The Atlantic Tells Us About “Good” and “Bad” Liberty
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (58)
sorted by:
It's not positive and negative liberty, it's positive and negative rights.
Negative rights are things that you inherently have due to being human that people (especially the government) shouldn't take from you - things like freedom of speech, ability to defend yourself, right to control your property, etc. (basically, the bill of rights type stuff)
Positive rights are when people get greedy and say they have a right to take stuff from someone and give it to themselves. Such as "Other people should pay for my education!" "Other people should pay for my health care!" "Other people should pay for my internet access!" etc. (basically, the DNC platform)
Again you’re playing by their framing, positive and negative have direct intent, you are either adding or detracting. There is nothing negative in inherent rights, neither is it what they argue. “Negative” liberty is liberty, “positive” liberty is communism. If we were to use positive and negative as they words intent implies then positive liberty is additional freedoms without cost applied to others. Negative liberty is additional freedoms at the cost of others.
Positive and negative aren't synonymous for good and bad in this context. It's from the perspective of the government. Negative rights are about what the government isn't allowed to do, like jail you without cause, restrict your free speech and gun rights, ect. Positive rights means the government has to take action to fulfill them rather than just refrain from tyrannical behavior. Examples would be all the free shit the left wants to give free loaders to buy votes. In effect this means robbing Peter to pay Paul, which is why positive rights are bad. But positive and negative are not moral judgements in this context.
Notice what you did. You defended an avenue of thought after you acknowledged it was inherently flawed. Positive and negative in terms of government should never be defined on how it impacts government. Government is a system built by citizens, therefore the only metric of impact that matters in the aspect of positive and negative is the impact upon the people.
I'm not defending anything. I'm simply pointing out how those terms are used. Negative rights forbid the government from taking certain actions, and positive rights mandate the government take certain actions. You're still assigning normative values to positive and negative and they're purely descriptive terms in this context. We're talking about definitions, not value judgements. Those terms don't mean good/bad any more than protons have "good" charges and electrons have "bad" charges because we use the terms positive and negative to describe electrical charge. The terminology is shitty because it confuses rather than clarifies but it's not being used in the way you think it is.
Let me guess: you bitched about a negative HIV test, didn't you?
Sure, but that's the standard terminology that's always been understood, even by those of who know there are only "negative" rights. Perhaps we should reformulate the terms to make it easier to understand for noobs.
You mean don’t use communist Russian diction to describe the traits of liberty? Did it really take you this long to get that?
―Joseph de Maistre, Considerations on France
Rights and liberty are ideas that only emerge from western peoples. They are not and cannot be universal, even within the west. Liberty can only exist in a high-trust society that is already well ordered with shared values. Rights are derived from sovereign power to facilitate the uplifting and prosperity of the people. When a society is disordered and incoherent, the sovereign has a duty to ruthlessly crush subversive and corrosive elements that dissolve society.
Not really, rights and liberties exist as a reaction to impositions applied by rules over the world. It is only the west that founded a philosophy on the idea and applied it universally in order to prevent generalized tyranny.
It's unfortunate that the east and south live as slaves to their rapists and killers, but I'm not prepared to accept slavery because of the threat of subversion.
And it is the duty and moral obligation of every man to remove that sovereign by any means necessary. This is normally because the very concept of human freedom is the most subversive weapon against all authority. So, any freedom is a subversive threat to any order. In response, many sovereigns are prepared to systematically exterminate most, if not all, of their entire population with foreign armies in order to maintain an order that they impose, because allowing any dissent, of any kind, can undermine that order. They will always accept that hollowing out your lands and re-populating it with loyal foreigners is better than allowing your own subjects to reject your assertions, even if your assertions are patently insane and damaging.
The problem with most sovereigns is that they, without exception, are the most dangerous threat that any society faces at any time. The fact that any and all freedom of any kind can be seen as subversion of the order they impose, justifies unlimited atrocities. The more totalizing the sovereign's scope, the less dissent can be tolerated.
Both the American Revolution, and the English Civil War, explicitly demonstrates why Kings and Sovereigns can't be trusted. In both cases, the unflinching rejection of the King to disruption of their government's absolute authority, lead to them allying with foreigners to kill their own subjects and murder their own people. This because to every authoritarian, it is better to have most of your population die, rather than to have any one person disobey. Most importantly: at no point is the sovereign prepared to believe that he is wrong.
This is the lolbert idea of freedom that only works for a society of 120IQ white boys that reproduce without women. If you haven't noticed over the last two years, most people desperately want someone to tell them what to do, which isn't a bad thing. A vicious king can be less free than a virtuous slave, as a man has as many masters as his vices. Classical tyranny, as described in Plato's Republic, is when slaves and women are elevated to positions of power over better men. Somehow tyranny has been redefined to mean when sovereignty simply exists, which is delusional as the existence of sovereign power is inescapable.
Classical liberty comes from order.
???
Order is an emergent property of Chaos.
Chaos is an emergent property of Order.
The idea that that only white people can have freedom, when it is white people who are the primary source of the destruction of that freedom with Leftist shows this is nonsensical.
Yes, the political Left cultivated a culture of slaves for nearly a century. That's actually a bad thing.
Cool, cool, so you've never read a single history book in your life then?
History is literally filled to the brim with not only viscous kings, but in some cases, literal psychopaths who are kings, queens, lords, duchy's, dukes, etc. They normally survive all possible challenges, because no one can hold them to account before opposition murders them.
I would honestly expect better from you, since you've at least read the history of gender.
Literally not where the word tyrant comes from. Tyrants, and their tyranny, is simply when someone (typically some kind of gang or factional leader) takes over a city state.
Plato's Republic, in and of itself, was a tyranny by the fact that his Philosopher Kings would have unchecked power, and are effectively a good description of the environment we have at this very second, with self-anointed intellectualists declaring themselves the unchangeable arbiters of the world.
It is the self-anointed "Better Men" that we should seek to uncompromisingly remove from society, given their utterly unaccountable nature, and the fact that no human suffering can dissuade them from their arrogance.
Precisely.
The concept of "Positive Rights" comes from Rouseau's conceptualization of a "Social Contract": whereby, the government representing the "General Will" (a more insane concept than what it sounds) creates "rights" for the people who subject themselves to it, as a form of political reward at the expense of their freedom.
Rouseau is explicit that you must sacrifice your actual liberty to the state in order to be bestowed the benefits of your loyalty to the state.