Negative liberty?

[Nakura Chambers]

I've generally agreed that there is such a thing as negative liberty. For instance, if you have the right to murder or rape someone else, then you are taking away their liberty and as thus, society isn't truly free.

However, in our natural state, we are all free to do as we please. In other words, someone who is worried that they might be murdered, should take precautions to ensure that doesn't happen, thus exercising their own freedom. In addition, just because something is illegal, that doesn't mean that people stop doing it, thus negative liberty still exists.

How can negative liberty exist, if it can be countered with more liberty?

[Deleted]

It's not negative liberty, what you described is anarchy or dictatorship in some cases. Also you can't completely eliminate it anyway unless you eliminate free will and turn everyone into zombies. Even if there were extreme punishments for murder and rape and we would catch them 100% of the time, some people would still do it.

[Prokne]

How can negative liberty exist, if it can be countered with more liberty?

There is no such thing as negative liberty. Liberty is on a scale from 0(no freedom at all) to full liberty(you can do anything you want). Being able to take someone elses liberty by violating theirs just means you have more liberty and that person has less.

[bayushisan]

I've generally agreed that there is such a thing as negative liberty. For instance, if you have the right to murder or rape someone else, then you are taking away their liberty and as thus, society isn't truly free.

However, in our natural state, we are all free to do as we please. In other words, someone who is worried that they might be murdered, should take precautions to ensure that doesn't happen, thus exercising their own freedom. In addition, just because something is illegal, that doesn't mean that people stop doing it, thus negative liberty still exists.

How can negative liberty exist, if it can be countered with more liberty?

Uh let me just say no. No you do not have the right to rape or murder someone. I don't care what cockamamie "natural state" nonsense you try to argue, you are wrong. Me stopping someone from doing those things is not a negative liberty. It's me stopping a jackass from perpetrating evil on another human being. If you really think otherwise then I really don't know what to say.

[s_bushido]

I have to admit, "negative liberty" sounded like something you just made up. After looking it up, "negative" in this sense is talking about its detrimental effects...not like positive or negative numbers. There's no magic formula.

Anyway, what is this "natural state" you're talking about? The only time we would get remotely close to what you describe is if we're alone. As long as there is another person around, there will always be something we cannot do without infringing upon them.

I never understood the obsession with ultimate freedom and liberty. We live in a society, which means interacting with other people, which means making compromises and acting within social norms. This all seems like stuff you should have learned fairly early in life...

[Zarc]

The classic example of negative liberty is in healthcare. If the society you live in does not provide universal healthcare then you have the freedom to buy your own. But if you cannot afford to buy the health services that you need, then that freedom becomes a negative liberty - as healthcare, being able to treat causes that could otherwise render you unable to function/work or lose limbs/die, is important for your individual liberty. Providing these services through universal healthcare gives everyone the opportunity to get the healthcare they need, which makes this a positive liberty. That's why almost all modern countries provide universal healthcare, while the US do not.

The US, the only modern county I know of that doesn't have universal healthcare, is different than other countries in that one of their two dominating parties, the Republican Party, is historically and still at its core (despite recent decades' growth of social conservatives within the party) a classical liberal party, who wants to maximize absolute liberty. The Democratic Party, which is based on a more modern and mainstream ideology present in most countries, is a social liberal party, aiming to maximize positive liberty.

So what's great about the US is that both parties (disregarding the religious right / social conservatives of the Republican Party) are both ideologically vested on varieties of liberalism, which I like as a liberal. Most other Western countries have two dominating parties where one is ideologically conservative and the other ideologically socialist. However, most other Western countries' governments have since World War II, in practice, been more or less social liberal in practice.

[Deleted]

anyone who wants a serious discussion about this topic, should at least have general knowlegde of the theories about social contracts.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract_theories

the original works of Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes and Kant , which can be found at the bottom of the wiki article, are actually worth a read (at least partially) as well as some others mentioned there.

[Pitkanen]

What's natural about individual in a pack species doing harm to other members of it's own pack without the pack being upset?

Altruism and Empathy are the results of the natural biological evolution that has occurred in social animals.

Your version of liberty is only "natural" in animals that are completely solitary. Oftentimes killing their own young.

[Endus]

I've generally agreed that there is such a thing as negative liberty. For instance, if you have the right to murder or rape someone else, then you are taking away their liberty and as thus, society isn't truly free.

That isn't "negative liberty". That's just "liberty". More freedom isn't an always-good thing, when that freedom infringes on the freedoms of others.