Freedom From versus Freedom To: Two Different Meanings and their Commonality


Samson Corwell

Recommended Posts

Yes, another one of my threads on political theory/science/terminology. If me posting so many in such a short period of time is getting on anyone's nerves, don't worry, this will (probably) be the last one I make for a while. Previously, I've hit up on rights, property, positive versus negative rights, and property rights reductionism (of which I'm critical). This time around I'm tackling the distinction between "freedom from" and "freedom to", the two different senses in which I've seen either of them used, and which of these senses is I think is more useful.

Prior to my introduction to libertarianism/Objectivism, I had never of the distinction between "positive freedom" and "negative freedom". "Positive freedom" is "freedom to" whereas "negative freedom" is "freedom from". Those who lean libertarian and/or O'ist consider "negative freedom", specifically "freedom from coercion", to be "truer" than "positive freedom". This usage of "freedom from" and "freedom to" doesn't line up with how I believe the rest of the world uses those two phrases.

In my experience, the meanings are switched around. "Freedom to" means being permitted to do something. "Freedom from" signifies a sort of imperative that conditions must be a certain way. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of choice are instances of "freedom to". Freedom from pollution, freedom from discrimination, and freedom from social pressure are examples "freedom from" (note to self: no shit, Sherlock). These meanings are more common in everyday discourse. Think of how some people, in response to those who do not wish to be offended, will say "it's freedom of speech, not freedom from being offended". Or how some conservatives, in trying to argue against the separation of church and state, will shout at the tops of their lungs "The First Amendment says freedom of religion, not freedom from religion!" (this one's rather stupid).

If I was to choose between which of the pairs of senses is more useful, I'd pick the latter one. My first reason for this is that "freedom from coercion" seems much too particular, to the point of requiring multiply interpretations of "coercion", and also seems incoherent. My second reason is that "freedom to" seems to me to be a more accurate description of "freedom" and best captures the details of the concept. My third reason is that "freedoms from" coincide with sillier and more burdensome laws (i.e., freedom from smelling your neighbor's cooking, freedom from listening to your neighbor's music, etc.). Though I think this distinction is better, I'd still caution against using it as anything more than a general guideline. To wit, "freedom from torture" is perfectly acceptable as policy despite being needed to be expressed with the word "from".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

OL members interested in the distinction between "negative" and "positive" liberty may find these Cato Essays of interest:

Negative and Positive Liberty, Part 1

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/negative-positive-liberty

Negative and Positive Liberty, Part 2

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/excursions/negative-positive-liberty-part-2

Negative and Positive Liberty: Some Historical Reflections

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/excursions/negative-positive-liberty-some-historical-reflections

[This essay probably contains the most theoretical substance about this topic.]

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Negative and Positive Liberty: Some Historical Reflections

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/excursions/negative-positive-liberty-some-historical-reflections

[This essay probably contains the most theoretical substance about this topic.]

Here we go again, another universal claim: "No one, for instance, would argue that people should be free to rape, pillage, and murder."

Factually wrong (Manchuria, Korea, Darfur, Rwanda, ISIL) and ignores the simple meaning of war: to kill people and break things.

On the distinction of liberty and power, Hobbes is right.

Liberty means actual, substantive moral freedom, equal to one's powers. It is impossible to abuse power which you do not possess. [NAP This]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Negative and Positive Liberty: Some Historical Reflections

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/excursions/negative-positive-liberty-some-historical-reflections

[This essay probably contains the most theoretical substance about this topic.]

Here we go again, another universal claim: "No one, for instance, would argue that people should be free to rape, pillage, and murder."

Factually wrong (Manchuria, Korea, Darfur, Rwanda, ISIL) and ignores the simple meaning of war: to kill people and break things.

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that you would quote that line out of context. I was summarizing the argument of 17th-century absolutists. The "no one" referred to other participants in that debate over the meaning of freedom.

Try a dose of intellectual honesty one of these days.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Negative and Positive Liberty: Some Historical Reflections

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/excursions/negative-positive-liberty-some-historical-reflections

[This essay probably contains the most theoretical substance about this topic.]

Here we go again, another universal claim: "No one, for instance, would argue that people should be free to rape, pillage, and murder."

Factually wrong (Manchuria, Korea, Darfur, Rwanda, ISIL) and ignores the simple meaning of war: to kill people and break things.

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that you would quote that line out of context. I was summarizing the argument of 17th-century absolutists. The "no one" referred to other participants in that debate over the meaning of freedom.

Try a dose of intellectual honesty one of these days.

Ghs

C'mon. Fair reading was plain enough. Don't spin it.

"[F]reedom is not, as we are told, A liberty for every Man to do what he lists: (For who could be free, when every other Man’s Humour might domineer over him?) But a Liberty to dispose and order, as he lists, his Persons, Actions, Possesions, and his whole Property….” In a state of perfect freedom, people can “dispose of their Possessions and Persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the Will of any other man.”

The happy peg on which to hang your hat, both as historian and advocate of non-aggression. War didn't exist in the 17th century. No one of Filmer's or Locke's century, for instance, would argue that people should be free to rape, pillage, and murder the Huguenots or Catholics?

Historical Background and Locke's Life

Locke grew up and lived through one of the most extraordinary centuries of English political and intellectual history. It was a century in which conflicts between Crown and Parliament and the overlapping conflicts between Protestants, Anglicans and Catholics swirled into civil war in the 1640s. With the defeat and death of Charles I, there began a great experiment in governmental institutions including the abolishment of the monarchy, the House of Lords and the Anglican church, and the establishment of Oliver Cromwell's Protectorate in the 1650s. The collapse of the Protectorate after the death of Cromwell was followed by the Restoration of Charles II — the return of the monarchy, the House of Lords and the Anglican Church. This period lasted from 1660 to 1688. It was marked by continued conflicts between King and Parliament and debates over religious toleration for Protestant dissenters and Catholics. This period ends with the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in which James II was driven from England and replaced by William of Orange and his wife Mary. The final period during which Locke lived involved the consolidation of power by William and Mary, and the beginning of William's efforts to oppose the domination of Europe by the France of Louis XIV, which later culminated in the military victories of John Churchill — the Duke of Marlborough. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Negative and Positive Liberty: Some Historical Reflections

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/excursions/negative-positive-liberty-some-historical-reflections

[This essay probably contains the most theoretical substance about this topic.]

Here we go again, another universal claim: "No one, for instance, would argue that people should be free to rape, pillage, and murder."

Factually wrong (Manchuria, Korea, Darfur, Rwanda, ISIL) and ignores the simple meaning of war: to kill people and break things.

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that you would quote that line out of context. I was summarizing the argument of 17th-century absolutists. The "no one" referred to other participants in that debate over the meaning of freedom.

Try a dose of intellectual honesty one of these days.

Ghs

C'mon. Fair reading was plain enough. Don't spin it.

"[F]reedom is not, as we are told, A liberty for every Man to do what he lists: (For who could be free, when every other Man’s Humour might domineer over him?) But a Liberty to dispose and order, as he lists, his Persons, Actions, Possesions, and his whole Property….” In a state of perfect freedom, people can “dispose of their Possessions and Persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the Will of any other man.”

The happy peg on which to hang your hat, both as historian and advocate of non-aggression. War didn't exist in the 17th century. No one of Filmer's or Locke's century, for instance, would argue that people should be free to rape, pillage, and murder the Huguenots or Catholics?

Historical Background and Locke's Life

Locke grew up and lived through one of the most extraordinary centuries of English political and intellectual history. It was a century in which conflicts between Crown and Parliament and the overlapping conflicts between Protestants, Anglicans and Catholics swirled into civil war in the 1640s. With the defeat and death of Charles I, there began a great experiment in governmental institutions including the abolishment of the monarchy, the House of Lords and the Anglican church, and the establishment of Oliver Cromwell's Protectorate in the 1650s. The collapse of the Protectorate after the death of Cromwell was followed by the Restoration of Charles II — the return of the monarchy, the House of Lords and the Anglican Church. This period lasted from 1660 to 1688. It was marked by continued conflicts between King and Parliament and debates over religious toleration for Protestant dissenters and Catholics. This period ends with the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in which James II was driven from England and replaced by William of Orange and his wife Mary. The final period during which Locke lived involved the consolidation of power by William and Mary, and the beginning of William's efforts to oppose the domination of Europe by the France of Louis XIV, which later culminated in the military victories of John Churchill — the Duke of Marlborough. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/

You seem to grow more incoherent with each post. I don't have the patience to figure out what you are attempting to say. Whatever it is, it has no connection with the Cato Essay you quoted from.

Here is the point absolutists, such as Filmer and Hobbes, were making. All government laws necessarily restrict freedom, such as the "freedom" to rob, rape, murder, and pillage. Not even the most resolute defender of freedom involved in that controversy would defend these sorts of "freedoms." Thus, when liberal constitutionalists, such as Locke, claimed that the basic purpose of law is to protect and enhance freedom, not to restrict it, they were speaking nonsense, in effect. The only society with complete freedom would be a society with no laws at all. To advocate any kind of law is to advocate some restriction on freedom.

If you give this some thought, you may understand this point. I suppose anything is possible. Hint: This has nothing whatever to do with the obvious fact that some people have defended killing in some circumstances.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when liberal constitutionalists, such as Locke, claimed that the basic purpose of law is to protect and enhance freedom, not to restrict it, they were speaking nonsense, in effect. The only society with complete freedom would be a society with no laws at all. To advocate any kind of law is to advocate some restriction on freedom.

Thank you for saying what was not said in your essay, and for stating it so explicitly above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when liberal constitutionalists, such as Locke, claimed that the basic purpose of law is to protect and enhance freedom, not to restrict it, they were speaking nonsense, in effect. The only society with complete freedom would be a society with no laws at all. To advocate any kind of law is to advocate some restriction on freedom.

Thank you for saying what was not said in your essay, and for stating it so explicitly above.

For those who haven't read the essay that Wolf failed to understand, here is a relevant part:

This conception of freedom was a favorite among Filmer, Hobbes, and other absolutists because it served to rebut the argument of individualists that the purpose of a just legal system should be to enhance and preserve freedom. This was arrant nonsense, according to absolutists, because all laws, of whatever type, necessarily restrict freedom. A man has no more freedom to do what he pleases in a supposedly “free society” than he does under despotism. No one, for instance, would argue that people should be free to rape, pillage, and murder, so even free societies enact laws that restrict those and other freedoms. Only under complete “anarchy,” a society with no laws whatsoever, would we find complete freedom. As Filmer put it:

"But such liberty is not to be found in any commonweal, for there are more laws in popular estates than anywhere else, and so consequently less liberty; and government, many say, was invented to take away liberty, and not to give it to every man. Such liberty cannot be; if it should, there would be no government at all."

If Filmer and Hobbes were correct, if the primary purpose of government is to restrain and limit freedom, then the complaints made by individualists against absolute monarchy made little sense. True, absolute monarchies (and absolute governments generally) restrict freedom, but so do all forms of government, even those supposedly based on the consent of the governed. Complete freedom can exist only in the anarchistic state of nature – a society with no laws whatsoever – and this liberty is diminished each time a government passes or enforces a law.

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/excursions/negative-positive-liberty-some-historical-reflections

And here, once again, is my recent summary -- you know, the summary with information that, according to Wolf, was not contained in the original essay.

Here is the point absolutists, such as Filmer and Hobbes, were making. All government laws necessarily restrict freedom, such as the "freedom" to rob, rape, murder, and pillage. Not even the most resolute defender of freedom involved in that controversy would defend these sorts of "freedoms." Thus, when liberal constitutionalists, such as Locke, claimed that the basic purpose of law is to protect and enhance freedom, not to restrict it, they were speaking nonsense, in effect. The only society with complete freedom would be a society with no laws at all. To advocate any kind of law is to advocate some restriction on freedom.

Sometimes I don't know why I ever bother dealing what that guy. "Hopeless" doesn't even describe it.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The onlysociety with complete freedom would be a society with no laws at all. To advocate any kind of law is to advocate some restriction on freedom.

I could live easily, with complete freedom enough, advocating for laws restricted to prohibiting forced association as the basis for any constitutionally permitted law.

I can readily refer to past and present instances of forced association running amok. I can't imagine an instance of free association running amok.

There are restriction on freedom, and there are meaningless restrictions on freedom; I will never lose sleep over me or any peer on earth losing the freedom to force association.

Murder, rape, theft, fraud, extortion... laws against same all readily licenced on the basis of prohibiting forced association.

What necessary action by anyone (a private individual or an institution of state government)is so necessary that it demands forced association? Modern America, for decades, does not even staff its #1 mission of the federal government -- national defence -- via forced association. It is an all volunteer military. If not that, then ... what critical function of government justifies forced association?

What necessary act of any peer, including pursuit of that Holiest of Holies-- that which peers want from other peers-- justifies an advocacy of forced association?

And so, a basis for law that I could easily live with. Not complete freedom? I'd sleep like a baby losing my freedom to advocate forced association.

No, I'm not talking about absurd examples, like forced association with your own skin or family as a child. I am talking about political forced association, where I define politics as the art and science of getting what we want from others using any means short of actual violence.

Who, anywhere, can justify advocacy of forced association?

We've run the experiment many times; humans naturally flee forced association.

For a good reason. None of us mere peers are that smart to impede the free meander of intelligence in the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't imagine an instance of free association running amok.

Racketeering, conspiracy to commit crime, corporate collusion, etc. Of course, these are example that are put forward as reasonable exceptions, like how freedom of speech doesn't extend to reproducing copyrighted works without author permission.

Murder, rape, theft, fraud, extortion... laws against same all readily licenced on the basis of prohibiting forced association.

Mind explaining

Who, anywhere, can justify advocacy of forced association?

Wives, for one. More seriously, punishment for certain misdemeanors, i.e., community service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Negative and Positive Liberty: Some Historical Reflections

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/excursions/negative-positive-liberty-some-historical-reflections

[This essay probably contains the most theoretical substance about this topic.]

Here we go again, another universal claim: "No one, for instance, would argue that people should be free to rape, pillage, and murder."

Factually wrong (Manchuria, Korea, Darfur, Rwanda, ISIL) and ignores the simple meaning of war: to kill people and break things.

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that you would quote that line out of context. I was summarizing the argument of 17th-century absolutists. The "no one" referred to other participants in that debate over the meaning of freedom.

Try a dose of intellectual honesty one of these days.

Ghs

C'mon. Fair reading was plain enough. Don't spin it.

"[F]reedom is not, as we are told, A liberty for every Man to do what he lists: (For who could be free, when every other Man’s Humour might domineer over him?) But a Liberty to dispose and order, as he lists, his Persons, Actions, Possesions, and his whole Property….” In a state of perfect freedom, people can “dispose of their Possessions and Persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the Will of any other man.”

The happy peg on which to hang your hat, both as historian and advocate of non-aggression. War didn't exist in the 17th century. No one of Filmer's or Locke's century, for instance, would argue that people should be free to rape, pillage, and murder the Huguenots or Catholics?

Historical Background and Locke's Life

Locke grew up and lived through one of the most extraordinary centuries of English political and intellectual history. It was a century in which conflicts between Crown and Parliament and the overlapping conflicts between Protestants, Anglicans and Catholics swirled into civil war in the 1640s. With the defeat and death of Charles I, there began a great experiment in governmental institutions including the abolishment of the monarchy, the House of Lords and the Anglican church, and the establishment of Oliver Cromwell's Protectorate in the 1650s. The collapse of the Protectorate after the death of Cromwell was followed by the Restoration of Charles II — the return of the monarchy, the House of Lords and the Anglican Church. This period lasted from 1660 to 1688. It was marked by continued conflicts between King and Parliament and debates over religious toleration for Protestant dissenters and Catholics. This period ends with the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in which James II was driven from England and replaced by William of Orange and his wife Mary. The final period during which Locke lived involved the consolidation of power by William and Mary, and the beginning of William's efforts to oppose the domination of Europe by the France of Louis XIV, which later culminated in the military victories of John Churchill — the Duke of Marlborough. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/

You seem to grow more incoherent with each post. I don't have the patience to figure out what you are attempting to say. Whatever it is, it has no connection with the Cato Essay you quoted from.

Here is the point absolutists, such as Filmer and Hobbes, were making. All government laws necessarily restrict freedom, such as the "freedom" to rob, rape, murder, and pillage. Not even the most resolute defender of freedom involved in that controversy would defend these sorts of "freedoms." Thus, when liberal constitutionalists, such as Locke, claimed that the basic purpose of law is to protect and enhance freedom, not to restrict it, they were speaking nonsense, in effect. The only society with complete freedom would be a society with no laws at all. To advocate any kind of law is to advocate some restriction on freedom.

If you give this some thought, you may understand this point. I suppose anything is possible. Hint: This has nothing whatever to do with the obvious fact that some people have defended killing in some circumstances.

Ghs

I think Dworkin's bit about laws against murder not taking away freedom might hold relevance here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Ref post #1)

Freedom with permission is a contradiction in terms. You are not free if you have "freedom" to do something with permission.

Contrarily, "freedom" to do something with permission is not the right to violate rights and if it sanctions rights' violations then it is wrong. Any action requiring permission is wrong either in the action or in the sanction of a "permission." The statists get to get you coming and going.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Ref post #1)

Freedom with permission is a contradiction in terms. You are not free if you have "freedom" to do something with permission.

Contrarily, "freedom" to do something with permission is not the right to violate rights and if it sanctions rights' violations then it is wrong. Any action requiring permission is wrong either in the action or in the sanction of a "permission." The statists get to get you coming and going.

--Brant

Substitute "permission" with "permitted to" then. This kind of hand wringing over semantics is both unnecessary and silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Ref post #1)

Freedom with permission is a contradiction in terms. You are not free if you have "freedom" to do something with permission.

Contrarily, "freedom" to do something with permission is not the right to violate rights and if it sanctions rights' violations then it is wrong. Any action requiring permission is wrong either in the action or in the sanction of a "permission." The statists get to get you coming and going.

--Brant

Substitute "permission" with "permitted to" then. This kind of hand wringing over semantics is both unnecessary and silly.

Is this the way you correct or acknowledge a mistake--by calling what I said "semantics," "unnecessary" and "silly"?

Go saddle up your grace horse. It won't buck you off like this one did.

--Brant

"permitted" is no good either; it's a distinction without substance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Ref post #1)

Freedom with permission is a contradiction in terms. You are not free if you have "freedom" to do something with permission.

Contrarily, "freedom" to do something with permission is not the right to violate rights and if it sanctions rights' violations then it is wrong. Any action requiring permission is wrong either in the action or in the sanction of a "permission." The statists get to get you coming and going.

--Brant

Substitute "permission" with "permitted to" then. This kind of hand wringing over semantics is both unnecessary and silly.

Is this the way you correct or acknowledge a mistake--by calling what I said "semantics," "unnecessary" and "silly"?

Go saddle up your grace horse. It won't buck you off like this one did.

--Brant

"permitted" is no good either; it's a distinction without substance

I'm sorry, but it just genuinely seems silly. It's like freaking out over someone who says rights are granted or should be granted. If I admit that property rights are conventional and not natural in and of themselves, then does that consequently mean I'm making myself vulnerable to authoritarianism? Of course not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Ref post #1)

Freedom with permission is a contradiction in terms. You are not free if you have "freedom" to do something with permission.

Contrarily, "freedom" to do something with permission is not the right to violate rights and if it sanctions rights' violations then it is wrong. Any action requiring permission is wrong either in the action or in the sanction of a "permission." The statists get to get you coming and going.

--Brant

Substitute "permission" with "permitted to" then. This kind of hand wringing over semantics is both unnecessary and silly.

Is this the way you correct or acknowledge a mistake--by calling what I said "semantics," "unnecessary" and "silly"?

Go saddle up your grace horse. It won't buck you off like this one did.

--Brant

"permitted" is no good either; it's a distinction without substance

I'm sorry, but it just genuinely seems silly. It's like freaking out over someone who says rights are granted or should be granted. If I admit that property rights are conventional and not natural in and of themselves, then does that consequently mean I'm making myself vulnerable to authoritarianism? Of course not.

A great deal has to do with the psychological mind set of who reads these things and getting permission or being permitted goes completely against my grain--like I was back in the army again or in some kind of prison.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terms for property: legacy, bailment, claim, title, possession. The phrase "as of right" denotes constitutional indemnity.

Mind elaborating? I find this interesting.

In the current state, for instance, freedom of speech is protected by the 1st Amendment and modern Supreme Court doctrine.

Other than that I'm kinda bored with explaining due process under the The Freeman's Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terms for property: legacy, bailment, claim, title, possession. The phrase "as of right" denotes constitutional indemnity.

Mind elaborating? I find this interesting.

In the current state, for instance, freedom of speech is protected by the 1st Amendment and modern Supreme Court doctrine.

Other than that I'm kinda bored with explaining due process under the The Freeman's Constitution.

So are you claiming that the "right" in "property right" is misused? Or that it can't be said to hold true in the current state of affairs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are you claiming that the "right" in "property right" is misused? Or that it can't be said to hold true in the current state of affairs?

There is no unitary, theoretical property right. Lots of different contexts, jurisdictions, eminent domain, taxation, zoning, regulation.

I think that a majority of libertarians assume a sort of "unitary" property and that you are correct that there is none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Ref post #1)

Freedom with permission is a contradiction in terms. You are not free if you have "freedom" to do something with permission.

Contrarily, "freedom" to do something with permission is not the right to violate rights and if it sanctions rights' violations then it is wrong. Any action requiring permission is wrong either in the action or in the sanction of a "permission." The statists get to get you coming and going.

--Brant

Substitute "permission" with "permitted to" then. This kind of hand wringing over semantics is both unnecessary and silly.

Is this the way you correct or acknowledge a mistake--by calling what I said "semantics," "unnecessary" and "silly"?

Go saddle up your grace horse. It won't buck you off like this one did.

--Brant

"permitted" is no good either; it's a distinction without substance

I'm sorry, but it just genuinely seems silly. It's like freaking out over someone who says rights are granted or should be granted. If I admit that property rights are conventional and not natural in and of themselves, then does that consequently mean I'm making myself vulnerable to authoritarianism? Of course not.

A great deal has to do with the psychological mind set of who reads these things and getting permission or being permitted goes completely against my grain--like I was back in the army again or in some kind of prison.

--Brant

I think I understand what you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prior to my introduction to libertarianism/Objectivism, I had never of the distinction between "positive freedom" and "negative freedom". "Positive freedom" is "freedom to" whereas "negative freedom" is "freedom from". Those who lean libertarian and/or O'ist consider "negative freedom", specifically "freedom from coercion", to be "truer" than "positive freedom". This usage of "freedom from" and "freedom to" doesn't line up with how I believe the rest of the world uses those two phrases.

In my experience, the meanings are switched around. "Freedom to" means being permitted to do something. "Freedom from" signifies a sort of imperative that conditions must be a certain way. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of choice are instances of "freedom to". Freedom from pollution, freedom from discrimination, and freedom from social pressure are examples "freedom from" (note to self: no shit, Sherlock). These meanings are more common in everyday discourse. Think of how some people, in response to those who do not wish to be offended, will say "it's freedom of speech, not freedom from being offended". Or how some conservatives, in trying to argue against the separation of church and state, will shout at the tops of their lungs "The First Amendment says freedom of religion, not freedom from religion!" (this one's rather stupid).

Well examined, though I don't believe the O'ist position is that negative freedom is "truer". There is only one freedom, and that is the freedom to act as you choose or please--"freedom to". Freedom to, presupposes freedom from. However: act to curtail anyone else's freedom to act (of his physical person or his property) and you must quickly lose all liberty.

I think the best approach is to view "freedom to" as a 'metaphysical given' (clearly, not "granted" or permitted by a man-made agency, but protected by such).

"Positive" rights as used broadly today is, of course, an aberration. There, you have the "right" (entitled claim) to whatever has been forced by the provision of someone else - so for every "positive right", there's always someone who's suffered a negative loss of rights, his "freedom to".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now