking about it as charity sort of misses the point, it has no less noble an approach then libertarianism has, it just turns its eye to all of reality, instead of just the state.

As I'm sure you're aware, even the modern left (even in more left-leaning countries than the US) would regard that as an outdated and inaccurate representation of their views. It can't be denied that that has been a view present throughout history, but to see no further than that when discussing any idea that isn't libertarianism is a gross misrepresentation.

I don't particularly disagree with this argument, but if what you say is true, that what the government does isn't charity, then why do you keep bringing up charity?

 

I think a number of people on these boards use “freedom” in the sense of being free of responsibility toward their fellow human beings.

They want to be free to do as they wish no matter the impact on anyone else. This can range anywhere from having the freedom to pollute the invironment despite harm to others to freedom to not contribute to the economy while reaping the benefits of other’s labor.

It’s a never ending struggle for societies to draw a line, and there will ALWAYS be someone who doesn’t like where that line falls. And there will always be people who will try to abuse those freedoms. It’s the nature of greed and survival.

 

The role of the state is not to impose justice; it's not even to oppose all injustices. The role of the state is to defend individual self-possession from their equals. The state should play no role in defending individuals from subordinates, let alone from inanimates.

I was not referring to any particular comparison. I made the statement to establish the fact that comparing the best intentions of one to the less-than-best intentions of another is just beggaring an argument. I wanted to explain why, going forward in my post, that I would compare the best intentions to the best intentions. I believed that it was worth making note of
because it is exceedingly rare in the forum.

Liberty is the individuals authority over and responsibility for them self. In politics, the only freedom that matters is freedom from unjust infringement upon self-possession (which includes liberty). One's liberty cannot obligate another to anything other than not infringing upon the others liberty. In other words, politically, that is by force of law, one mans degree of need is no good measure of another man's degree of responsibility.

From each according to their will and to each according to their abilities is the most concise way I can summarize my politics. I coined that phrase.

Government cannot conduct charity because charity has a completely voluntary nature, and absolutely everything done by government is done by force of law. Government cannot conduct charity because government can have no net benefit because government cannot give more than it takes. Charity can have a net benefit because individuals can make more than they give. Governments, generally speaking, make nothing. I keep bringing up charity because government destroys charity. They turn giving into taking, the voluntary into the mandatory and the sense of gratitude into a sense of entitlement.

 

I mean, this is basically what you said before, you reiterate what you think the state's role is, but you haven't really touched on why it should be so. If there are aspects of the state which are rejected due to not being justified, then it becomes very interesting to see what it is that actually makes any state action justified, including protection of life and property.

I'm not sure how that connects to the rest of the argument. As previously mentioned, I'm not sure I agree that the pro-state view should be viewed as the best intentions of the voters/politicians/other, so I'd like it to be very clear how that relates to what we're talking about.

I think this is what you've been saying all along, but I think it requires some interpretation to be useful. Do you lose self-possession when you break your leg or do you not?

You seem to be invoking the "from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their need" idea. That would be a pretty extreme exaggeration of the pro-state view, amounting to a straw man, I think.

I think government tries to do something that isn't charity and ends up doing something that isn't charity. Charity doesn't seem to enter into the equation to me.

 

Being broke takes away your freedom.
Having kids does too but it can also be a good thing.
Freedom seems to be somewhat overrated. I see freedom as a man alone in the wilderness in a cabin. Is his life better than someone having a drink with good friends after a hard day's work or playing with wife/kids?

 

I don't see freedom as one thing. It seems to me people use it differently in different contexts. The man in the cabin is free in one sense, the hippie is free in another sense, the starving person is free in another sense still, Bill Gates is freer in another sense. It seems to me the word freedom is mostly used when one wants to evoke an emotional response, not when one is trying to make a coherent argument.

 

Yes freedom is different to everyone. But it usually comes to down to being able to do whatever you want (retire, travel, not work) and that usually means money. Although you could argue a hobo with food stamps is more free in some ways than a wage slave. So it depends on your lifestyle too. Middles class frugal people that retire early and live in a modest house could be considered free as well: free from debt.

 

Yeah. I'm finding this makes freedom a useless term (unless specifically defined). It's more a rallying word than an argument, so people who use it are often either failing to see the full picture, or deliberately hiding it.