"Negative liberties" a logical fallacy?

[JamieP]

I have a friend who has told me to read "Cost of Rights" by Princton Prof, Stephen Holmes....saying that it's the most succinct explanation of why "negative liberties" are a logical fallacy.

He also goes on to say that there cannot be separation of state and economics because the govt is involved in all markets (even if it is just to protect our rights).

He then goes on to say that a capitalist society would then degenerate into feudal europe because capital would eventually consolidate in the hands of a few and those people would use their power to influence whatever govt existed to change the rules in their favor (which they would be able to do because under his assumptions there is no way to separate state and economics).

Basically his whole argument (in my mind) centers upon the argument that there is no way to have a separation of business and govt except to step in as impartial arbiter. It seems that this is certainly possible in my mind...but he seems very confident of the contra and I'm not really sure how to begin debating him on this or to rebut his statements. thoughts?

[DanLane]

What your friend needs to know is the difference between force and voluntary interaction. To say that the government's protection of rights falls under the same category of action as market transaction, and therefore that it constitutes interference, is to ignore this difference. Trade is a voluntary interaction. If the govenment is doing its job, what kind of voluntary action would be prevented or altered? The actions that government does properly interfere in are actions of force and fraud, which have nothing to do with economics.

He goes on to equate wealth with power. First, if a government is constitutionally limited to protecting rights, what favor can you buy from it? Why wouldn't his massive proletariat underclass, as the overwhelming majority, be able to keep you from giving more power to that government by voting? Incidentally, where does wealth come from, and when did it become a limited resource for so few to hoard?

Hope that helps, or at least leads to the right train of thought.

[A is A]

I have a friend who has told me to read "Cost of Rights" by Princton Prof, Stephen Holmes....saying that it's the most succinct explanation of why "negative liberties" are a logical fallacy.

Perhaps you want to cite one point for discussion.

He also goes on to say that there cannot be separation of state and economics because the govt is involved in all markets (even if it is just to protect our rights).

This is classic leftist equivocation and a package deal. No one argues that government is not involved when it is protecting rights. The argument is about whether the government determines who "wins" in a competition by taking positive actions to influence the outcome: through intervention. Protecting losers and expropriating money from winners is what the economic argument is about. The argument is about whether competitors have access to government action to affect the economic outcome in their favor. When rights are protected, both competitors stand on equal footing, politically, and neither has access to government intervention.

He then goes on to say that a capitalist society would then degenerate into feudal europe because capital would eventually consolidate in the hands of a few and those people would use their power to influence whatever govt existed to change the rules in their favor (which they would be able to do because under his assumptions there is no way to separate state and economics).

This is just Marxist crap that has no basis in reality or history.

Basically his whole argument (in my mind) centers upon the argument that there is no way to have a separation of business and govt except to step in as impartial arbiter. It seems that this is certainly possible in my mind...but he seems very confident of the contra and I'm not really sure how to begin debating him on this or to rebut his statements. thoughts?

Someone else's confidence should not affect whether you think his statements are true or not. If you're not sure about something, read up on it. Study von Mises, Reisman, Rand, and many others who have thoroughly demolished both the economic and moral arguments against government intervention.

[freestyle]

I have a friend who has told me to read "Cost of Rights" by Princton Prof, Stephen Holmes....

That book is also authored by Cass Sunstein.

Those of us who have endeavored to learn about the current president and his ideology are well aware of Sunstein (author of: "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever").

[Jake_Ellison]

What's a negative liberty? Objectivism defines liberty as freedom to action, that's certainly not a negative liberty.

[JayR]

What's a negative liberty? Objectivism defines liberty as freedom to action, that's certainly not a negative liberty.

I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps a freedom to not act, and wait for someone else to do the acting for you.

j..

[A is A]

What's a negative liberty? Objectivism defines liberty as freedom to action, that's certainly not a negative liberty.

I take it to mean one has liberty when others do not take specific actions and you do not take specific actions against others. Freedom is the absence of physical coercion. This is essentially a negative definition.

[Hairnet]

I have a friend who has told me to read "Cost of Rights" by Princton Prof, Stephen Holmes....saying that it's the most succinct explanation of why "negative liberties" are a logical fallacy.

He also goes on to say that there cannot be separation of state and economics because the govt is involved in all markets (even if it is just to protect our rights).

He then goes on to say that a capitalist society would then degenerate into feudal europe because capital would eventually consolidate in the hands of a few and those people would use their power to influence whatever govt existed to change the rules in their favor (which they would be able to do because under his assumptions there is no way to separate state and economics).

Basically his whole argument (in my mind) centers upon the argument that there is no way to have a separation of business and govt except to step in as impartial arbiter. It seems that this is certainly possible in my mind...but he seems very confident of the contra and I'm not really sure how to begin debating him on this or to rebut his statements. thoughts?

Point 1: The claim of negative liberties being logically fallacious needs to be elaborated on, and then an analysis of positive liberties needs to be made to see if they hold up under the same criticism.

Point 2. The state (and sometimes other entities) create markets by enforcing property rights. If it does anything other than that, it is contradicting the whole entire point of having a state. The state can not do anything else effectively.

Point 3. Contrary to what this person is arguing, the state's involvement in any issue other than private property (and subsequent legal issues) leads to the creation of ruling classes (don't take this in a marxian sense, I mean something different). People under social democracy get exactly what they claim capitalism does. The state continuously makes laws and regulations that distort markets in such a way that only those who already have capital can hold on to capital. This creates a society where people can loot subtely via production, like any mafia.

[Jake_Ellison]

I take it to mean one has liberty when others do not take specific actions and you do not take specific actions against others. Freedom is the absence of physical coercion. This is essentially a negative definition.

That would be a negative definition (though it wouldn't necessarily be a logical fallacy, at least not as far as I can see). But, as I said, it isn't the Objectivist definition (it might be the Libertarian one). Ayn Rand provided a positive definition for rights (including the right to liberty), derived from Ethics:

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

[freestyle]

What's a negative liberty? Objectivism defines liberty as freedom to action, that's certainly not a negative liberty.

I've heard it described (by a Sunstein devotee) in terms of the bill of rights before. Also termed "negative rights". Meaning, basically, the constitution tells the federal government what it CANNOT do. (as opposed to "bestowing", from on high, rights to individuals)

Edited May 16, 2010 by freestyle

[Hope]

He also goes on to say that there cannot be separation of state and economics because the govt is involved in all markets (even if it is just to protect our rights).

There is a thorough and simple way to separate the state from business.

1) Allow all and everyone to create their own monies, with the condition that issuers alone must accept their money at par.

2) Government may not go into debt by any other means than by issuing more notes

3) Note denominations can be in anything the issuer wants: courtroom hours, ozs of Gold, kilowatt hours, etc.

This means that, for example, the justice system would pay invoices and payroll with money it issued itself, and any other money it took in for fees for services. No suppliers to the court system would have to accept

payment in any single form of notes except ones they themselves emitted.

With those simple rules government would quickly find over-issuance purposeless and find itself booted out of office for over-taxation.

HS

[A is A]

That would be a negative definition (though it wouldn't necessarily be a logical fallacy, at least not as far as I can see). But, as I said, it isn't the Objectivist definition (it might be the Libertarian one). Ayn Rand provided a positive definition for rights (including the right to liberty), derived from Ethics:

Let's not mix terms here. Liberty, freedom and rights are not synonyms nor are they interchangeable. That freedom has a negative definition certainly implies no logical fallacy. There is nothing wrong with a negative definition, if that is the nature of what is being defined.

Freedom, in a political context, has only one meaning: the absence of physical coercion.

[A is A]

I've heard it described (by a Sunstein devotee) in terms of the bill of rights before. Also termed "negative rights". Meaning, basically, the constitution tells the federal government what it CANNOT do. (as opposed to "bestowing", from on high, rights to individuals)

------------

So, "liberty" is what the government must do for you to redistribute wealth for purposes of social justice.

Obama should be impeached for such views.

[freestyle]

So, "liberty" is what the government must do for you to redistribute wealth for purposes of social justice.

Obama should be impeached for such views.

Right. If you follow the logic it is even more disturbing.

So he's saying (correctly) that the constitution tells the government what it CANNOT do. This interpretation is fine because it does not, necessarily, assume that the government can bestow rights. (i.e. Your rights don't come from the government... These are NOT a list of your rights as bestowed by the power of government).

The disturbing part is that his problem with the constitution is that it doesn't say what the government must do "for your". So yes, he believes that the problem is that the constitution doesn't outline the precess to redistribute wealth based on factors such as race.

Edited May 17, 2010 by freestyle

[A is A]

Right. If you follow the logic it is even more disturbing.

So he's saying (correctly) that the constitution tells the government what it CANNOT do. This interpretation is fine because it does not, necessarily, assume that the government can bestow rights. (i.e. Your rights don't come from the government... These are NOT a list of your rights as bestowed by the power of government).

The disturbing part is that his problem with the constitution is that it doesn't say what the government must do "for your". So yes, he believes that the problem is that the constitution doesn't outline the precess to redistribute wealth based on factors such as race.

Yes, and the ultimate goal of holding that the government must do something "for you" is the idea that HE is the one doing that something "for you."

[freestyle]

Or to you.

[A is A]

Or to you.

Bend over, put your head between your knees and kiss your ass goodbye.