Negative Liberty vs. Po$itive Liberty
Green Energy

Negative Liberty vs. Po$itive Liberty


I had some time today and found this interesting essay over at Western Hero.

Excerpt:
Negative Liberty

Many "freedoms" are documented in our Constitution, specifically in The Bill of Rights: freedom of religion,speech, the press, assembly, petition, the right to bear arms, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. These "freedoms" are clearly documented limitations on the ability of government to interfere with the individual; they are political freedoms protecting the sovereignty of the individual from coercion by the state. The freedoms in the Constitution are termed "negative liberties" or the freedom from restraint. These freedoms are somewhat unique in that once they are possessed they are generally retained at little to no cost. Defending them may have significant cost, but the freedom of religion in and of itself costs us practically nothing.

Po$itive Liberty

Lately on the left you have been hearing a lot about freedom and rights; freedom from poverty (housing, clothing, transportation, possessions?), freedom from illness (right to medical care), freedom from starvation (right to food). These freedoms are termed "positive liberties", and generally involve power. The power to achieve self-realization or the ability to fulfill one's potential. Positive liberty is often described as the ability or entitlement to achieve one's ends, while negative liberty is described as the freedom from being forcibly prevented from achieving those ends. Positive liberties generally come at a significant monetary cost to society at large, in that the group must pay for the individual.

The distinction between positive and negative liberty is perhaps the clearest distinction between social liberals on the left and classical liberals on the right. The minimalist government established by our founding fathers was one of negative liberty. Government was seen as a necessary evil and established within a framework of checks and balances designed to enforce its restrictions and limit its actions. The governments of FDR's New Deal and Johnson's Great Society were ones of positive liberty, a paternalistic government whose main objective was in taking care of its members.
Blogger Finntann also makes the following point about how we can become condition to desiring po$itive liberties:
Paternalism is hard to argue against, each paternalistic action in and of itself is predominately good, is made with ostensibly the best of intentions. Your parents after all were, or should have been, paternalistic...
Read the entire essay HERE.




-
CNN Poll: Majority says government a threat to citizens' rights I guess the "shock" is that the majority agree with the Founding Fathers? The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the...

- Lesser Men
Washington Rebel: photo courtesy of Oleg Volk William Grigg posting at Lew Rockwell outlines yet another outrage in regards to the second amendment: Paramilitary Thugs Steal Private Arms Collection I wrote the following in the 90's though it is relevant...

- Troublemaker
Egads but we could use a man like Samuel Adams now. "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are...

- Life, Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happiness
I don't know how many of you are familiar with Brigid but Home on the Range has long been one of my favorite blogs (not counting, you know, anyone who blogs here of course ;>) Besides talking about guns & good shooting & politics & life...

- Why Good Will Always Win Out Over Evil
The devils in our world are always more concerned with aquiring power than they are with increasing prosperity. Therefore, the devils will always fall to fighting amongst themselves over how the power will be divided up. Meanwhile, those who pursue Freedom...



Green Energy








.