O'ism's view on negative vs. positive liberty?

[daniel]

I've recently been reading some Isaiah Berlin - his Four Essays on Liberty. In the counter literature some interesting points are made. For example on the issue of freedom Kymlicka argues that negative freedom - the freedom to not be coerced - is not freedom at all. That freedom, he argues, takes away others freedom to learn to read, get medical help etc. It leads to them being coerced by circumstance, thus negative freedom is not freedom at all. For example are all Britons free to go on holiday to Florida? Legally yes but in effect no - so many can't afford it. Thus do they have freedom? What are your views on this point that none coercive freedom is indeed coercive? Its not people coming to your house with guns but rather being deprived of so much such as healthcare. Why is negative liberty superior? What, do you think, is the Objectivst response?

Edited September 17, 2005 by daniel

[skap35]

The system of "negative freedom" as you call it does give you the freedom to receive health care. It gives you the ability to change your situation in life so that you can afford health care. If you are born in a poor family with no health care, you can get a job, get a degree, and earn enough money to afford it.

If you can't afford something that you want (health care, going to Florida) you work harder than you are working now. You do have the ability to get anything you want. But the responsibility of attaining that goal is placed on your shoulders.

Under any alternative system wealth is given to those who don't produce wealth. When you work, you earn wealth for yourself and for the company that hired you. When you give that wealth (in the form of free health care for example) to someone who doesn't produce an equivalent amount of wealth, it's like flushing money down the toilet. Ultimately, such a system can only last until the wealth runs out. Just look at the countless examples that have been attempted over the years. When the wealth runs out and the economy collapses, you have just deprived everyone under that economy of the freedom to have things like health care and any wealth at all.

[DavidOdden]

Kymlicka argues that negative freedom - the freedom to not be coerced - is not freedom at all. That freedom, he argues, takes away others freedom to learn to read, get medical help etc. It leads to them being coerced by circumstance, thus negative freedom is not freedom at all.

This is a good example of why Objectivism doesn't take the floating abstraction "freedom" to be the fundamental goal of a political system. See expecially "Man's Rights" in VOS and Rand's discussion of "printing-press rights". You can phrase actual, proper rights and statist entitlements negatively or positively, because there are enough antonyms and circumlocutions in language that you can equally speak of a freedom to act, or a freedom from restraint against action: the distinction "negative freedom" vs. "positive freedom" is meaningless.

[daniel]

The system of "negative freedom" as you call it does give you the freedom to receive health care. It gives you the ability to change your situation in life so that you can afford health care. If you are born in a poor family with no health care, you can get a job, get a degree, and earn enough money to afford it.

If you can't afford something that you want (health care, going to Florida) you work harder than you are working now. You do have the ability to get anything you want. But the responsibility of attaining that goal is placed on your shoulders.

Under any alternative system wealth is given to those who don't produce wealth. When you work, you earn wealth for yourself and for the company that hired you. When you give that wealth (in the form of free health care for example) to someone who doesn't produce an equivalent amount of wealth, it's like flushing money down the toilet. Ultimately, such a system can only last until the wealth runs out. Just look at the countless examples that have been attempted over the years. When the wealth runs out and the economy collapses, you have just deprived everyone under that economy of the freedom to have things like health care and any wealth at all.

My socialist friends would say something like 'so with negative liberty those who are born to rich families, won the lottery etc don't have to work while those who just by bad luck were born poor have to spend their lives working. Thus in effect their lives are not free - they must work, while others are free to choose whether to work. Thus some have more freedom than others. Why should they have their options in life reduced because of bad luck? Since when did the hand of nature make something right?'

[DArcMatter]

This artificial distinction between positive and negative freedoms is a mistake.

From the wiki: "Rights are those actions capable of being performed by a human which all other humans are morally bound not to impede."

In other words, a right is a moral sanction to man's life-sustaining actions in a social context. They are rights to do, not to a particular set of things. Keep in mind that rights are contingent upon the normal conditions of human existence, so the existence of so-called exceptions merely mean that the required social and metaphysical conditions of rights do not apply in a given case. Having an oblique triangle does not invalidate the pythagorean theorem, but the law of cosines applies. If you have to enter your neighbor's property without his permission and use your neighbor's water hose to put out a fire in your neighbor's backyard does not mean that you have violated the sanctity of your neighbor's right to property, but you have respected your neighbor's rights in another way.

Property rights, properly defined, are rights to own and control things gained through voluntary trade or production. This is all too often contracted to be said as "Property rights", not the "Right to Own Property". Property rights are inextricably related to the right to trade with other willing people.

So ask your socialist friends how a hungry man is not free.

[skap35]

My socialist friends would say something like 'so with negative liberty those who are born to rich families, won the lottery etc don't have to work while those who just by bad luck were born poor have to spend their lives working. Thus in effect their lives are not free - they must work, while others are free to choose whether to work. Thus some have more freedom than others. Why should they have their options in life reduced because of bad luck? Since when did the hand of nature make something right?'

When I moved out on my own was when it got bad for me (financially). I could certainly be classified as "poor." I barely had enough money for food and basically lived off nothing but week-old fast food that they threw out where I worked. I worked part time at Wendy's and went to college. All-in-all not exactly the best life.

But now I have enough money to lead a very comfortable life. How on earth did I get from there to here? I worked for it! I didn't just sit back and complain about those rich kids I went to college with and how they had it easier. I thought to myself "do I want to be working at Wendy's and eating old fast food for the rest of my life"? NO. So what could I do to get out of this situation? Work. Study hard, and find a good job.

There was something I wanted (money and a more comfortable life), so I went out and worked for it. Now I have it. Does your socialist friend have a problem with poor people working to earn a better life?

And about rich people: so a guy earns a lot of money. Naturally he wants to share the rewards of his hard work with those he loves. Does your socialist friend have a problem with a rich man giving a comfortable life to those he cares about?

[jrs]

This artificial distinction between positive and negative freedoms is a mistake.

No. The mistake is the common error of conflating rights with privileges. An error which also afflicts the Objectivist Wiki.

A privilege to act is the absence of a legal duty not to act. A privilege to refrain from acting is the absence of a legal duty which compels action. So a privilege could be called a negative freedom -- a freedom from compulsion by the state.

A right is an entitlement to some benefit at the expense of another person(s); with the entitlement enforced by the state. That is, you have a right, if you can file a criminal complaint or a lawsuit when it is violated. So a right could be called a positive "freedom".

The only legitimate rights are rights which protect one's life, liberty, and property from interference by other people. That is, your proper rights are duties upon other people to refrain from actions which harm you.

You should have the privilege to do anything which does not violate the proper rights of other people. You should always have the privilege to refrain from acting.

[hunterrose]

What are your views on this point that none (sp?) coercive freedom is indeed coercive?

If you knew you were going to be shipwrecked by a hurricane onto an island some time in 2020, and that whatever was in your cabin was going to end up on the island with you, would you consider that "coercion?"

Why should [the unfortunate] have their options in life reduced because of bad luck? Since when did the hand of nature make something right?'

Suppose I live on a farm. I have no kids or wife, whereas my neighbor has a spouse and 8 children to help out on his farm. I demand the "positive freedom" to get farm help - adoption of two of his male children and taking one of his female children as a wife should suffice.

Can you isolate "positive freedom?" as medical help from "positive freedom" as farm help?

[ex_banana-eater]

Thus in effect their lives are not free - they must work, while others are free to choose whether to work. Thus some have more freedom than others. Why should they have their options in life reduced because of bad luck? Since when did the hand of nature make something right?'

The main issue is that they do not see the distinction between causality and force on the life of man. What they want is freedom from reality. Freedom from the fact that man must work, think, and act to survive--based on his nature and the nature of the universe he lives in.

[Capitalism Forever]

Why is negative liberty superior?

Because what your socialist friends call "positive liberty"--the ability of everyone to get any result they wish without any cost or effort--exists only in their daydreams, not in reality.