3 ms·

> > greater negative liberty > What does this mean? A negative liberty is a term used to distinguish it from a positive liberty. A positive liberty sounds lik

> > greater negative liberty > What does this mean? A negative liberty is a term used to distinguish it from a positive liberty. A positive liberty sounds like this: "The right to free speech." A negative liberty sounds like this: "The right to not be discriminated against based on X, Y, or Z." Differently, a positive liberty is "freedom to do" whereas a negative liberty is "freedom not to have done". So, what GP is saying is that people under such a program would make for fewer impositions on individuals by the government.

bradleyjg 13y ago
That's not quite right. A negative right is a restriction on government that prevents it from interfearing with or punishing certain behavior. So free speech means that the government can't punish you for critizing the government. That's a negative right. So is the right to bear arms, the right to choose, the right to free exercise of religion, and the right against self incrimination. A positive right, on the other hand, purports to create an obligation for the government. For example, the South Africa constitution guarantees its citizens basic health care. That's conceptualized as a right, they are said to have the right to health care. Some things are tricky to place. Take the right to counsel in criminal cases. Is it a positive obligation for the government to provide an attorney or is it a restriction on what the government can do to you unless it chooses to provide you an attorney? Descrimination is likewise tricky. Saying one has a right to be black is kind of nonsensical, allowed or not that's how people are born.
- strlen 13y ago
  Yes, this is what I meant. Libertarianism is defined by a focus purely on negative liberty, classical liberalism (e.g., liberal parties in Non-US Anglophone countries) has a more broad focus, and social democracy/left-liberalism (generally called just liberalism in the US, but best expounded through John Rawl's excellent work) also adds the idea of social justice. Discrimination is indeed a challenging matter: obviously law against govenrment discrimination counts as negative liberty, but you could (and I personally would) also argue that restrictions on certain type of discrimination by individuals and businesses (in employment, housing, contracts, e.g., prohibitions on restrictive covenants for future home sales) might technically infringe on negative liberty of one group, but greatly increases positive liberty of everyone else. There are no simple answers here and I not having a true political science, law, or economics background I would not be qualified to offer one. That's why I tried to make my appeal for NNI as broad as possible: it is clearly a policy that -- compared with what we have today and other politically viable options -- is more just no matter which one of the common political philosophies you subscribe to.
- saraid216 13y ago
  Ah. I wasn't aware of these government-centric definitions. I got mine from here, which presumes that the agent is a person rather than a government: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

bradleyjg 13y ago

That's not quite right. A negative right is a restriction on government that prevents it from interfearing with or punishing certain behavior. So free speech means that the government can't punish you for critizing the government. That's a negative right. So is the right to bear arms, the right to choose, the right to free exercise of religion, and the right against self incrimination. A positive right, on the other hand, purports to create an obligation for the government. For example, the South Africa constitution guarantees its citizens basic health care. That's conceptualized as a right, they are said to have the right to health care. Some things are tricky to place. Take the right to counsel in criminal cases. Is it a positive obligation for the government to provide an attorney or is it a restriction on what the government can do to you unless it chooses to provide you an attorney? Descrimination is likewise tricky. Saying one has a right to be black is kind of nonsensical, allowed or not that's how people are born.

strlen 13y ago
Yes, this is what I meant. Libertarianism is defined by a focus purely on negative liberty, classical liberalism (e.g., liberal parties in Non-US Anglophone countries) has a more broad focus, and social democracy/left-liberalism (generally called just liberalism in the US, but best expounded through John Rawl's excellent work) also adds the idea of social justice. Discrimination is indeed a challenging matter: obviously law against govenrment discrimination counts as negative liberty, but you could (and I personally would) also argue that restrictions on certain type of discrimination by individuals and businesses (in employment, housing, contracts, e.g., prohibitions on restrictive covenants for future home sales) might technically infringe on negative liberty of one group, but greatly increases positive liberty of everyone else. There are no simple answers here and I not having a true political science, law, or economics background I would not be qualified to offer one. That's why I tried to make my appeal for NNI as broad as possible: it is clearly a policy that -- compared with what we have today and other politically viable options -- is more just no matter which one of the common political philosophies you subscribe to.
saraid216 13y ago
Ah. I wasn't aware of these government-centric definitions. I got mine from here, which presumes that the agent is a person rather than a government: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/