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

[Samson Corwell]

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". ... 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".

The distinction between positive and negative rights is not the same as the distinction between positive and negative freedom. A bridge between the two might be found in the distinction between claim rights and liberty rights.

Freedom to, presupposes freedom from.

No, not really. Again, see the distinction between claim rights and liberty rights. You can have a liberty right to speak but not necessarily have a claim right against me gagging you. Maybe this depends on how you frame it.

[anthony]

"The distinction between positive and negative rights is not the same as the distinction between positive and negative freedom".[sC]

I didn't say there was.

Freedom to, presupposes freedom from.

"No, not really. Again, see the distinction between claim rights and liberty rights. You can have a liberty right to speak but not necessarily have a claim right against me gagging you. Maybe this depends on how you frame it". [sC]

I don't get you.

A "claim right" is a contradiction in terms, actually I think an anti-concept, by which a person's needs and wants necessitate an other's servitude. So it can't be compared with or distinguished from the concept, freedom to act. But I certainly have a "liberty right" to prevent you gagging me. Freedom to do, presupposes you leaving me alone.

[Samson Corwell]

"The distinction between positive and negative rights is not the same as the distinction between positive and negative freedom".[sC]

I didn't say there was.

Freedom to, presupposes freedom from.

"No, not really. Again, see the distinction between claim rights and liberty rights. You can have a liberty right to speak but not necessarily have a claim right against me gagging you. Maybe this depends on how you frame it". [sC]

I don't get you.

A "claim right" is a contradiction in terms, actually I think an anti-concept, by which a person's needs and wants necessitate an other's servitude. So it can't be compared with or distinguished from the concept, freedom to act. But I certainly have a "liberty right" to prevent you gagging me. Freedom to do, presupposes you leaving me alone.

Click here. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it an "anti-concept". "Claim right" is most certainly not a contradiction in terms. You have to look at these in a larger context. From the link:

Some philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between claim rights and liberty rights. A claim right is a right which entails responsibilities, duties, or obligations on other parties regarding the right-holder. In contrast, a liberty right is a right which does not entail obligations on other parties, but rather only freedom or permission for the right-holder. The distinction between these two senses of "rights" originates in American jurist Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld's analysis thereof in his seminal work Fundamental Legal Conceptions, As Applied in Judicial Reasoning and Other Legal Essays.

Liberty rights and claim rights are the inverse of one another: a person has a liberty right permitting him to do something only if there is no other person who has a claim right forbidding him from doing so; and likewise, if a person has a claim right against someone else, that other person's liberty is thus limited. This is because the deontic concepts of obligation and permission are De Morgan dual; a person is permitted to do all and only the things he is not obliged to refrain from, and obliged to do all and only the things he is not permitted to refrain from.

Freedom isn't quite synonymous with being left alone in my mind.

[anthony]

Seen it. Wiki don't prove nothing. By Objectivism, it's a contradiction in terms.

[Samson Corwell]

Seen it. Wiki don't prove nothing. By Objectivism, it's a contradiction in terms.

[anthony]

"Freedom isn't quite synonymous with being left alone in my mind".

I must repeat, freedom is the freedom to act.

(Which implies, "presupposes", being left alone).

Do you read before you reply?

[Samson Corwell]

"Freedom isn't quite synonymous with being left alone in my mind".

I must repeat, freedom is the freedom to act.

(Which implies, "presupposes", being left alone).

Do you read before you reply?

Yes, I have and I don't think it presupposes being left alone. That doesn't mean that I think the two are unrelated. In any case, "liberty right" basically means "legal permission", so no, it doesn't presuppose being left alone. You can have legal permission to sing and I can also have legal permission to knock you out if it annoys me. You can have legal permission to repeatedly visit my website and circumvent my bans and I can have legal permission to continually try to keep you out. And again, I am dealing with two senses of freedom here: "freedom from" and "freedom to".

[Brant Gaede]

"Freedom isn't quite synonymous with being left alone in my mind".

I must repeat, freedom is the freedom to act.

(Which implies, "presupposes", being left alone).

Do you read before you reply?

Yes, I have and I don't think it presupposes being left alone. That doesn't mean that I think the two are unrelated. In any case, "liberty right" basically means "legal permission", so no, it doesn't presuppose being left alone. You can have legal permission to sing and I can also have legal permission to knock you out if it annoys me. You can have legal permission to repeatedly visit my website and circumvent my bans and I can have legal permission to continually try to keep you out. And again, I am dealing with two senses of freedom here: "freedom from" and "freedom to".

"Freedom from fear," "Freedom from want," freedom from terrorism, freedom from the savages on the frontier, freedom from Great Britain.

Freedom to pursue life, liberty, property, happiness and that luscious girl or boy.

--Brant

and drag her back to the cave!

[anthony]

"Freedom isn't quite synonymous with being left alone in my mind".

I must repeat, freedom is the freedom to act.

(Which implies, "presupposes", being left alone).

Do you read before you reply?

Yes, I have and I don't think it presupposes being left alone. That doesn't mean that I think the two are unrelated. In any case, "liberty right" basically means "legal permission", so no, it doesn't presuppose being left alone. You can have legal permission to sing and I can also have legal permission to knock you out if it annoys me. You can have legal permission to repeatedly visit my website and circumvent my bans and I can have legal permission to continually try to keep you out. And again, I am dealing with two senses of freedom here: "freedom from" and "freedom to".

Samson, since an intellect like John Locke, Rand (or Ghs) I will never own, for me it has to be kept dead simple.

Life -> freedom to act -> individual rights -> laws.

I need to hold this priority straight and clear in mind for my own application, or when I try 'sell' the concept at large.

(As I'm seeing it, the first two are metaphysically given, the next two man-made essentials in defence of them).

Above, you example: legality, rights and two freedoms, all mixed up - and earlier, with "claim rights" further confusing things. But there should - morally - never be a 'right' to 'claim' from others -- even though it's permitted to exist widely. And far as I know, in libertarianism, there can be no "legal permission". There is not, in O'ism.

Freedom "from" - let's say - hunger and poverty, is covered under freedom "to" (seek work, make money, buy food).

Freedom from noise, comes under one's freedom to act without unnecessary duress or distractions.

Your property (your website) is a consequence of your freedom of action, on which other people have only privileges, as guests.

See, as soon as we admit 'from' as equal to and interchangeable with 'to', we allow a raft of human needs and demands which somebody else has to supply. And still, keeping it simple is my point...

[Wolf DeVoon]

Life -> freedom to act -> individual rights -> laws

That's a pretty good trick. Does it work for war? Death -> no freedom -> collective rights -> dictator?

[Brant Gaede]

To "keep it simple" refer to individual rights. Freedom takes care of itself--anyway. Freedom does not need intellectual welfare. Freedom or its lack is only telling us something is right or wrong. Neither it nor liberty is a philosophy. That's where the French went all wrong with using it as more than a battle cry. Rights is not a philosophy either, but can't be used as a battle cry so ya gotta think. It is one door closer to philosophy--right next door, in fact. It demands we be right about rights.

--Brant

no country for no thinking

[anthony]

To "keep it simple" refer to individual rights. Freedom takes care of itself--anyway. Freedom does not need intellectual welfare. Freedom or its lack is only telling us something is right or wrong. Neither it nor liberty is a philosophy. That's where the French went all wrong with using it as more than a battle cry. Rights is not a philosophy either, but can't be used as a battle cry so ya gotta think. It is one door closer to philosophy--right next door, in fact. It demands we be right about rights.

--Brant

no country for no thinking

But freedom is so fragile. It must be advanced and upheld (especially in free times) by a two-pronged approach: of political-economic rights and a rational morality.

My general impression is the French knew who and what they wanted liberty FROM, but not what they wanted it FOR.

[anthony]

Life -> freedom to act -> individual rights -> laws

That's a pretty good trick. Does it work for war? Death -> no freedom -> collective rights -> dictator?

It does if you reverse your flow, Wolf. "Death" - at least a non-life - follows from dictatorship and collectivism (which are one and the same, really). "To be free, a man must be free of his brothers"- AR . Nowhere more so, than to be free of their voting power. Which of course you know too well, is the raison d'etre of individual rights and your Constitution.

[Wolf DeVoon]

"To be free, a man must be free of his brothers"- AR . Nowhere more so, than to be free of their voting power. Which of course you know too well, is the raison d'etre of individual rights and your Constitution.

For the record, The Freeman's Constitution didn't free anyone. It's the organizational law of a laissez faire judiciary.

[Brant Gaede]

"To be free, a man must be free of his brothers"- AR . Nowhere more so, than to be free of their voting power. Which of course you know too well, is the raison d'etre of individual rights and your Constitution.

For the record, The Freeman's Constitution didn't free anyone. It's the organizational law of a laissez faire judiciary.

So, did the freedom come first or follow?

--Brant

mix and match?

[Wolf DeVoon]

For the record, The Freeman's Constitution didn't free anyone. It's the organizational law of a laissez faire judiciary.

So, did the freedom come first or follow?

--Brant

mix and match?

I started with a simple premise:

"Humans exist in perfect freedom. Obedience is a choice. Government is therefore an illusion." https://web.archive.org/web/20020601104659/http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.16/gov_faith.html

The problem isn't freedom. The problem (for me) was upholding the rule of law without sanctioning a government.

[Brant Gaede]

Not sanctioning a government may help you in your own life, but it will not get rid of it. The idea of a good government, however imperfect, is simply to displace bad government and bad government doings. That's the main point of good government force. To do that freedom helps--the idea of freedom forced into government with torches and pitchforks if necessary. However well trained and controlled your pit bull, it's still a pit bull. Keep it under control and under thumb or just plain under.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

I think we're talking at cross purposes.

Your pit bull?

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, located in Washington, DC, pursuant to the authority of FAR Part 13, has a requirement for the commerical acquisition of submachine guns, .40 Cal. S&W, ambidextrous safety, semi-automatic or 2 shot burst trigger group, Tritium night sights for front and rear, rails for attachment of flashlight (front under fore grip) and scope (top rear), stock-collapsilbe or folding, magazine - 30 rd. capacity, sling, light weight, and oversized trigger guard for gloved operation. NO SOLICITATION DOCUMENT EXISTS. All responsible and/or interested sources may submit their company name, point of contact, and telephone. If received timely, shall be considered by the agency for contact to determine weapon suitability.

[Brant Gaede]

That doesn't matter as long as our lips keep moving.

--Brant

I'll be rereading

[Samson Corwell]

"Death" - at least a non-life - follows from dictatorship and collectivism (which are one and the same, really).

Only if you insist on butchering the English language.

"To be free, a man must be free of his brothers"- AR

For whatever reason, this reminds me of Rousseau's "force to be free" line.

[Brant Gaede]

"Pit bull"--mine, yes, until I turn on it or leave the country or renounce it and head to the bunker.

--Brant

I have some responsibility unless I do a Madalyn Murray O'Hair

thinking, thinking . . .

[Wolf DeVoon]

I have some responsibility unless I do a Madalyn Murray O'Hair

You're going to hire a convicted felon psychopath as a typesetter ?

[Brant Gaede]

Nope.

Nopey, nopey, nopey.

--Brant

[anthony]

"Death" - at least a non-life - follows from dictatorship and collectivism (which are one and the same, really).

Only if you insist on butchering the English language.

"To be free, a man must be free of his brothers"- AR

For whatever reason, this reminds me of Rousseau's "force to be free" line.

Well, it might be sometimes a hazelnut reminds one of a coconut.

Nothing is ever self-contradictory with AR (unlike JJR): she said it plainly, that one first needs liberation from all kinds of intrusion by one's fellow men, to be at permanent liberty (in order to then embrace whomever you want)..

I recall your (correct) advice earlier was to think in "a bigger context".

I suggest you think a bit bigger too. The old and tired fiction -we should overturn- is of Socialism and Fascism differing, philosophically - in each set of premises as well as in both their outcomes. And by which, a dictator is always Fascist, while only communism is collectivist.

But we've seen that altruism-collectivism of citizens(whether Nationalist, Ideological, whatever) is the prerequisite for the rise of any dictator, who, once in power doubly suppresses all individualism. A dictator doesn't just arrive in a puff of smoke to somehow enslave the people; he's 'made', by a majority of the people who want to be led and to obey: from apathy, selflessness, greed, false ideals or nationalist/religious pretentions.

[Brant Gaede]

"Permanent liberty" is an illusion. It's just a philosophical talking point for lucid thinking. Absolutely nothing possible or in existence is or can be "permanent." Even mountains are leveled into the sea.

--Brant