Talk:Negative liberty

Preamble for the Metaphysical Libertarians

Metaphysical libertarians believe in free will and that individuals should be able to make their own choices without external constraints. As a result, they often view freedom and liberty as central values in their philosophy.

However, different people may have different understandings of what these terms mean. For metaphysical libertarians, freedom and liberty may be tightly linked to their belief in free will and individual autonomy. They may view any external constraints on an individual's actions or choices as an infringement on their freedom and liberty.

Therefore, to ensure that these concepts align with their philosophical beliefs, metaphysical libertarians may seek to control the meaning of the words "freedom" and "liberty." They may argue that the common usage of these terms does not accurately capture their specific philosophical views, and may therefore insist on defining these terms in a way that aligns with their beliefs.

Overall, the desire to control the meaning of these words is likely rooted in the deep-seated belief that freedom and liberty are fundamental to their worldview and that any deviations from their understanding of these concepts would be a threat to their philosophical beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edunoramus (talk • contribs) 16:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

should be cleared up

I think that this artichle should be cleared up to be easier to read. It is currently very unclear in what negative liberty is, at least to me.

I think the main example should be rewritten so that it is not about sex. The example gains no extra clarity by being titilating and eliminating the sexual reference will make the article more accessible to younger Wikipedia users.

Also, I don't understand the following sentence and hope that someone can clarify it:

"However, most liberals only consider negative liberty as the main rule that can be mildly and cautiously violated to provide some important means, positive liberty, particularly to those most in need."

Also, is this talking about classical liberals or modern liberals (that is, people on the political left)?

...Jacob1207 03:31, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Couldn't answer your question about the meaning of "liberal", but with regard to the sex, I think any good example of the debate over negative liberty is going to focus on some aspect of "personal morality", ie sex, drugs, etc, because these issues are the ones where laws have actually been challenged on the grounds that the "crime" is harmless. But perhaps drugs would be a better choice? I can't think of any other obvious examples... Evercat 03:36, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

UNCLEAR

I completely agree with the above argument that both of these articles are pretty unclear. I am holding a copy of Isiah Berlin's two essays on my lap and reading the article and it makes little sense.

I suggest including these quotes to explain the difference somewhat better. First Sentence on negative freedom: "I am normally free to the degree to which no man or body of men interferes with my activity." First Sentence on positive liberty: "The 'positive' sense of the word 'liberty' derives from the wish on the part of the individual to be his own master."

And comparison "The freedom which consists in being one's own master, and the freedom which consists in not being prevented from choosing as I do by other men..."

Furthermore; I do agree that they should be joined to make it easier to understand the difference between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.35.0 (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

negative liberty - POV

I think the very name of the concept has a point of view associated with it. I understand the clear delineation of the concepts and I think the idea is sound, I also find it very useful to think about liberties in this manner. However, trying to explain to someone that you advocate negative liberty brings negative connotations that do not have to inherently exist. Because of this, I have added the term absolute liberty as well, as I believe that absolute is more neutral than negative. Triddle 05:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not POV at all. It would be if a wikipedia writer simply made up the term, but the term is a very clear and widely used term in philosophy and has been for a century. 'Absolute Liberty' is not an actual term used in philosophical writings about this form of liberty, 'negative liberty' is always used. It doesn't have negative connotations in regards to quality. The term 'negative' has very specific meanings in philosophical discussions. For example, the difference between negative and positive rights. The term 'negative liberty' is, for the purposes here, a proper name. Thus, 'absolute' must go. --The Way 06:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"Absolute liberty". Smooth marketing campaign, Triddle. --Jamesia 18:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Negative Liberty in Various Thinkers

I am removing these two quotes because they don't provide examples of negative liberty. Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson may in fact have 'negative liberty views', but these quotes do not provide examples of those views. I suggest better quotes are found.

Thomas Paine in Common Sense distinguishes between society and government almost exactly with the distinction between positive and negative liberty: "Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices."

Thomas Jefferson says, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

The first quote fairly clearly states differences between society and government, but that difference is a poor metaphor for negative vs. positive liberty. Negative liberty is mutually agreed upon government inaction whereas positive liberty is mutually agreed upon government action. A better, more fair quote should be found, so that the author relies less on pathos. The second quote by Jefferson is more of a statement in support of positive liberty. Jefferson clearly believed in self-governance and citizen participation in government to produce whatever changes they wanted. This is obviously in support of citizens acting to form their government as they choose, including whatever restraints and regulations that chosen government enacted. Of course, he hoped for a fair state, but recognized an unfair one might exist. Either way, the choice to force government action must be given to the people. That's positive liberty. Jamesia 05:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I am reinstating my additions since there is no other discussion here. I assume it was vandals that deleted my input. -- Jamesia 03:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Your "Criticisms" section is not (valid) criticism of negative liberty. It is criticism of Thomas Hobbes and his book. The quotation from Thomas Jefferson which you deleted ("Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.") gives a perspective on what negative liberty is which does not appear elsewhere in the article. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed (on the criticism part), I will edit this in the next couple days. The quote by Jefferson does not qualify as negative liberty, as Jefferson obviously believed in participation in the government. Any active participation in the government is, by Berlin's definition, positive liberty. This is obviously a politicized topic, but adhering strictly to Isaiah Berlin's definition of positive and negative liberty, that quote is an indication of positive liberty. "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will." I know a lot of people will try to edit this article in order to express a certain moral imperative as to whether positive or negative liberty is better, but this article deals strictly with Berlin's definition. (see the comments above pertaining to "absolute" liberty) -- Jamesia (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not unusual for people, such as Hobbes or Jefferson, to be inconsistent in their statements or beliefs, especially over the course of a life-time. A person might advocate and fight for anarchy at one time and hold a government office (perhaps to prevent a worse person from holding it) at another time. So one cannot use the fact that Jefferson was Secretary of State and later President as proof that he did not mean what he said at the time that he said it. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A quote made by anyone at any time could be construed to mean anything, I agree. Yet, to suggest that Jefferson adhered to a philosophy of negative liberty is patently absurd. He believed in democracy, which is fundamentally related to positive liberty. The two are inseparable. Allowing a quote of his to be representative of negative liberty is tantamount to manipulating readers ignorant of the subject into believing Jefferson was an advocate of the subject. -- Jamesia (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

I added this section to discuss the Criticisms section. Vandals keep deleting the section in this article, and every philosophical article should have a critics section, just to be unbiased. --Jamesia 03:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The criticisms section has been rewritten. It currently reads more like someone who agrees with negative liberty concepts is attempting debunk criticisms within the criticisms section. That seems fundamentally wrong. Wikipedia has really become a Facts 2.0 site, meaning that rather than just display factual information, personal opinions are battled out in articles. Jamesia (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the section for now. It was very biased, the old text is below. The only source that was referenced inline (the Stanford one) did not suggest anything quite like what the paragraph claimed. Feel free to reinclude it if you can make it less POV, but please leave a comment with your reasoning.

"A criticism of negative liberty is that it doesn't fully account for practical problems. Some critics argue that even if someone is formally free to do something, if they are unemployed, they may not in practice be able to do it unless other people are forced to provide the means for them to do so. For example, it could be argued that one is not free to go on holiday if one cannot afford it. In order for the freedom to go on holiday to be universal, proponents of positive liberty argue that those who own planes and other means with which to go on holiday must be forced to provide the means for everyone to go on holiday, no matter what. Those who prefer negative liberty like Nozick, of course, argue that just because no-one can stop you going on holiday does not mean they have to help you: otherwise they would be enslaved."

Otus (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Right to be free from interference when taking surplus goods

I am really intrigued by the argument that the starving man has a right to be free from interference when taking the surplus food of the rich. I think this example is odd because as far as I can see, it does not extend to the right to get services from another person, as this is obviously interference. I think the catch is a surplus good is a good that while not currently being used, is part of someones plan for future use and that taking the surplus good interferes with the plans of another person. Does that answer this criticism? Mrdthree (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In this same vein, I think it is also possible that a system built on purely negative liberties could be quasi-Marxist. By that I mean I think negative liberties do not necessitate strong property rights. Rather a legal system defined from negative liberties can allow property rights to be weak or strong. If property rights are weakly defined then he who is in immediate control of a good 'owns' it and in a quasi-Marxists sense, workers would own the means of production because they control the machines. On the opposite end, one could have strong property rights that recognize not just immediate control but determine ownership if a surplus good is merely part of a plan or is an hedge on future optional plans. Mrdthree (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not see in this article any "... argument that the starving man has a right to be free from interference when taking the surplus food of the rich.". There is no surplus property. If something is truly surplus, then it is thrown away, i.e. it re-enters the state of nature and becomes non-property. Things are held as property because the owner needs them for his purposes. You can denigrate his purposes, but in so doing you are denying his liberty and thus his humanity. That would endanger his life and be unethical. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Socialists and Marxists disagree with the negative/positive distinction?

In the introduction this is mentioned:

"The distinction between positive and negative liberty is considered specious by socialist and Marxist political philosophers, who argue that positive and negative liberty are indistinguishable in practice, or that one cannot exist without the other."

The source is a Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy article about the two notions of freedom. I read the article and couldn't find a passage to support this claim. On the contrary the article states that Marx's views are usually taken as a support towards the priority of positive freedom. I am not arguing whether Marxism or Socialism could be seen as emphasising the priority of positive freedom or whether the distinction should be dismissed (this is a long discussion). I am saying that the above statement is un-sourced, and even if there was a source, its too specialised to be put in the intro. I think the passage should be removed. Your thoughts? KLA (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge

There's no talk of a merge here and there hasn't been for months. The tag needs to be removed now. 24.174.82.195 (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Having the tag makes absolutely no sense. A corresponding tag does not appear in the Positive Liberty article. Removed.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 18:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Semantical Mirror

Since, as can be understood from all of the above, negative freedom is the freedom that exists when nothing is enforced (which is the basic idea of freedom anyway) and positive freedom can only exist when a set of rules, prohibitions and obligations is enforced and property rights are infringed (which has little to do with the basic idea of freedom), shouldn't these two concepts urgently be semantically mirrored, i.e. that they need to be exchanged because they are plain wrong.

What is called here "negative freedom" is obviously positive while what is being called "positive freedom" is obviously negative with regards to the original, common sense understanding of the concept of freedom.

In other words, the semantics used here seem to serve a non neutral ideological point of view, even worsened by accusing the common sense significance of the word freedom to do exactly that. A clever semantical mirror and an examplatory use of Orwellian Newspeak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.54.138 (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not our place as Wikipedia editors to decide what the concepts are named, only to report on what other people say about them, and they all use the terms as they are used here. For your own edification, however: the reason they are called "positive" and "negative" has nothing to do with the evaluative senses of those words (i.e. it doesn't mean "good liberties" and "bad liberties"), it's just about whether the freedom is FROM something (you are free in that something is NOT being done to you, and that "NOT" is where the "NEGATIVE" comes from), or freedom TO DO something (you are free in that you are able to do something, that power or ability being where the "positive" comes from).

In other words: negative liberty is liberty arising from the absence of something, and positive liberty is liberty arising from the presence of something. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)