Talk:Positive liberty

Preamble for the Metaphysical Libertarians

Metaphysical libertarians believe in free will and that individuals should be able to make their own choices without external constraints. As a result, they often view freedom and liberty as central values in their philosophy.

However, different people may have different understandings of what these terms mean. For metaphysical libertarians, freedom and liberty may be tightly linked to their belief in free will and individual autonomy. They may view any external constraints on an individual's actions or choices as an infringement on their freedom and liberty.

Therefore, to ensure that these concepts align with their philosophical beliefs, metaphysical libertarians may seek to control the meaning of the words "freedom" and "liberty." They may argue that the common usage of these terms does not accurately capture their specific philosophical views, and may therefore insist on defining these terms in a way that aligns with their beliefs.

Overall, the desire to control the meaning of these words is likely rooted in the deep-seated belief that freedom and liberty are fundamental to their worldview and that any deviations from their understanding of these concepts would be a threat to their philosophical beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edunoramus (talk • contribs) 16:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Early comments

The citations are done incorrectly, no? I don't have time to change them now.

Why have an article where the criticism of the idea is twice as long as the idea itself?

If you had a different article in the wings the whole time, just waiting to use it, why didn't you use it? Instead you waited until I wrote my article so you could replace it with yours. Rather uncool. - I agree!;)

I didn't have a different article beforehand. I just rewrote it afterwards. Do you think it's worse? Evercat 00:51, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No, not worse, just surprising to see a complete replacement.

Just wanted to mention that the article states Berlin is credited with the idea of positive/negative liberty. I'm no expert, but T.H.Green, in 1880, wrote "Liberal Legislation and Freedom of Contract," and discusses positive and negative liberty. The college text, "Ideals and Ideologies: A Reader" http://www.mypearsonstore.com/bookstore/ideals-and-ideologies-a-reader-9780205779970 explicitly states as much, on pg. 105. ~B.E.T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.77.249 (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Moved from article

' Also, Berlin's argument is not valid for any state that does not presume to know the wishes of its citizens. For example, if the state asks the citizens what they want instead of making that decision for them, positive liberty can be guaranteed without any hint of totalitarianism. '

this is IMO completely unsupported by anything other than POV. Sam [Spade] 21:38, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would like to add that John Stewart Mill's seminal "On Liberty", from the first paragraph on, deals specifically with the freedom from coercion by society, rather than "freedom of the will." Perhaps references to this should be in the "negative liberty" article instead?

False dichotomy?

I think you're basing what you call the views of "many anarchists, and others considered to be on the left-wing" mostly on your own views. Many anarchists readily use the terms "negative liberty" and "positive liberty", or "freedom" and "autonomy", to describe two sides of the same coin (freedom, liberty, or whatever you choose to call it). To say that the entire political philosophy of libertarian socialism "den[ies] that the concepts are even useful" is too imprecise. Anarchists simply deny that the two concepts can be separated or that one is more important than the other; the "coin" has two sides but it's still one coin. This is why I originally referred to the two concepts as "complimentary", because anarchists believe one is meaningless without the other. I'm not saying your use of the phrase "false dichotomy" is incorrect, to the contrary, it helps to emphasize the indivisible nature of freedom, but I do think it might be a bit confusing. -- Spleeman 18:09, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anarchists simply deny that the two concepts can be separated or that one is more important than the other. So it is a false dicotomy, and this is a stronger statement than simply saying they are complementary. Personally, I'd like to see a reference where the anarchist refers to the two as being complementary. I haven't seen one, and the fact that anarchists (at least in what I've read, which is mostly newer interpretations of the philosophy) seem to ignore the concept of positive or negative liberty makes me think they don't really see the distiction as necessarily being useful. This is what I stated. I may have made the statement too strong by attributing it to many libertarian socialists, but I do feel that at least some of them simply fail to make such a distiction at all, thus it would be correct to say that they do not find the concept useful. Maybe this can be resolved by finding a source where a particular anarchist argues that the two are complementary, and then attributing it specifically to him or her. Otherwise, I would consider ignoring the issue to be implicitly implying that the concepts are not useful for analyzing ideas about liberty or freedom.

The "many considered on the left-wing" part was intentionally vague, since I'm unsure what other "leftists" think, but again out of the communist, and the social democratic stuff I have read ignores the issue as if its not important. The only time I ever seem to see the distiction is within right-wing/free market libertarian/classical liberal literature. This was the point that I was trying to make. The entire article seems to talk about positive liberty as if it were an obvious truth, and my point was to make the statment that this really isn't so, and to make it strong enough that the readers may see this. The way you put it, makes it seem like all political philosophers accept the concepts, even if they disagree on thir importance. This only adds to the obvious POV that this article has regarding the "truth" of this concept. millerc 00:52, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I find the current revision acceptable, so don't take my complaints too harshly. I still support the language of false dicotomy rather than logically inseperable, but heck everyone has their own idiolect. millerc 01:04, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I had a long response to this written out and then the server fucked it up so I'll try to sum it up. For now, let it suffice to say that anarchists do use the concepts. One example that can be found easily with google is http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:-wo6Txf9dE8J:www.infoshop.org/faq/secF7.html+%22positive+freedom%22+anarchist&hl=en. And of course there are others, including a pamphlet that I believe was written by Chaz Bufe entitled "You Call This Freedom?" The difference in how anarchists and right-wingers use the concepts of "negative" and "positve" freedom is that to anarchists the distinction merely as an abstraction. They don't believe there's any practical value to it outside of the mind, that is, if people are to be truly free. Anarchists have always seen freedom holistically. This, however, does not mean that we as anarchists somehow deny the abstraction can be made by calling it a fallacy, as I thought was implied by "false dichotomy". The distinction certainly can be made, and is made all the time. This is why I prefer "complemetary" or "logically inseparable". Anyway, the critical point when talking about anarchism is that no two anarchists believe exactly the same thing about pretty much anything. When talking about anarchist beliefs, I think it's always good to keep this in mind and to couch things in appropriately vague language. By the way, when you say "implicitly implying" did you mean as opposed to "explicitly implying"? Hehe. Sorry, I couldn't help myself. -- Solidarity -- Spleeman 07:07, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree that many anarchists disagree about things, which is why I thought it might be good to give a particular anarchist who feels that way. I've been looking around for the terms positive and negative liberty/rights in anarchist literature, and I'm starting to become stronger in my belief that it's just a non-issue to most anarchists (not needed for anarchist analysis). The link you gave is similar to something I was going to post from the anarchist faq (here [1]). Note both are from the section refuting anarcho-capitalism (section F). I'm looking at version 10, the newest version of the faq, and it has scare quotes around the word positive ("positive" liberty). Both the pointer you gave and the one I found treat the subject ambgiously. They certainly don't advocate the ideas as true. And the ideas are only brought up to refute Libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism.

I only found one other pamplet on the subject (here [2] It's the same writer that you mentioned!). One writer is hardly indicitive of the "anarchist opinion". But maybe we may cite him as the source that I would like?

And I did mean implicit, as the opposate of explicit. You implicity imply something when you don't directly state it. They don't directly state their views on positive liberty, so one might guess that they don't endorse the concept. millerc 01:38, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh... I think I finally got it, "implicity implying"... Yeah, it is sorta' redundant. hehe. millerc 01:50, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Weasel words

The last two paragraphs begin with "Defenders say" and "Positive liberty can also be seen". Let's get with it, y'all! Who, exactly, is making these claims? The article can only be improved by including this information. -Seth Mahoney 04:35, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

In Political Spectrum you will see the Friesean Institute uses the specialized definition quite extensively in their 3-d political spectrum. Harvestdancer 28 June 2005 17:35 (UTC)

positive liberty versus positive rights

This article is wrongly equating positive liberty with positive rights. Positive liberty is the liberty to act. A positive right is a right to be provided with something by others. RJII 22:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Active Liberty

I think there should be a reference to Justice Stephen Breyer's book "Active Liberty", and to Benjamin Constant's speech "Liberty of the Ancients and Moderns" to which he refers.

Examples

The article needs concrete examples of positive liberties. - Quirk 20:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is muddles the real idea. Here are examples of Group Positive Freedoms and Liberties: seatbelt laws, DUI enforcement, indoor smoking bans, GNU/GPL, and nCoV19 lockdowns. For example, according to this ideology, banning indoor smoking increases your liberty to go to pubs, because you won’t be forced to breathe smoke filled air. Likewise, over enforcement of DUI laws increases your liberty to drive without running interference from those wanting to go to pubs. Group positive freedom is an eastern philosophy. It is totalitarianism actualized. This is an important and timely topic. As is, the article is hopelessly flawed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B150:EA3D:1997:C54B:F3E6:4DD9 (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

What is positive liberty?

I read this article several times and I still have no idea what the concept means. It needs to be clarified or deleted or something.

Salvor Hardin 22:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me. From the second paragraph:

Positive liberty is often described as freedom to achieve certain ends, while negative liberty is described as from external coercion.

Maybe it can be made more clear though. What part aren't you following? -Smahoney 22:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That statement is incoherent. What is it supposed to mean? Salvor Hardin 00:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

At first I was kind of dismissive of Salvor's tag, but after, going over the article some more, I think the article is somewhat muddied, especially with confusion between Positive liberty and "positive rights." I think it needs to be cleaned up a bit using Isaiah Berlin's essay and other scholarly sources.--Bkwillwm 02:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The two paragraphs after, "The idea of positive liberty is often emphasized by..." should probably be moved to the Criticisms section, since it seems to offer opinions other than positive liberty. This might make it less confusing as to what parts explain positive liberty (in the Overview section), and clarify the whole article some. Jamesia 05:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Conservative"/"liberal"

The article uses these terms too loosely; it should at least be clear which sense of the word is intended. Also, the label of "conservative," with regard to Cotton Mather, is anachronistic.--WadeMcR 03:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Not only does the article use them loosely, it seems to be wrong about them. One part states that positive liberty is associated with liberalism while negative is associated with libertarianism, which I take exception with. If anything, positive liberty tends to be more common in 'right-wing'/conservative circles with negative liberty being closer to liberalism/left-wing thought as well as libertarianism. --The Way 11:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Christian interpretation

Among the right-wing, conservatives also embrace some forms of positive liberty. Most notably, Puritans such as Cotton Mather often referred to liberty in their writings, but focused on the liberty from sin (e.g. sexual urges) even at the expense of liberty from the government.

Please include a quotation to explain what you mean by "at the expense of liberty from the government."

I feel this statement about "right-wing conservatives" innaccurately implies their support for positive rights. A Christian understanding of freedom in Christ from sin (a positive liberty to reach our potential as human beings) does not necessarily imply anything regarding government and rights.

However, this my understanding and I have not thoroughly studied the issue. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Not all Christians believe that government must become involved in helping individuals achieve positive liberty in the form of freedom from sin; however, the Puritans placed many restrictions on individuals using government to restrain other liberties (ie freedom of religion) in order to promote their idea positive liberty. The statement should be clarified to show that this is only certain groups like the Puritans, not all right-wingers or Christians.--Bkwillwm 05:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

The entire criticisms section is based off one article from the Cato Institute. Either that was one very good article, or too many references are being used from that source. In lieu of better examples, I didn't delete the whole section, though I believe it needs to be cleaned up. --Jamesia 05:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

after reading the 'criticism' i thought to myself, 'i imagine all this comes from the same guy and from a right wing conservative thinktank." according to wikipedia, kelley is an aynrandista and the CATO institute is, of course, a right wing conservative thinktank. this article, or atleast the 'criticism' is mostly a hit piece written by someone with a political opinion to get across —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.109.133 (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The entire Negative Liberty and Positive Liberty articles have been crafted by Libertarians for propaganda use. That's why both of the articles are so incoherent when read by anyone ignorant of either subject. Heck, I know a great deal about both subjects, and I get confused by both articles. Both sides are basically arguing in the articles themselves. Rather than read as a fluid article, they're both jumbled and contradictory within themselves. It's ironic that the libertarians, who abhor coercion, seek to manipulate information in an effort to coerce people into believing one thing or another. -- Jamesia (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright I put up the request for additional references in November 2007. As of now, February 2009, no other references have been put up. I'll leave in the first paragraph that references the same article and delete the rest. A year and a half is enough time to wait on more referenced information. Jamesia (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I don't think it is sensible to use metaphor in the opening sentence of an article when supposedly providing a definition of the concept under discussion!

I would fix it myself, however I can't really ascertain exactly what "positive liberty" is apart from a euphemism for government control and the subversion of true individual liberty.--Russell E (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Positive liberty refers to an individual person's ability to act in their own government. Any type of government where a citizen is allowed to interact with it is an expression of positive liberty. Government types that are based upon positive liberty include republics and democracies. Negative liberty refers to non-interaction between government and citizens: the government does not restrict the individual, and the individual does not partake in the government. In essence, a government under the concept of negative liberty would be a monarchy, as described in the Leviathan: the government is tasked with running affairs while (ideally) not interfering with the day-to-day lives of citizens.

I would gladly write both articles in very simple terms if I knew they weren't going to be vandalized within hours. -- Jamesia (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed much? What about a liberal democracy - where the people have power in their government and that government leaves the people alone. Wouldn't that state have both positive and negative liberty, by your definitions? (Also, though Berlin emphasized action in government especially, isn't positive liberty a more general concept of the ability to act, not just in government but in general, just as negative liberty is the lack of restraints, not just government-imposed but in general?) -Pfhorrest (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confusing concepts of liberalism and conservatism with positive and negative liberty. The concepts of positive and negative liberty aren't specific to government alone, I certainly agree with you on that point. I was just giving governmental examples to show real, concrete examples of how each concept of liberty would work in practice. A liberal democracy, as you say - where the citizens act in the government but not vice versa - that's still based upon positive liberty. How exactly would citizens act in a government in such a way that citizens are not impacted by that government? It doesn't make sense, realistically, to say that people can impact their government without government impacting people - that's kind of the point of acting in the government. One of the few concrete examples of a government based on negative liberty is outlined in the Leviathan, i.e. an idealized model of a monarchy wherein the citizens would overthrow the monarch when the monarch's government overstepped its bounds. Another example might be a chaotic form of anarchy, or even a dictatorship. Positive liberty encompasses a lot more governmental types than negative liberty does, that's for sure. One thing is for sure, both articles are highly opinionated and deviate widely from Berlin's concepts. -- Jamesia (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge? Why?

There is no justification for merging this into the negative liberty article. It's a totally different concept. The tag should be taken off IMO. There is a need to have a clear distinction between the two concepts and two separate articles is the best way to do that. Here are my four tildes 24.174.82.195 (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, these sentences...

"Berlin believed that positive liberty nearly always gave rise to the abuse of power. For when a political leadership believes that they hold the philosophical key to a better future, this sublime end can be used to justify drastic and brutal means."

...don't belong in the opening. They're a criticism and as such they belong in the criticism section. I'll give it a few days. If no one objects then I'll remove them. Here are mu four tildes again 24.174.82.195 (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who proposed the merger. I was inspired by articles such as Negative and positive rights, Natural and legal rights, Claim rights and liberty rights, etc, all of which discuss the distinction between two opposite ideas which are defined in large part by their opposition to each other. Seems like the same sort of thing could apply here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I think a third article comparing them would be OK, but definitely not just one article discussing the differences between the two. Philosophically, they're distinct. For instance, you wouldn't have just one article for both capitalism and communism. They're distinct; separate entities. I think it's the same situation here. They're not always used in opposition to the other. You'd have to transform the Liberty article to make it work. This is one of my favorite articles and I refer back to it often. I don't support a merge. Jiminezwaldorf (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree with the idea of a merge. The difference between the two is held pretty well in the Isaiah Berlin article with his Two Concepts. There's no point in making yet another article to say, pretty much, the same thing.Pongley (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless you're a newly hatched pod person, you already know that Positive and Negative Merger Foundation is not only truculent but is addicted to being truculent. But let me add that when Positive and Negative Merger Foundation promotes the idea of a "global village" it secretly means "global pillage". What follows is a set of observations I have made about condescending jokers. Positive and Negative Merger Foundation's idolators have already started to rob, steal, cheat, and murder. The result: absolute vapidity, shallow and postmodernist cacophony, lack of personality, monotony, and boredom. Positive and Negative Merger Foundation likes scare tactics that bar people from partaking in activities that cannot be monitored and controlled. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that I have to wonder where it got the idea that it is my view that "metanarratives" are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity. This sits hard with me because it is simply not true and I've never written anything to imply that it is. If some people are offended by my mentioning that Positive and Negative Merger Foundation's vicegerents believe a conspiracy of purblind spoilsports control banking, foreign policy, and the media, then so be it. Positive and Negative Merger Foundation's asseverations are in every respect consistent with the school of huffy thought that tends to dilute the nation's sense of common purpose and shared sacrifice. When I state that Positive and Negative Merger Foundation is a faithful student of Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese strategist who advocated demoralizing one's enemy as the highest art of warfare, I'm merely trying to deal with the relevant facts. Positive and Negative Merger Foundation's true goal is to palm off our present situation as the compelling ground for worldwide deconstructionism. All the statements that its operatives make to justify or downplay that goal are only apologetics; they do nothing to build bridges where in the past all that existed were moats and drawbridges. Despite what you may have been taught in school, I welcome Positive and Negative Merger Foundation's comments. However, Positive and Negative Merger Foundation needs to realize that we must undeniably raise a stink about Positive and Negative Merger Foundation and its insipid perversions. Does that sound extremist? Is it too brainless for you? I'm sorry if it seems that way but that's life. Given Positive and Negative Merger Foundation's record of shady dealings, we can say that its squibs are eerily similar to those promoted by madmen such as Pol Pot. What's scary, though, is that their extollment of commercialism has been ratcheted up a few notches from anything Pol Pot ever conjured up. In summary, things are apt to get worse before they get better. Is anyone listening? Does anyone care? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.105.56 (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the idea of merging has been voted down. I question the motives for proposing it, personally. Anyway, it's been long enough. I'm taking off the merge tag. 24.174.82.195 (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated to incarceration of duly convicted criminals

The image with its comment about being in jail, in addition to messing up the lede, bore no real relation to the civil society issue the article text is about. Had it been something about political prisoners or the like that would have been different. The loss of liberty which duly processed criminals suffer isn't even "negative liberty" so was just a goof/doof. Imprisonment is a negation of liberty, but that's not what "negative liberty" means, a negation of liberty and "negative liberty" have only a superficial connection, it would not be overreaching to say they had none. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Short description

A Short description should be short – current advice talks of a 40 character limit – see WP:SDSHORT.
Also, a Short description should not attempt to define the article's subject – see WP:SDNOTDEF.
A Short description exists only to clarify which article has been found by a search.
Capacity to act upon one's free will in the context of the broader society which places limitations on a person's ability to act was 128 characters long.
I have changed the Short description to Concept of sociological agency which takes a phrase from the article's own lead.
Can anyone think of a more suitable short text? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 15:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Failure to distinguish between group and individual liberty?

I’m assuming this article is on “Group Positive Liberty,” yet it is not clear. To be clear, Group Positive Liberty/Freedom is the Eastern philosophy of freedom, as opposed to the western ideology of individual liberty. This philosophy suggests that freedom exists in policy that benefits the groups liberty over the individual’s liberty. Examples of Group Positive Liberty policies are seatbelt laws, DUI law enforcement, indoor smoking bans, gun bans, GNU/GPL, and the nCoV19 lockdowns. Restricting personal liberty for the greater good is Group Positive Liberty. The end result of group positive liberty is totalitarianism (not personal opinion). 2600:1009:B150:EA3D:1997:C54B:F3E6:4DD9 (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)