[Arminius]

From what I understand, both liberalism and libertarianism descend from classical liberalism. Liberalism considers individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Libertarianism holds to negative liberty and liberalism to positive liberty.

Perhaps I'm writing too much from a Swedish perspective in this case. In Sweden, libertarians are called "nyliberaler" (linguistically the same as "neoliberals") and everything between that and social democracy is usually labelled "socialliberalism" (social liberalism). So these are considered two forms of liberalism who both favor liberty, but have different conceptions of it. Nevertheless, I hope to have captured the heart of the dispute.

I agree that the libertarian concept of negative liberty is rather inadequate. Is a starving illiterate free in any meaningful sense? However, where do you draw the lines so that it don't end in absurdity? Is, for instance, someone who can't afford space trips not free? Of course not, that is an insane belief. But how do you determine where to draw that line? Why is someone lacking the means for healthcare not free, whereas someone lacking the means for space travel not considered unfree? Which methodology do you use to decide? Let's take a more moderate example: Is someone who can't afford to travel abroad free or not free? Why or why not?

[Ash Faulkner]

Freedom is the ability to do something unhindered by other people. I cannot fly, but that does not mean I am not free. What I am lacking is not freedom, but power. Negative liberty is the only real liberty, but you are entirely right, it is not enough. Libertarians do not recognise this; 'social liberals' do, but cling for some reason to liberal language. Positive liberty does not exist: it is not freedom, but power.

[Average Voter]

Is someone who can't afford to travel abroad free or not free? Why or why not?

I would need more info. Would this government be enforcing some sort of radical consumerism, i.e., I wouldn't legally be allowed to pick up a hitchhiker without requiring to fine him/her a minimum exchange cost?

[Holding]

I draw the line at the difference between taking and not-giving. To not give somebody something that is not his/hers, to me, seems acceptable. To take from a person against his or her will, however, seems unacceptable. It's my belief that the best method of liberty that which does not take directly from others.

[Dr House]

I consider the concept of positive liberty to be absurd. Freedom means freedom from restraint. If for you to have something someone else must give it to you, then your right to have it cannot be a freedom. It can be considered a right, but not a freedom.

That said, I do not discard rights for this reason, as my main interest is not maximizing freedom, it is maximizing prosperity.

Additionally, I don't believe the right to private property, so near and dear to libertarians, could really be considered a negative liberty, as it requires restraining people from using other people's property.

[Order]

Freedom is the ability to do something unhindered by other people. I cannot fly, but that does not mean I am not free. What I am lacking is not freedom, but power. Negative liberty is the only real liberty, but you are entirely right, it is not enough. Libertarians do not recognise this; 'social liberals' do, but cling for some reason to liberal language. Positive liberty does not exist: it is not freedom, but power.

House made a good point but also consider this: Imagine you don't have money but want to get on an airplance (to fly), you will be (maybe even physically) restrained from getting a ticket and board the plane if you can't pay for it. Obviously you therefore lack the ability to do something unhindered by other people, hence lacking money infringes on your positive liberty. The positive/negative liberty distinction is simply pointless and for exactly that reason it was pretty much abandoned by contemporary philosophy. (It still manages to keep its hold on the popular imagination though)

[RonPaulalways]

^ this assumes that the plane is collectively owned -that a builder of a plane can't have an natural exclusive right to the plane.

[Order]

this assumes that the plane is collectively owned -that a builder of a plane can't have an natural exclusive right to the plane.

Obviously. I said it to prove that you cannot argue that negative rights are good because they are negative rights as even a positive rights are on a very basic level negative rights. You have to assume prior to that that only certain rights count which defeats the purpose of the negative/positive rights distinction which was initially designed to establish which rights are legitimate.
This problem becomes much more distinct if you consider that most negative rights are also positive rights because they force for example law enforcement bodies to act.
Most political philosophers for that reason consider freedom/rights to be a triadic relation: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liber ... bFreTriRel

[RonPaulalways]

Obviously. I said it to prove that you cannot argue that negative rights are good because they are negative rights as even a positive rights are on a very basic level negative rights. You have to assume prior to that that only certain rights count which defeats the purpose of the negative/positive rights distinction which was initially designed to establish which rights are legitimate.

The idea of the morality of negative rights rests on the idea of self-ownership. It is thought that negative rights are consistent with an ideology that guarantees each individual ownership over his body and the product of his efforts.

This problem becomes much more distinct if you consider that most negative rights are also positive rights because they force for example law enforcement bodies to act.

That's just the practical consequence of protecting negative rights. Negative rights exist whether or not the positive right of legal protection is granted.

[Dr House]

Imagine you don't have money but want to get on an airplance (to fly), you will be (maybe even physically) restrained from getting a ticket and board the plane if you can't pay for it. Obviously you therefore lack the ability to do something unhindered by other people, hence lacking money infringes on your positive liberty.

Actually, it isn't your positive liberty to get on the plane that gets hindered, it is your negative liberty to use other people's property.

I stand by my original position: Only negative liberty can be considered liberty.

[canadiancapitalist]

Not that it is important - all the trinkets in the world would not console me were I to live for even a moment under tyranny - but the surest way to prosperity is freedom.

[Dr House]

Yet freedom made France stagnant in the early 20th century.

[Order]

The idea of the morality of negative rights rests on the idea of self-ownership. It is thought that negative rights are consistent with an ideology that guarantees each individual ownership over his body and the product of his efforts.

Certainly. But the OP didn't state that we are discussing negative rights in a specifically libertarian context. Without the self-ownership ideology the difference is morally meaningless.

That's just the practical consequence of protecting negative rights. Negative rights exist whether or not the positive right of legal protection is granted.

You could equally say that positive rights exist even if a welfare state is not instituted. Both rights can theoretically exist without enforcement but practically won't.

I stand by my original position: Only negative liberty can be considered liberty.

[...]

Freedom means freedom from restraint.

Being not able to move because one is close to starvation is also a kind of restraint.
Also, the difference between refraining of doing something and actively doing something is a purely linguistic matter.
Somebody has to refrain from entering your property. Somebody has to circumvents your piece of land.
Somebody has to refrain from letting your starve. Somebody has to give you food.
Not doing something is also making a concious decision to take a certain course action.

[RonPaulalways]

RPA wrote:
The idea of the morality of negative rights rests on the idea of self-ownership. It is thought that negative rights are consistent with an ideology that guarantees each individual ownership over his body and the product of his efforts.


Certainly. But the OP didn't state that we are discussing negative rights in a specifically libertarian context. Without the self-ownership ideology the difference is morally meaningless.

I agree, just explaining why the classical liberal philosophy sees negative liberty as moral: because it implies self-ownership. It's not an arbitrary preference.

RPA wrote:
That's just the practical consequence of protecting negative rights. Negative rights exist whether or not the positive right of legal protection is granted.

You could equally say that positive rights exist even if a welfare state is not instituted. Both rights can theoretically exist without enforcement but practically won't.

Yep, also keep in mind that the positive rights of two people can be mutually exclusive, meaning the positive right of one to sufficient food/shelter could come at the expense of the positive right of the other.

[Order]

Yep, also keep in mind that the positive rights of two people can be mutually exclusive, meaning the positive right of one to sufficient food/shelter could come at the expense of the positive right of the other.

Your right to property excludes me from owning the same piece of property. In that sense, negative rights can be mutually exclusive as well.

[RonPaulalways]

Negatives rights are not mutually exclusive. Two people can have absolute negative rights. For example, ownership of unclaimed land is attained through homesteading, so two people can race to the same plot of land and the first one that homesteads it gets a natural right to the property, without violating the others' right to homestead unclaimed land.

Other types of property (e.g. manufactured objects) become ours when we create them, so again, two people can have an absolute right to own objections by crafting them, and this creates no limitations on each others' rights.

[Order]

Negatives rights are not mutually exclusive. Two people can have absolute negative rights. For example, ownership of unclaimed land is attained through homesteading, so two people can race to the same plot of land and the first one that homesteads it gets a natural right to the property, without violating the others' right to homestead unclaimed land.

Other types of property (e.g. manufactured objects) become ours when we create them, so again, two people can have an absolute right to own objections by crafting them, and this creates no limitations on each others' rights.

If all land that can be homesteaded is gone, your right to homestead can be in no way used. In that it is similar to any positive rights distributing finite resources.

[RonPaulalways]

A right to have land available to homestead is a positive right. Negative rights don't assume a right to have any land available, just a right to homestead any that are unclaimed.

[Order]

A right to have land available to homestead is a positive right. Negative rights don't assume a right to have any land available, just a right to homestead any that are unclaimed.

Nor do positive rights try to redistribute anything if there is nothing available.

[Ombrageux]

Freedom is an eternal quest, tragic because ultimately and inevitably doomed to failure. If I were to define the best I can, it would be self-mastery. That is, free is an individual not constrained by external forces, but also personallly qualified with the good habits, character and education to shape his self and his own destiny.

Ultimately such definitions can seem more than a little absurd when abstracted from the social context. What does it mean to say Americans are more or less free than their 18th century forbears or contemporary Europeans? I can talk about lived experience: the qualifier 'free' might seem pretty irrelevant when the big difference is whether one works in an office 8 hours a day and enjoys suburban comforts, or whether one toils the soil of New England for substistance..

If we are aware of this kind of historical contingency - even progression - we can better understand that freedom is not simply a passive state. It is man endlessly redefining himself towards an ideal. I would hate to speculate as to what that ideal might be, or even whether a normative definition would be helpful.. I suspect it would involve literal reshaping of human beings - not just this superficial stuff with the socialization and education of new generations. We would require a biological redefinition of human beings, to what end I don't know, presumably of human beings freer from the limits and defects of their bodies (genetic diseases, etc.) and perhaps some changes to their minds. We would be closer to actually achieving the ambitions of the most Utopian of radical thinkers, and put afoot a New Man.