[Arminius]

So are you saying Rawls theory is one in which multiple theories of the good cannot co-exist?

No no no, you misunderstand me.

What I said it that I like liberalism in the sense of being a system where people with different conceptions of what is desirable (like atheists, Jews, Christians, Stoics, Buddhists etc etc etc) may co-exist, rather than as a doctrine the way Objectivism is compared to other strains of libertarianism.

From what I understand, this is the point of the overlapping consensus.

[Order]

No no no, you misunderstand me.

What I said it that I like liberalism in the sense of being a system where people with different conceptions of what is desirable (like atheists, Jews, Christians, Stoics, Buddhists etc etc etc) may co-exist, rather than as a doctrine the way Objectivism is compared to other strains of libertarianism.

From what I understand, this is the point of the overlapping consensus.

Alright, yes, that is certainly correct. Rawls acknowledged that there are incommensurable differences in our assessment of what is good and tried to establish a minimal consensus for a just society that allows everybody to pursue his/her own good.

[Zerogouki]

Is a starving illiterate free in any meaningful sense?

Yes, as long as his or her rights are not being infringed.

[Dr House]

The more important question then is, though, would he give a shit that he's "free"?

[Order]

The more important question then is, though, would he give a shit that he's "free"?

Exactly, how would freedom for him be in any way valuable...

[Ademir]

Is a starving illiterate free in any meaningful sense?

Yes, as long as his or her rights are not being infringed.

This is what's so great about society today - even when I'm starving and uneducated, I'm still free to buy and sell shares, engage in property development and engage in meaningful political discussions

[Dr House]

You're also free to feed yourself and become educated.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Yes, negative freedom are the only things that can truly be considered freedoms, but what you have right there is an argument that assumes too much. Just because negative freedom is the only true measure of freedom, that doesn't mean that freedom is an important concept in the first place, and likewise that doesn't mean that positive freedom can't be important. There are a few things that are undoubtedly important for any government to implement if the government's purpose is to promote quality of life.

This selection of things comes from both sides of the aisle, negative and positive freedoms. The problem with focusing on one freedom too much in any type of populist society is that at some point it ceases to become populist and starts focusing on something else too much. I don't think anything can be considered more important than the people that the government is meant to be representing, so if the government ignores a duty to its people in favor of idealism, be it either freedom, then that government has failed.