4 ms·

He wants to protect "our most basic freedoms", right? Matt Yglesias explains: Freedom’s Just Another Word for "I’m An Orthodox Conservative With Orthodox Conse

He wants to protect "our most basic freedoms", right? Matt Yglesias explains: Freedom’s Just Another Word for "I’m An Orthodox Conservative With Orthodox Conservative Views": http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/?p=41091 http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/?p=41091 He also provides an example in: The Freedom to Build: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/the-freedom-to-build/ http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/the-freedom-to-bui... Where freedom means the freedom to prevent a real estate developer from building what they want, on property they own, because you don't like it. Also somewhat apropos: Freedom-Talk in Colonial Georgia: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/freedom-talk-in-colonial-georgia/ http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/freedom-talk-in-co... The Georgia dissidents rallied behind the revealing slogan “Liberty and Property without restrictions”—which explicitly linked the liberty of white men to their right to hold blacks as property. Until they could own slaves, the white Georgians considered themselves unfree.

jokermatt999 16y ago
George Orwell's Politics and the English Language (which should be required reading for everyone) has a section titled "Meaningless words" which contains this wonderful sentence: "The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another." I try to keep it in mind whenever I see someone mentioning freedom, openness, rights, etc. Generally it seems like these are used for emotional appeal rather an actual clear definition. Edit: Link to the essay. It's short, and very well worth the read. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
- davidmathers 16y ago
  There is of course some truth to that, but in this case I think it's a bit unfair to conservatives. The words "freedom" and "liberty" do have reasonably consistent and coherent conservative meanings. They're just different than what libertarians, classical liberals, etc. mean when they use those words (negative liberty) and what liberals, social democrats, etc mean (positive liberty). But I do agree that Politics and the English Language should be read by everyone, so I'm always glad to see it linked to.
  - gloob 16y ago
    "Negative liberty" and "positive liberty" are at least as much a matter of phrasing as they are anything real. For instance, do I have the positive liberty to compel others not to point loaded firearms at me? Do government officials have the negative liberty to not be compelled to hold elections if they don't want to?
    - davidmathers 16y ago
      I agree that those concepts don't really hold up to philosophical scrutiny, but they're useful for political categories. Libertarians, social democrats, and conservatives all mean something real when they say "liberty" and they are 3 different meanings.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
Very true - those Koch Brothers, often discussing freedom, really are just pushing orthodox conservative views. Like decriminalizing drugs, legalizing gay marriage, and ending the patriot act (their #1 political position, based on money spent). http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/frrth/stop_the_koch_brothers_they_are_trying_to_end_the/ http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/frrth/stop_the_koc...
- davidmathers 16y ago
  The Koch brothers are libertarians, not conservatives. See "Why I am not a Conservative" by F. A. Hayek.
  - barry-cotter 16y ago
    That was sarcasm.
    - davidmathers 16y ago
      I know it was sarcasm. Why are you pointing that out? And what does it have to do with my response?
- jbooth 16y ago
  Based on money spent, they gave an awful lot of money in 2010 to people who not only disagree with those positions, but disagree with them LOUDLY and will call you a godless heathen, communist, terrorist, muslim or all of the above if the subject comes up. Just saying. Maybe the Koch brothers don't watch Fox News. Someone should write them a letter and tell them where their money's going. After all, they helped finance the guy who beat Russ Feingold, the lone vote in the senate against the Patriot act in 2001 (99-1).
  - webXL 16y ago
    Feingold said corporations don't have a right to free speech, so I hardly think he should be supported by libertarians. And based on that lofty single-issue standard, have you refrained from supporting candidates who voted in opposition to your views on the Patriot Act?

jokermatt999 16y ago

George Orwell's Politics and the English Language (which should be required reading for everyone) has a section titled "Meaningless words" which contains this wonderful sentence: "The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another." I try to keep it in mind whenever I see someone mentioning freedom, openness, rights, etc. Generally it seems like these are used for emotional appeal rather an actual clear definition. Edit: Link to the essay. It's short, and very well worth the read. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

davidmathers 16y ago
There is of course some truth to that, but in this case I think it's a bit unfair to conservatives. The words "freedom" and "liberty" do have reasonably consistent and coherent conservative meanings. They're just different than what libertarians, classical liberals, etc. mean when they use those words (negative liberty) and what liberals, social democrats, etc mean (positive liberty). But I do agree that Politics and the English Language should be read by everyone, so I'm always glad to see it linked to.
- gloob 16y ago
  "Negative liberty" and "positive liberty" are at least as much a matter of phrasing as they are anything real. For instance, do I have the positive liberty to compel others not to point loaded firearms at me? Do government officials have the negative liberty to not be compelled to hold elections if they don't want to?
  - davidmathers 16y ago
    I agree that those concepts don't really hold up to philosophical scrutiny, but they're useful for political categories. Libertarians, social democrats, and conservatives all mean something real when they say "liberty" and they are 3 different meanings.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Very true - those Koch Brothers, often discussing freedom, really are just pushing orthodox conservative views. Like decriminalizing drugs, legalizing gay marriage, and ending the patriot act (their #1 political position, based on money spent). http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/frrth/stop_the_koch_brothers_they_are_trying_to_end_the/ http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/frrth/stop_the_koc...

davidmathers 16y ago
The Koch brothers are libertarians, not conservatives. See "Why I am not a Conservative" by F. A. Hayek.
- barry-cotter 16y ago
  That was sarcasm.
  - davidmathers 16y ago
    I know it was sarcasm. Why are you pointing that out? And what does it have to do with my response?
jbooth 16y ago
Based on money spent, they gave an awful lot of money in 2010 to people who not only disagree with those positions, but disagree with them LOUDLY and will call you a godless heathen, communist, terrorist, muslim or all of the above if the subject comes up. Just saying. Maybe the Koch brothers don't watch Fox News. Someone should write them a letter and tell them where their money's going. After all, they helped finance the guy who beat Russ Feingold, the lone vote in the senate against the Patriot act in 2001 (99-1).
- webXL 16y ago
  Feingold said corporations don't have a right to free speech, so I hardly think he should be supported by libertarians. And based on that lofty single-issue standard, have you refrained from supporting candidates who voted in opposition to your views on the Patriot Act?