Positive Liberty, Negative Liberty, and Government

[demi-conservative]

It's not pointless hair-splitting because the implications in practice are huge: the difference between a limited government that prevents people from injuring one another, or an unlimited state that claims to "take care of us" from cradle to grave (the claim of the latter really means some people being forced to provide potentially unlimited goods/services to other people.).

Common obstacle/barrier/constraints to doing anything is lack of means! (which you don't dispute!!) Full stop.

Yes, people can wave around 'positive liberty' or 'negative liberty' to justify silly stuff but that is besides point.

Personally I would say "positive liberty" is not liberty. Liberty is freedom, thus freedom from something. Thus it is inherently a negative concept."Positive liberty" seems to be a contradiction.

As I said in post to Jaecp, freedom for obstacles to do Xis freedom to do X and vice versa. 'Positive liberty' imply 'negative liberty' and vice versa too!

And what proponents of "positive liberty" really want is to force people to provide goods/services to other people, which is really the opposite of liberty. It is more akin to slavery than to liberty.

Again, what people wave around 'positive liberty' or 'negative liberty' for is besides point.

[Joel]

Common obstacle/barrier/constraints to doing anything is lack of means! (which you don't dispute!!) Full stop.
...
As I said in post to Jaecp, freedom for obstacles to do Xis freedom to do X and vice versa. 'Positive liberty' imply 'negative liberty' and vice versa too!

A square is a rectangle, but that doesn't mean square and rectangle are equivalent. Rectangle doesn't imply square. Lack of someone using force against you (negative liberty) doesn't imply you have means (positive liberty). Your inability to fly like Superman is not due to a lack of negative liberty, but a lack of positive liberty.

Yes, people can wave around 'positive liberty' or 'negative liberty' to justify silly stuff but that is besides point.

I would say that the difference in philosophy between, e.g., the classical liberals and the Marxists is the point.
It's the difference between the classical understanding of justice ("to each what is his") and the Marxist ("to each according to his need")



Incidentally, yesterday I was reading Hobbes' Leviathan, and came across a passage of him making the same basic distinction:

"Liberty, or FREEDOME, signifieth (properly) the absence of...externall Impediments of motion and may be applyed no lesse to Irrational, and Inanimate creatures, than to Rationall. For whatsoever is so tyed, or environed, as it cannot move, but within a certain space, which space is determined by the opposition of some externall body, we say it hath not Liberty to go further. And so of all living creatures, whilest they are imprisoned, or restrained, with walls, or chayns; and of the water whilest it is kept in by banks, or vessels, that otherwise would spread it selfe into a larger space, we use to say, they are not at Liberty, to move in such manner, as without those externall impediments they would. But when the impediment of motion, is in the constitution of the thing it selfe, we use not to say, it wants the Liberty; but the Power to move; as when a stone lyeth still, or a man is fastned to his bed by sicknesse."
Chapter 21

In our context we further reduce the scope of external impediments to just other humans using force against you. And include one's property as part of one's power to move, as part of the constitution of the person himself.

[demi-conservative]

A square is a rectangle, but that doesn't mean square and rectangle are equivalent. Rectangle doesn't imply square. Lack of someone using force against you (negative liberty) doesn't imply you have means (positive liberty). Your inability to fly like Superman is not due to a lack of negative liberty, but a lack of positive liberty.

Again, that is from silly definition of yours. Inability to fly is obstacle/barrier/constraints.

I would say that the difference in philosophy between, e.g., the classical liberals and the Marxists is the point.
It's the difference between the classical understanding of justice ("to each what is his") and the Marxist ("to each according to his need")

Both use different conception of 'what is my/his/our' property.

Incidentally, yesterday I was reading Hobbes' Leviathan, and came across a passage of him making the same basic distinction:

"Liberty, or FREEDOME, signifieth (properly) the absence of...externall Impediments of motion and may be applyed no lesse to Irrational, and Inanimate creatures, than to Rationall. For whatsoever is so tyed, or environed, as it cannot move, but within a certain space, which space is determined by the opposition of some externall body, we say it hath not Liberty to go further. And so of all living creatures, whilest they are imprisoned, or restrained, with walls, or chayns; and of the water whilest it is kept in by banks, or vessels, that otherwise would spread it selfe into a larger space, we use to say, they are not at Liberty, to move in such manner, as without those externall impediments they would. But when the impediment of motion, is in the constitution of the thing it selfe, we use not to say, it wants the Liberty; but the Power to move; as when a stone lyeth still, or a man is fastned to his bed by sicknesse."
Chapter 21

So what?? Hobbes is wrong and you are wrong.

In our context we further reduce the scope of external impediments to just other humans using force against you.

And include one's property as part of one's power to move, as part of the constitution of the person himself.

All these attempts, to make it seem like 'muh liberty I defend is better and more fundamental than yours!!!!'

[Joel]

Again, that is from silly definition of yours. Inability to fly is obstacle/barrier/constraints.

Both use different conception of 'what is my/his/our' property.

So what?? Hobbes is wrong and you are wrong.

Okay, the definition intended by everyone in the world who uses the terms is wrong, and yours is right.

[demi-conservative]

Okay, the definition intended by everyone in the world who uses the terms is wrong, and yours is right.

Demi: 'Inability to fly is obstacle/barrier/constraints.'

Joel: 'But Hobbes agrees with me!!'

Demi: 'you do know opinion of Hobbes doesn't prove anything'

Joel: 'But everyone agrees with me!!!!!!!!'

Demi: Is everything okay??

[Joel]

Demi: 'Inability to fly is obstacle/barrier/constraints.'

Joel: 'But Hobbes agrees with me!!'

Demi: 'you do know opinion of Hobbes doesn't prove anything'

Joel: 'But everyone agrees with me!!!!!!!!'

Demi: Is everything okay??

We were discussing a distinction widely understood and discussed by political philosophers. And there's the article on the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (The quote from Hobbes was just an interesting quote, that I happened to come across in my reading that day. It was not intended to be an appeal to authority.) In particular we were discussing what the role of the state should be in respect to this distinction.

Then you come along and claim to reject the premise of the discussion by redefining terms the way you see fit, instead of engaging what we actually mean. Have fun with that.

[Joel]

Back to the main discussion:

I'll introduce yet another argument. Previously I made the argument that enforcing negative liberty leads directly to limited government while enforcing positive liberty directly implies unlimited government (because philanthropy is unlimited in principle).

Today, I argue that enforcing positive liberty has additional indirect effects tending toward unlimited government: The provision of means in any area of life tends to cause that area to become a public matter rather than a private matter. For example, provision of health care makes each person's health no longer a private matter, but a matter of public concern. This opens the door to arguments for totalitarian control over persons' actions affecting their health. Thus we already see calls to use law to restrict/ban/control consumption of sugar, fat, salt, cigarettes, alcohol. The same reasoning leads to control of any risky or healthful activities. When control of your very body becomes a public matter, the door is open to totalitarianism. Similarly the welfare state leads to calls for controls on human movement. Even the fact that the state often "provides" roads and utilities is used as an argument that businessmen owe the state, that businessmen ought therefore to submit to any commands by the state. In these cases too, it is used as a defense of totalitarianism.

[Spartacus]

Sorry for being MIA in the thread. Been a little busy and, evne when I had time, couldn't quite identify the right entry point.

Back to the main discussion:

I'll introduce yet another argument. Previously I made the argument that enforcing negative liberty leads directly to limited government while enforcing positive liberty directly implies unlimited government (because philanthropy is unlimited in principle).

Today, I argue that enforcing positive liberty has additional indirect effects tending toward unlimited government: The provision of means in any area of life tends to cause that area to become a public matter rather than a private matter. For example, provision of health care makes each person's health no longer a private matter, but a matter of public concern. This opens the door to arguments for totalitarian control over persons' actions affecting their health. Thus we already see calls to use law to restrict/ban/control consumption of sugar, fat, salt, cigarettes, alcohol. The same reasoning leads to control of any risky or healthful activities. When control of your very body becomes a public matter, the door is open to totalitarianism. Similarly the welfare state leads to calls for controls on human movement. Even the fact that the state often "provides" roads and utilities is used as an argument that businessmen owe the state, that businessmen ought therefore to submit to any commands by the state. In these cases too, it is used as a defense of totalitarianism.

Your highly simplistic argument makes any governmental attempt to facilitate some good, apart from keeping citizens out of each other's backyards, tantamount to totalitarianism. There are many ways to limit the power and scope of government, and in restricting the power of government, we make trade-offs.

[Joel]

Your highly simplistic argument makes any governmental attempt to facilitate some good, apart from keeping citizens out of each other's backyards, tantamount to totalitarianism. There are many ways to limit the power and scope of government, and in restricting the power of government, we make trade-offs.

Unlike my earlier arguments, this one does not point out a necessary consequence but just a tendency.
In theory the state could give someone something as a pure gift, with no strings attached, with it being explicit that it is none of the public's concern how the recipient uses the gift. But the tendency is that the gift is given with a given end in mind, and thus there is the desire to control how it is used. And if a person's actions affect whether they receive such a gift, then their actions tend to be seen as affecting the public burden and thus seen as a matter of public concern. So it may be possible in some circumstances to strictly maintain privacy, but it's difficult. And once it becomes a public matter, the principle has been lost. And we see this trend every time. I'm open to any suggestions for ideas for stopping this secondary effect.