Positive Versus Negative Liberalism Is a False Dichotomy - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Modern liberalism. Civil rights and liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14768652
I'm going to start by assuming those reading know that negative liberalism is letting people live without getting in their way while positive liberalism is enabling people to actualize their potential. If you don't know how this works in detail, then look it up. You can even start reading here if you want: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libe ... -negative/

The problem with dividing these two concepts is they ignore higher-order implications. In a negative liberty world, non-interference in the moment leads to people interfering in other people's lives over time. In a positive liberty world, enabling people to actualize their potential comes at the expense of others actualizing their potential. In a negative liberty world, people can concoct plots and develop talents with malicious intent. In a positive liberty world, there's an unavoidable tradeoff that takes place between those who actualize and those who don't.

In order for these problems to be addressed, liberalism has to incorporate harmony into its paradigm. People must simultaneously actualize their potential together in cooperation. People must also not interfere in each other's lives. That means positive liberalism must account for non-interference, and negative liberalism must account for enabling people to actualize their potential. Positive liberals must take a mutually respectful understanding of how people come into their being such that everyone strives to become elite, and negative liberals must realize that non-interference only works to the point of specific lifestyle designs. However, there must be general ideas that pervade society so non-interference remains.
#14768661
At bottom there are only two ideologies in this world Libertarian and Nazi. I'm firmly in the Nazi camp.

Those of us in the Nazi camp admit we use aggression, admit we are partial and admit that life is inescapable unfair and that we are co creators in that unfairness. We are known as Nazis because they are the most famous practitioners of aggression, not because we necessarily hate Jews or Slavs, enjoy singing the Horst Wessel song or agree with Adolf Hitler's aesthetic in facial hair.

Libertarians claim not to be aggressors, and that any unfairness is the work of others, God or nature, never them. They are the ultimate moralisers.

Property, a fancy title for the monopolisation and destruction of scare natural resources, is aggression. Libertarians are then nothing more than rude, dishonest, degenerate, hypocrites. Adolf Hitler is the most notorious Nazi. Thomas Jefferson is the most notorious Libertarian.
#14768702
Dubayoo wrote:In a negative liberty world, non-interference in the moment leads to people interfering in other people's lives over time.


I'm pretty sure that the entire point of "negative liberty" means that if everyone did that that no meaningful interference in other's lives takes place over time. At least according to the theorists according it.

Dubayoo wrote:In a positive liberty world, enabling people to actualize their potential comes at the expense of others actualizing their potential. In a negative liberty world, people can concoct plots and develop talents with malicious intent. In a positive liberty world, there's an unavoidable tradeoff that takes place between those who actualize and those who don't.


Ok.

Dubayoo wrote:In order for these problems to be addressed, liberalism has to incorporate harmony into its paradigm. People must simultaneously actualize their potential together in cooperation. People must also not interfere in each other's lives. That means positive liberalism must account for non-interference, and negative liberalism must account for enabling people to actualize their potential. Positive liberals must take a mutually respectful understanding of how people come into their being such that everyone strives to become elite, and negative liberals must realize that non-interference only works to the point of specific lifestyle designs. However, there must be general ideas that pervade society so non-interference remains.


Lex has flashbacks to freshman philosophy

Define "harmony" and "non-interference"
#14769057
I like this saying: One walks where everyone walks, everyone walks where one walks.

Liberal philosophers have this obsession with individual rights. Frankly I think it is unnecessary, there seems to be an assumption that individual and collective(state) are some how in conflict, I dont believe this is to be so. If they are then there had something gone amiss in general social order, but it does not necessarily mean natural structure of society is somehow at fault for it.
Last edited by Albert on 28 Jan 2017 18:34, edited 1 time in total.
#14769061
Dubayoo wrote:I described what the harmony is after mentioning it and how non-interference is supported.


I guess you meant this:

People must simultaneously actualize their potential together in cooperation


That sounds harmonious.

People must also not interfere in each other's lives.


That sounds non-interferent.

That means positive liberalism must account for non-interference, and negative liberalism must account for enabling people to actualize their potential. Positive liberals must take a mutually respectful understanding of how people come into their being such that everyone strives to become elite, and negative liberals must realize that non-interference only works to the point of specific lifestyle designs. However, there must be general ideas that pervade society so non-interference remains.


You have magically waved away any discord between the two concepts.
#14770311
Albert wrote:I like this saying: One walks where everyone walks, everyone walks where one walks.

Liberal philosophers have this obsession with individual rights. Frankly I think it is unnecessary, there seems to be an assumption that individual and collective(state) are some how in conflict, I dont believe this is to be so. If they are then there had something gone amiss in general social order, but it does not necessarily mean natural structure of society is somehow at fault for it.


Yea, I'm not sure individualism/collectivism is really the right dimension to address when it comes to either living in a civil society, liberty, or liberalism.

What we really have to address are why and how people live our lives, and make sure those motives and styles exist without contradiction. Contradictions lead to conflict, and conflict leads to destruction. A destroyed society is one that doesn't exist anymore, so there literally isn't a point to living in it.

That said, some people seem to be obsessed with contradictions.

I wonder if the key to dealing with these people is to pin them up against each other so they have to learn the hard way from experience what it's like to endure having to live through the contradictions that are proposed.

In my opinion, masculinity has declined for all of[…]

This is ridiculous. Articles showing attacks on s[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

It is easy to tell the tunnel was made of pre fab […]

Pretty clear France will be taking a leading role […]