Negative, positive liberty,... Isaiah Berlin...

[gbushimprov]

I would encourage you all to read the transcripts of interviews and discussion groups that Berlin took part in. Adam Curtis describes both concepts in the barest form he can so that the theory doesn't overshadow the reality of what happened.

Isaiah Berlin doesn't find positive liberty inherently evil as Curtis suggests, he instead sees it as essential to the continued progress of society but that it should be the individual that enacts this on himself, not the state or any other persons.

[MrDevong]

@gbushimprov False Berlin does see the paradox of positive liberty as evil

[gbushimprov]

@MrDevong Have a read of some of his other works (mostly interviews and debates), he states quite clearly that positive liberty is necessary for the advancement of society, it is positive liberty as a political movement that he is against.

bit [DOT] ly/a8Ls17

bit [DOT] ly/b3ssm6

[MrDevong]

@gbushimprov With all due respect that doesnt make sense. Please post a link so I can read it cause I have found no such statement. How can he say that positive liberty is necessary for the advancement of society but say that it always leads to paternalism and tyranny.

[gbushimprov]

@MrDevong I'll see if I can find it for you, I think it was a radio speech. Essentially he believed that if governments tried to impose a particular view of how people should live their lives then that would lead to tyranny. He makes it clear that individuals are free to pursue any brand of positive freedom they wish. As long as they are not imposing it on others it is not incompatible with negative liberty. Positive liberty for the individual is having power over yourself to fulfil desires....

[gbushimprov]

@MrDevong ...(cont) you can certainly restrain yourself from smoking cigarettes in order to be healthier and free yourself from addiction, this is not incompatible with negative liberty. It is tyranny of enforcing your ideals of positive liberty on others that Berlin warned against. Advocates of postive liberty as a social movement often talk about freeing individuals from themselves, Berlin argues this leads to external tyranny instead and the individual should be free to constrain themselves.

[Pittounikos]

Berlin wanted to plug the keyhole to utopia. And after what went on in the 20th century who can blame him? But the human drive for a better world and indeed utopia itself is like a gas. If you plug the keyhole it will only come out through the floorboards. N liberty feels artificial and just as 'man made' as any utopian plan. To me, the idea of N Liberty just feels like a childs playpen, that is, we can consume what we see on the supermarket shelves and follow the law etc but thats about it

[natedaug1]

Adam Curtis is a bit of a hack. His movies are meant to produce fear. Yes your concepts of negative and positive are correct. Negative liberty is supposed to be that in theory you work out your own salvation, so to speak. Positive liberty your getting some help in working out your own salvation as an autonomous being. The question is when does positive liberty start infringing upon people's negative liberty rights.

[Pittounikos]

You can decide for yourself. Who said Isaiah Berlin should be the grand guru of freedom anyway? We have already, oops! You done well to fit you intellectual labyrinth into the YouTube box though.

[damnsith]

positive liberty, describes a concept, where the government has a concept of a free human being, and everyone should try to attain that. But when these ideas, set forth by the government clashes with personal values and morals, that is when revolution results, and this will always be the case with positive liberty, simply because everyone is different, and have their own ideas and way of thinking, and positive liberty disrupts this.. correct me if im wrong

[Pittounikos]

Berlin wanted to plug the keyhole to utopia. And after what went on in the 20th century who can blame him? But the human drive for a better world and indeed utopia itself is like a gas. If you plug the keyhole it will only come out through the floorboards. N liberty feels artificial and just as 'man made' as any utopian plan. To me, the idea of N Liberty just feels like a childs playpen, that is, we can consume what we see on the supermarket shelves and follow the law etc but thats about it.

[1964krisB]

My interpretation of the films view on negative and positive liberty was that it is a totally selfish , individual aim , as positive liberty was a collective goal . obviously one has no control as its idea and the consequences you can imagine and the other , the danger that it can become tyrannical .

[buckleyboyben]

I think Curtis is trying to show that negative liberty is seductive, but if you try and export it to other cultures, like US/UK have in Iraq and Afghanistan it can becom tyranical. Showing examples of the contras, Russia etc through history. I.e. evangelical negative liberty is dangerous....

[buckleyboyben]

The third part of the trap is immensely complicated, to the extent that it doesn't work so well as TV, almost should be an essay I think. It is reaching for something beyond its grasp though which should be applauded.

I wish there was a political party in the UK today offering me some vision of positive liberty. The death of a political vision is one of the main reasons for the slow death of democracy in terms of reduced voter turn out in the UK.

[Forkroute]

Adam Curtis did not say he was wrong, he said people toke that from his philosophy. by the way good vid.

[spectrum10]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -Thomas Jefferson

[spectrum10]

positivism:

An approach to philosophy frequently found in the twentieth century. Positivists usually hold that all meaningful statements must be either logical inferences or sense descriptions, and they usually argue that the statements found in metaphysics, such as Human beings are free or Human beings are not free, are meaningless because they cannot possibly be verified by the senses.

[spectrum10]

What is your opinion of positivism? It appears that the positivist would hold that the entire concept of freedom/liberty is meaningless. See definition below:

[spectrum10]

I know Patrick Henry said 'give me liberty or give me death'. He failed to specify if he meant the positive or the negative variety.

[Sepero1]

Positive rights is intelligent design.

Negative rights is evolution.

Positive rights wish to create your future for you.

Negative rights force you to create your future yourself.

[pmccarthy001]

My understanding was that positive rights gave you the means to attain, whereas negative rights removed constraints to attainment. Without the means, removing the constraints seems meaningless. I don't see how ALL the means for achievement can ever be singularly contained within any one individual.

[Sepero1]

It is interesting how squirrels in the wild survive without socialism, isn't it?

Let to be, they find the their own means.

[pmccarthy001]

It's just as... interesting... to note that squirrels in the wild survive without capitalism too... Are you somehow suggesting capitalism might be necessary? These are human creations, and they are reflective of motivational drives within the human psyche. Inevitably when we create, we destroy. This is certainly true of capitalism, as well as socialism, as with any human creation. As to whether what is created is valued, and/or balances, with what is destroyed is obviously arbitrary.

[Sepero1]

I'm not for capitalism as a form of government. I'm for negative rights anarchism.

wikipedia. org/wiki/Voluntaryism

I'll probably do a video on this topic in time. :o)

[pmccarthy001]

Yes, that's definitely my impression of where you seem to be coming from... As you can tell, I have reservations about what I believe you're suggesting. I look forward to your video.

[spectrum10]

Interesting discussion. People sometimes ask me if I have reservations, but it only seems to happen right after I enter a restaurant for some strange reason.

[pmccarthy001]

I'm just trying to say that I don't think I entirely agree.

[stratvic]

Natural... as in human nature... as in surviving as societal beasts in nature/reality with self ownership/sovereignty and free will.

[stratvic]

The problem with positive "rights" is that they require the forcing of others to provide those "rights". Positive rights/liberties are not free to society they are at the cost of others. When backed by politics that means backed by the force/guns of the majority (in democracies) against those who do not "volutarily" subscribe.

Negative liberty is not a political means to an end, it is an end in its self. Positive liberty is a never ending, just out of grasp political purpose.

[pmccarthy001]

Strangely enough, if I understood correctly, one of Adam Curtis's contentions in 'We will force you to be free' was that the lack of purpose is precisely the problem with negative liberty. He contended that this lack of of any 'end', or purpose, accounted for so many of the problems we've encountered in attempting to restructure societies like Russia and Iraq. In regards to force, those with greater resources are better positioned to protect, and increase their resource wealth, so...

[stratvic]

If you define politics as force...then negative liberty has no need for politics or its arbitrary goals. Negative liberties are for want of better term "natural". Positive "rights" are man made, arbitrary, and forced on the provider. Otherwise its charity not taxation.

Upholding negative liberty is not a pacifist pursuit... implicit is the right to defend that liberty.

[pmccarthy001]

"Natural",... is that like "the law of the jungle?" No... you said that very well. There are people who advocate very capably concerning all these issues. I see you are a capable advocate of negative liberty.

[pmccarthy001]

It occurred to me that empathy for other human beings is another "natural" trait of humanity, and compassion and charity follow naturally from empathy. I think one has to work pretty hard to drive this empathy out of human beings. I think a lot of what may be termed "natural" is derived from whatever the environment reinforces. I don't think empathy for fellow humans is new to modern humans. So, one might argue that positive rights derive out of an expectation of one acting from this empathy.

[stratvic]

I agree that empathy is natural (see mirror neurons). Positive rights involve force, loss of sovereignty, theft (tax), does not comply to in group empathy and community, and does not incorporate the reward system of mutual reciprocation, has moral hazard issues, all of which are also a natural component of human nature.

You don't need positive rights to express empathy. We are naturally empathic voluntarily, voluntarism being the distinction) consistency with negative liberty intact.

[pmccarthy001]

Positive rights no more necessarily imply force than negative rights. You seem to be choosing to focus on the ONE individual, or the OTHER individual, in such instance so as to make it appear that negative liberties are "naturally" in the one, not impacting the OTHER. Implicit in your arguments is a denial of how my lack of constraint will invariably impact the OTHER. We can also take the empathy of positive liberty to the exclusion of the aggression, or territorially of negative liberty...

[stratvic]

"Positive rights no more necessarily imply force than negative rights."

Where do the fruits of positive rights come from?

How does a "lack of constraint" relate to this discussion?

How is negative rights/liberty agressive? It certainly excludes iniating to further some arbitrary goal.