• Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Imo, it would be better worded as follows:

    • Negative liberty: freedom from something.
    • Positive liberty: freedom to do something.
    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      That’s probably the more popular way, but I think it’s easier to misinterpret. For example the freedom of speech, one could think of it as the freedom to speak instead of the freedom from undue censorship. But that right is usually considered a negative one.

      • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        For example the freedom of speech, one could think of it as the freedom to speak instead of the freedom from undue censorship.

        As I currently understand it, freedom of speech is regarded as a negative liberty because it is purely focused on freedom from the government imposing restrictions on what you can and can’t say. It’s not, however, the government giving you the freedom to say whatever you want, whenever you want, under any circumstance — e.g. people are free to trespass you from their establishment if they don’t like what you are saying.

        • FireTower@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I agree that it’s a negative liberty. It’s just the from/to language can be misconstrued IMO, the not impede/oblige others framing is more clear without additional information. It’s, again IMO, targeting the core of the differential. Asking of others for inaction vs asking for action.

          • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            IIUC, I just think that the intent/mentality is somewhat altered in what you described in this comment. For example, you said “Positive rights oblige others to provide something (like healthcare).” — positive liberty isn’t necessarily about forcing people, in an authoritative manner, to do things for, or to, another person. It’s essentially taking the position that people should have the freedom to experience life on a level playing field, if you will — it is interested in lowering the amount of barriers preventing people from doing what they want. I don’t think your wording is necessarily incorrect, I’m just not convinced that the connotation is the same.

            • FireTower@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              I think this cleared up our disconnect. I chose oblige to indicate that they require others to do something for them to occur. Most often paying taxes, to pay the provider of a service. This typically isn’t a ‘at gunpoint’ interaction. But negative rights will never require another to do something for it to be practiced.

              I agree with your highlighting of the philosophy behind them. I was more concerned about a short rememberable way to differentiate the two.

              So I chose oblige vs force to make sure it had the connotation of a civil concession.