[Quantum]

Is it inevitable that people will agitate for positive liberties after negative liberties have been granted to the public? What is stopping the public from asking for a more expansive welfare state and increased leisure time, when allowed to express their feelings? How do classical liberals deal with the fact that their advocacy of freedom of speech and assembly will inevitably lead to the downfall of their non-interventionist economic stance? If you give the public an inch of liberty, they'll take it a mile, as evidenced by the growth of the welfare state after universal suffrage was given. If you give the people negative liberty they will inevitably call for positive liberty because as humans, we naturally have an entitlement complex and has led to a downfall in classical liberalism.

[Daktoria]

You're exactly right.

Tocqueville, Schumpeter, and Russell Kirk are all huge observers of how consumerism leads to collectivism. Freedom of speech is not a static exercise, but rather carries momentum that inevitably pressures neighbors and violates freedom of assembly.

Without organization, the expression of feelings leads to decadence where society preys on the weak, sensitive, thin-skinned, vulnerable, and exposed.

That said, I'm not sure if you're identifying the crux of classic liberalism which is labor theory of value, an outgrowth of the Protestant Reformation's "total depravity" which expected people to perform good works to demonstrate a predestined calling.

[Someone5]

Is it inevitable that people will agitate for positive liberties after negative liberties have been granted to the public? What is stopping the public from asking for a more expansive welfare state and increased leisure time, when allowed to express their feelings?

Ideology. It's obvious enough when you see poor conservatives crying about how Mitt Romney had to pay a whole 13% of his income in taxes that ideology has gotten people to advocate positions against their own interests.

Let me put it this way; if "the public" were really interested in an increased welfare state and a shorter work week, we would already have both. That fact of the matter is that doing nothing is boring and hardly anyone actually wants to be stuck on welfare.

How do classical liberals deal with the fact that their advocacy of freedom of speech and assembly will inevitably lead to the downfall of their non-interventionist economic stance?

They reconcile that through the innate virtue argument; despite all evidence to the contrary, they insist that people have an innate virtue that makes them respect such stances, and that a heavily private economy has such innate virtue that it will be evident to all. It's total bullshit, but that's what their response usually amounts to.

There is only one type of non-interventionist economic system--anarchism--and that doesn't involve private ownership.

If you give the public an inch of liberty, they'll take it a mile, as evidenced by the growth of the welfare state after universal suffrage was given.

Yeah, how dare those foul workers expect a society that responds to their wants and desires! Don't they know better? Only their owners should have the things they want!</sarcasm>

If you give the people negative liberty they will inevitably call for positive liberty because as humans, we naturally have an entitlement complex and has led to a downfall in classical liberalism.

Why is it that people who adhere to oppressive philosophies always have to fall back on a nonsensical and fallacious "human nature" argument? You can't even demonstrate that a "human nature" exists, much less that it's the same nature for everyone.

[Beal]

Why is it that people who adhere to oppressive philosophies always have to fall back on a nonsensical and fallacious "human nature" argument?

Ignoring, for now, the ridiculous notion that their philosophies are oppressive, the reason they worry so much about human nature is because collectivism is incompatible with it.

You can't even demonstrate that a "human nature" exists, much less that it's the same nature for everyone.

It doesn't have to be the same for everyone. It just has to be a common trait--even just a mild, motivating factor present in most people. Humans are pack animals. For many thousands of years we lived in small bands and that legacy remains part of the human condition. We are predisposed to develop strong bonds with a relatively small group of other humans and will act collectively within such a group, but we will rarely do the same on a larger scale.

Those who seek to design the next perfect society would do well to consider what motivates people.

[Quantum]

I would like to say that I was presenting the centre-right liberal argument not mine and that someone5 got the short end of the stick.

Why is it that people who adhere to oppressive philosophies always have to fall back on a nonsensical and fallacious "human nature" argument? You can't even demonstrate that a "human nature" exists, much less that it's the same nature for everyone.

What's wrong with "oppressive" philosophies? The average person doesn't about so-called "oppression expect for you bloody colonials, who still suffer from the 1776 liberty-induced individualist delirium of your Founding Fathers to consider alternative philosophies. Of course you guys have the gall to bomb and loot other countries under the pretense of spreading liberty.

[Malatant of Shadow]

The distinction between "negative" and "positive" liberty is artificial anyway. It arises from the two-stroke delusion of, first, putting the state in its own category to consider separately from the actions of other entities, and second, pretending that private property arises naturally rather than by societal dictate.

[rlbentham]

Is it inevitable that people will agitate for positive liberties after negative liberties have been granted to the public? What is stopping the public from asking for a more expansive welfare state and increased leisure time, when allowed to express their feelings? How do classical liberals deal with the fact that their advocacy of freedom of speech and assembly will inevitably lead to the downfall of their non-interventionist economic stance? If you give the public an inch of liberty, they'll take it a mile, as evidenced by the growth of the welfare state after universal suffrage was given. If you give the people negative liberty they will inevitably call for positive liberty because as humans, we naturally have an entitlement complex and has led to a downfall in classical liberalism.

horse rubbish. benefits become available as societies evolve. the "natural" result of this is that more "discover" their new found eligibility for said social safety net. which increases the pay out. your implications that it is all nefarious (or so rife with corruption that is no longer "worth it" is an insult and ridiculous, and even worse, its a parlour trick with words, to shift decent people from caring, onto some foolish pursuit of some falsely perceived (and warped) sense of right and wrong.... ooooh ickyy!

[Elect G-Max]

Economic freedom leads to economic inequality. Economic inequality + freedom of speech = incessant whining by the proletariat about how the Joneses have too much money. Incessant whining by the proletariat + pandering by democratically elected politicians = entitlements.

Remove democracy from the equation and everything works out nicely.

[Beal]

Economic freedom leads to economic inequality. Economic inequality + freedom of speech = incessant whining by the proletariat about how the Joneses have too much money. Incessant whining by the proletariat + pandering by democratically elected politicians = entitlements.

Remove democracy from the equation and everything works out nicely.

...or just pass a balanced budget amendment.

[Elect G-Max]

But then you can't practice counter-cyclical spending. A government that stockpiles money during an economic boom and runs deficits during a recession will run much better than one that tries to balance its budget every year.

[Malatant of Shadow]

Economic freedom leads to economic inequality. Economic inequality + freedom of speech = incessant whining by the proletariat about how the Joneses have too much money. Incessant whining by the proletariat + pandering by democratically elected politicians = entitlements.

Remove democracy from the equation and everything works out nicely.

It does until a revolution happens, at least.

[Distracted]

No. The desire for positive liberties inevitably leads to the pursuit of negative liberties.

The desire for negative liberties is driven from the first moment by a desire for positive liberties. The necessities of life and well-being are the primary reasons people think, speak, assembly, and act.

Let's take freedom of conscience as an example. The primary reason people historically have sought the freedom of religion was so that they could develop a counter-culture to the dominant culture that did not serve their own interests. People have sought freedom to assemble so they could plot to overthrow, secede from, or otherwise replace the old government with a new government that they thought would be more conducive to them getting bread and cloth.

Negative liberties have always been simply a means to pursue positive liberties without being killed, tortured, or imprisoned. That's what they are, the freedoms to organize and plan without being locked up or violently attacked for doing so.

The difference you are seeing is not negative liberties for the first time being primarily used to attain positive liberties, it is simply different people having negative liberties and pursuing positive liberties than those who used to monopolize those means. There have always been welfare states, its just the welfare state of a political class limited to aristocrats, or expanded to include merchants, is different than one that includes all tax paying adults.

Every enlightened idea was born out of someone, somewhere wanting cloth and bread. As human beings, as animals really, we have no possible use for freedom of conscience, assembly, and speech more important or more inspirational than Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

[fazealo]

interesting point

[Eran]

The desire for negative liberties is driven from the first moment by a desire for positive liberties. The necessities of life and well-being are the primary reasons people think, speak, assembly, and act.

I could agree to this, but only through a very limiting definition of "positive liberties".

Obviously, people's primary concerns are positive in nature. They want to pursue their happiness, happiness which typically involves having access to both material goods (housing, clothing, food, etc.) and social goods (companionship, friendship, community spirit, etc.).

But recognising that positive needs are important to people doesn't automatically lead to the expectation that they will receive those positive needs from the hands of government.

Whether they do or do not expect to is a cultural question. People in the early days of the US clearly expected many fewer of their needs to be provided by government, even while being keenly aware of the potential danger in having government have the power to restrict them from using their own resources (in voluntary collaboration with others) to meet those needs.

The primary reason people historically have sought the freedom of religion was so that they could develop a counter-culture to the dominant culture that did not serve their own interests.

A perfect example. Yet today, very few of the people living in the US expect government to provide them with churches, synagogues and mosques. Contrast that with Israel, where many people do expect government to do just that.

So - negative liberties are pursued for their necessity in facilitating positive needs, but without the necessity for those positive needs to be recognised as "rights", having any legal enforceability, or more generally be provided by government.

[Distracted]

I don't think it really matters one way or another to the drive to meet human needs whether those goods come form the government or the private sector, as those are, like dividing negative and positive liberties up in the first place, high-minded and irrelevant lines in the sand to draw.

If people's desires (physical, emotional, mental) aren't being met, they are unhappy and try to change the circumstances. Saying that the people who seek to vote for new government programs to fill those needs are acting out of some separate impulse is wrongheaded in my opinion. People try to exercise the power that is given to them, and social contracts are very important. If a society is based around the idea of one man, one vote; people who are not having their needs satisfied have the very rational and moral expectation that they should not be prevented or shamed from using their votes to satisfy those needs.

My main point in this thread, I guess, is that people don't behave according to a set of natural laws in the philosophical sense, where we can say anyone who goes outside of the "pure natural state of human freedom" is either immoral or insane; people operate according to human nature as it actually is, which is motivated by the desire to satisfy material needs, to protect one's family, find fulfillment, etc. Maslow's hierarchy type basic universal stuff to the human condition.

And while culture is certainly a major factor, I don't think the culture of the American political system has changed that much. People rebelling against taxes that hurt them (Shay's rebellion, etc.) were motivated by the same things that drive the poor and vulnerable groups like pensioners to exercise their political power. I don't think the Whiskey Rebels were any more trying to limit the government than proponents of a stronger welfare state, both groups are concerned with their autonomy as human beings - both in terms of physical needs and individual capacity for making meaningful decisions.

It should hardly be a novel statement to you to hear the traditional social liberal position since the time of John Stuart Mills, that social welfare can be necessary to allowing people to have the autonomy to actually make use of the individual freedoms classical liberalism just wants them to have in theory but isn't concerned with whether they are able to exercise them.

Just like the farmers objecting to having to pay taxes in hard currency on whiskey they made from their crops was a quest for autonomy, so is that of poor people seeking a better education or pensioners wanting to be able to live by themselves and continue to have active and meaningful lives without burdening family members.

The Maslow type needs, or say the UN charter of human rights, I think more accurately represents the innate or natural idea of autonomy, or freedom, in terms of actual biological, psychological, and sociological desires of human beings; rather than a specific philosophical school you are referring to, defining freedoms one way or another that is intrinsically non-universal and part of sectarian politics.

Humans want autonomy; they don't want to be slaves to empty stomachs, lack of meaningful consumer choice, ignorance and lack of education, poor health, etc.

And I would further elaborate from that finely honed point that we should distinguish Natural Law or the idea of man in nature and all of that, which are philosophical constructs and not scientifically derived, from the actual human desires for rights that we have scientifically determined have a degree of universality and objective reality.

[Eran]

I don't think it really matters one way or another to the drive to meet human needs whether those goods come form the government or the private sector.

From the narrow, selfish and short-term perspective of those receiving the goods, you are obviously right.

You correctly identify culture as a major factor.

Pensioners today are culturally-conditioned to view the ballot box as a legitimate means for satisfying their needs. They are equally culturally-conditioned to view using guns to rob banks as an illegitimate means of satisfying those same needs.


Thus viewed from a human needs perspective, culture can readily shape which means are considered legitimate and which are not for achieving a set of needs. When needs become sufficiently dire (and depending on both culture and personality), individuals and groups may well rebel against those cultural constraints. In such cases, the behaviour would be considered illegal and/or illegitimate, though possibly only one and not the other (e.g. illegal but legitimate, as when a starving person steals a loaf of bread)

The democratic system provides no more guarantee that unsatisfied needs do not push people into illegal activity than do other systems, particularly the NAP-based one I am advocating.

From a dispassionate perspective, it is easy to see the similarities between voting and bank robbing. Both ultimately result in the initiation of force against those who have property one desires. The only difference is that the former enjoys a veneer of legitimacy in our society, while the latter does not.


What I fail to see is a cogent argument for why, having eliminated most forms of initiation of force from the being considered legitimate, we couldn't take the last step, and reject political initiation of force from being considered legitimate as well.

The range of options available for people to satisfy their needs isn't going to shrink - quite the contrary. While voting/lobbying will be eliminated, a huge range of options currently outlawed through regulatory fiat will open up to those seeking avenues to improve their conditions.

The transition will block some forms of action from being considered legitimate, while opening others. In general, forms of action that will be opened are once consistent with greater personal autonomy and self-realisation.

[Rothbardian]

It wasn't 'the public' that started demanding a welfare state. It was the state that demanded a welfare state. LBJ called it a war on poverty, and it has been about as effective as the war on drugs.

It is a little disingenuous to call government programs an expression of feelings. If I tell you I want something, I am expressing my feelings. If I am using the overwhelming power of the state to take what I want, then I'm imposing my feelings.

[anticlimacus]

If you give the people negative liberty they will inevitably call for positive liberty because as humans, we naturally have an entitlement complex and has led to a downfall in classical liberalism.

Unregulated capitalism, or its closest approximations, leads to intensified class conflict and economic disparity which in turn creates demand for a more robust welfare state (which is I assume what you generally mean by "positive liberty"). Welfare states also help capitalism to continue as it funds the potential for consumers in markets after the population has mostly been bled dry. It is not a case of people ungratefully demanding positive liberties. It is a consequence of the contractions of capitalism. Ideas (like "negative" and "positive" liberty) by themselves are not driving history! They are defined and constructed within the socio-economic conditions suitable to a particular context.

[Quantum]

Unregulated capitalism, or its closest approximations, leads to intensified class conflict and economic disparity which in turn creates demand for a more robust welfare state (which is I assume what you generally mean by "positive liberty"). Welfare states also help capitalism to continue as it funds the potential for consumers in markets after the population has mostly been bled dry. It is not a case of people ungratefully demanding positive liberties. It is a consequence of the contractions of capitalism. Ideas (like "negative" and "positive" liberty) by themselves are not driving history! They are defined and constructed within the socio-economic conditions suitable to a particular context.

I agree in general. Unregulated capitalism sows the seeds for its own destruction because people wouldn't tolerate it. It would either go to social democracy (presumably as a response to socialist agitation) or socialism. It happened before and it will happen again, unless it transform itself into neofeudalism.

My main point was that you can't have negative liberty without positive liberty too and if you oppose positive liberty, you should oppose negative liberty too.

[Rothbardian]

Unregulated capitalism, or its closest approximations, leads to intensified class conflict and economic disparity which in turn creates demand for a more robust welfare state (which is I assume what you generally mean by "positive liberty"). Welfare states also help capitalism to continue as it funds the potential for consumers in markets after the population has mostly been bled dry. It is not a case of people ungratefully demanding positive liberties. It is a consequence of the contractions of capitalism. Ideas (like "negative" and "positive" liberty) by themselves are not driving history! They are defined and constructed within the socio-economic conditions suitable to a particular context.

Please provide an example of this ever happening, thanks.