A Brief Look into Liberty

[BehindTheMask]

Here are some things to know before reading this note:

 

Negative Liberty: Is the "freedom from"(manipulation, coercion, etc)

Positive Liberty is the "freedom to"(be one's own master, to self govern, to act only on rational desires"

 

Harm Principle: One can do anything one wants, as long as one does not harm someone. Exludes minors and children, does not apply to people with mental disabilities, and does not apply to "memebers of backward societies" and olny to harm to others.

 

Also, I changed my mind on what I originally thought, before righting thing.

 

The problem with Liberty is what definition do we use. Those who want little or no interference support Negative Liberty, while those think Libery should be granted favor Positive Liberty. Both sides have valid points, however, I myself prefer Positive Liberty.

 

The problem with Negative Liberty is that in its purest form envokes anarchism or quasi-anarchical states." Why is this bad?" you might ask. The government, or lack there of cannot guarantee the safety of its people. Without a government that can protect its people, any Liberty "given" is useless.

 

The defenders of Negative Liberty say that Positive Liberty has its faults. One of them being that society must be uniform. This isn't bad. A society must be uniform in its ideals. What is wrong, what is right, without social reform, is hard. Reformation is needed in order to be avle to use Positive Liberty well, and this is where I think Negative Liberty believers find fault in Positive Liberty.

 

While it seems far from ideal, the government is strengthed by unification of ideas. Instead of dissociation of fragmented spheres of ideas, we can unify and become one. If we can unify, in mind society can progress and we can achieve more. Without the stops and kinks of party politics, we achieve, we grow, we solve problems, we lessen hardships and suffering.

 

Now, one might state that Positive Liberty is wrong. They will bring up that control is a bad thing. That 'individuality' cannot be suppressed. This argument is missing something. Why is control a bad thing? Is it the face your "free will" does not matter as much...that you cannot choose? Does the fact that someone choose for you bother you that much? Why does it bother you?

 

The reason I feel that people dislike control is due to the fact that they have been told that they have a choice. The media and society feed this to us. We have the "choice" and the "power" to change what is surrounding is us wrong. The only choice we get is to make what puppet we want to look at, from a mind numbing television screen, clinging onto his voice, because we are blind. Control over a person's surroundings is an illusion. If we forgo this illusion, progress can.

[Eury]

tl;dr

 

I thought you said it was brief? >:/

[Dweller of Parables]

That was brief.

 

It was all explained in less than 5,000 words.

No exceptions.

[BehindTheMask]

Any useful comments?

[Ăɍȼẗîȼ]

I'm sorry. You need to use simpler English.

 

I'm not understanding it, I've read over a few times.

 

From my grammar, you wouldn't think I'm bad at English or something, right?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Why would it be incapable of each definition? I'd say that it's totally synonymous to "freedom" and inherits each of its definitions.

[Guest JoshIcy]

Control keeps things at a level, that is manageable. Preventing as you said, an "anarchistic" state. This makes Positive Liberty, imo the best choice most of the time. The only time when I see Negative Liberty better, is when Positive Liberty holds an almost Militant grasp on people.

[Infinitus]

I would prefer Positive Liberty, because I think that people should have Freedom, and the ability to choose what they wish. However, if they cannot handle all of this Freedom, and all of a sudden start wasting it away, then something's wrong.

 

So then it comes down to Negative. Which, if I'm correct, is Freedom that is being shown, but is actually being manipulated into falling into the choice the government wants, not what they want. Which can cause anarchy and complaint. Then something's wrong.

 

So, where do we go? We go in the middle. We give them fair, honest freedom, but we give it to them step, by step. First, we give them a choice, but we must select their choices. They slowly start to begin to understand how to make the right choices, so we loosen the grip, little by little, until they are ready for true freedom.

 

If they start making bad mistakes, then someone still needs to hold their hand, and we continue this process until they can make it on their own.

 

I believe I may have misunderstood a few parts, because I'm not exactly Mr. Political, so call me on my faults. Respectfully.