This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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) 16:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
The citations are done incorrectly, no? I don't have time to change them now.
Why have an article where the criticism of the idea is twice as long as the idea itself?
If you had a different article in the wings the whole time, just waiting to use it, why didn't you use it? Instead you waited until I wrote my article so you could replace it with yours. Rather uncool. - I agree!;)
Just wanted to mention that the article states Berlin is credited with the idea of positive/negative liberty. I'm no expert, but T.H.Green, in 1880, wrote "Liberal Legislation and Freedom of Contract," and discusses positive and negative liberty. The college text, "Ideals and Ideologies: A Reader" http://www.mypearsonstore.com/bookstore/ideals-and-ideologies-a-reader-9780205779970 explicitly states as much, on pg. 105. ~B.E.T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.77.249 ( talk) 09:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
' Also, Berlin's argument is not valid for any state that does not presume to know the wishes of its citizens. For example, if the state asks the citizens what they want instead of making that decision for them, positive liberty can be guaranteed without any hint of totalitarianism. '
I would like to add that John Stewart Mill's seminal "On Liberty", from the first paragraph on, deals specifically with the freedom from coercion by society, rather than "freedom of the will." Perhaps references to this should be in the "negative liberty" article instead?
I think you're basing what you call the views of "many anarchists, and others considered to be on the left-wing" mostly on your own views. Many anarchists readily use the terms "negative liberty" and "positive liberty", or "freedom" and "autonomy", to describe two sides of the same coin (freedom, liberty, or whatever you choose to call it). To say that the entire political philosophy of libertarian socialism "den[ies] that the concepts are even useful" is too imprecise. Anarchists simply deny that the two concepts can be separated or that one is more important than the other; the "coin" has two sides but it's still one coin. This is why I originally referred to the two concepts as "complimentary", because anarchists believe one is meaningless without the other. I'm not saying your use of the phrase "false dichotomy" is incorrect, to the contrary, it helps to emphasize the indivisible nature of freedom, but I do think it might be a bit confusing. -- Spleeman 18:09, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The last two paragraphs begin with "Defenders say" and "Positive liberty can also be seen". Let's get with it, y'all! Who, exactly, is making these claims? The article can only be improved by including this information. - Seth Mahoney 04:35, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
This article is wrongly equating positive liberty with positive rights. Positive liberty is the liberty to act. A positive right is a right to be provided with something by others. RJII 22:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I think there should be a reference to Justice Stephen Breyer's book "Active Liberty", and to Benjamin Constant's speech " Liberty of the Ancients and Moderns" to which he refers.
The article needs concrete examples of positive liberties. - Quirk 20:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The article is muddles the real idea. Here are examples of Group Positive Freedoms and Liberties: seatbelt laws, DUI enforcement, indoor smoking bans, GNU/GPL, and nCoV19 lockdowns. For example, according to this ideology, banning indoor smoking increases your liberty to go to pubs, because you won’t be forced to breathe smoke filled air. Likewise, over enforcement of DUI laws increases your liberty to drive without running interference from those wanting to go to pubs. Group positive freedom is an eastern philosophy. It is totalitarianism actualized. This is an important and timely topic. As is, the article is hopelessly flawed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B150:EA3D:1997:C54B:F3E6:4DD9 ( talk) 20:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I read this article several times and I still have no idea what the concept means. It needs to be clarified or deleted or something.
Salvor Hardin 22:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The two paragraphs after, "The idea of positive liberty is often emphasized by..." should probably be moved to the Criticisms section, since it seems to offer opinions other than positive liberty. This might make it less confusing as to what parts explain positive liberty (in the Overview section), and clarify the whole article some.
Jamesia 05:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The article uses these terms too loosely; it should at least be clear which sense of the word is intended. Also, the label of "conservative," with regard to Cotton Mather, is anachronistic.-- WadeMcR 03:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Among the right-wing, conservatives also embrace some forms of positive liberty. Most notably, Puritans such as Cotton Mather often referred to liberty in their writings, but focused on the liberty from sin (e.g. sexual urges) even at the expense of liberty from the government.
Please include a quotation to explain what you mean by "at the expense of liberty from the government."
I feel this statement about "right-wing conservatives" innaccurately implies their support for positive rights. A Christian understanding of freedom in Christ from sin (a positive liberty to reach our potential as human beings) does not necessarily imply anything regarding government and rights.
However, this my understanding and I have not thoroughly studied the issue. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The entire criticisms section is based off one article from the Cato Institute. Either that was one very good article, or too many references are being used from that source. In lieu of better examples, I didn't delete the whole section, though I believe it needs to be cleaned up. -- Jamesia 05:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it is sensible to use metaphor in the opening sentence of an article when supposedly providing a definition of the concept under discussion!
There is no justification for merging this into the negative liberty article. It's a totally different concept. The tag should be taken off IMO. There is a need to have a clear distinction between the two concepts and two separate articles is the best way to do that. Here are my four tildes 24.174.82.195 ( talk) 19:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, these sentences...
"Berlin believed that positive liberty nearly always gave rise to the abuse of power. For when a political leadership believes that they hold the philosophical key to a better future, this sublime end can be used to justify drastic and brutal means."
...don't belong in the opening. They're a criticism and as such they belong in the criticism section. I'll give it a few days. If no one objects then I'll remove them. Here are mu four tildes again 24.174.82.195 ( talk) 19:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Unless you're a newly hatched pod person, you already know that Positive and Negative Merger Foundation is not only truculent but is addicted to being truculent. But let me add that when Positive and Negative Merger Foundation promotes the idea of a "global village" it secretly means "global pillage". What follows is a set of observations I have made about condescending jokers. Positive and Negative Merger Foundation's idolators have already started to rob, steal, cheat, and murder. The result: absolute vapidity, shallow and postmodernist cacophony, lack of personality, monotony, and boredom. Positive and Negative Merger Foundation likes scare tactics that bar people from partaking in activities that cannot be monitored and controlled. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that I have to wonder where it got the idea that it is my view that "metanarratives" are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity. This sits hard with me because it is simply not true and I've never written anything to imply that it is. If some people are offended by my mentioning that Positive and Negative Merger Foundation's vicegerents believe a conspiracy of purblind spoilsports control banking, foreign policy, and the media, then so be it. Positive and Negative Merger Foundation's asseverations are in every respect consistent with the school of huffy thought that tends to dilute the nation's sense of common purpose and shared sacrifice. When I state that Positive and Negative Merger Foundation is a faithful student of Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese strategist who advocated demoralizing one's enemy as the highest art of warfare, I'm merely trying to deal with the relevant facts. Positive and Negative Merger Foundation's true goal is to palm off our present situation as the compelling ground for worldwide deconstructionism. All the statements that its operatives make to justify or downplay that goal are only apologetics; they do nothing to build bridges where in the past all that existed were moats and drawbridges. Despite what you may have been taught in school, I welcome Positive and Negative Merger Foundation's comments. However, Positive and Negative Merger Foundation needs to realize that we must undeniably raise a stink about Positive and Negative Merger Foundation and its insipid perversions. Does that sound extremist? Is it too brainless for you? I'm sorry if it seems that way but that's life. Given Positive and Negative Merger Foundation's record of shady dealings, we can say that its squibs are eerily similar to those promoted by madmen such as Pol Pot. What's scary, though, is that their extollment of commercialism has been ratcheted up a few notches from anything Pol Pot ever conjured up. In summary, things are apt to get worse before they get better. Is anyone listening? Does anyone care? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.105.56 ( talk) 13:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems like the idea of merging has been voted down. I question the motives for proposing it, personally. Anyway, it's been long enough. I'm taking off the merge tag. 24.174.82.195 ( talk) 01:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The image with its comment about being in jail, in addition to messing up the lede, bore no real relation to the civil society issue the article text is about. Had it been something about political prisoners or the like that would have been different. The loss of liberty which duly processed criminals suffer isn't even "negative liberty" so was just a goof/doof. Imprisonment is a negation of liberty, but that's not what "negative liberty" means, a negation of liberty and "negative liberty" have only a superficial connection, it would not be overreaching to say they had none. 72.228.190.243 ( talk) 09:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
A Short description should be short – current advice talks of a 40 character limit – see
WP:SDSHORT.
Also, a Short description should not attempt to define the article's subject – see
WP:SDNOTDEF.
A Short description exists only to clarify which article has been found by a search.
Capacity to act upon one's free will in the context of the broader society which places limitations on a person's ability to act
was 128 characters long.
I have changed the Short description to Concept of sociological agency
which takes a phrase from the article's own lead.
Can anyone think of a more suitable short text? —
GhostInTheMachine
talk to me 15:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I’m assuming this article is on “Group Positive Liberty,” yet it is not clear. To be clear, Group Positive Liberty/Freedom is the Eastern philosophy of freedom, as opposed to the western ideology of individual liberty. This philosophy suggests that freedom exists in policy that benefits the groups liberty over the individual’s liberty. Examples of Group Positive Liberty policies are seatbelt laws, DUI law enforcement, indoor smoking bans, gun bans, GNU/GPL, and the nCoV19 lockdowns. Restricting personal liberty for the greater good is Group Positive Liberty. The end result of group positive liberty is totalitarianism (not personal opinion). 2600:1009:B150:EA3D:1997:C54B:F3E6:4DD9 ( talk) 20:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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) 16:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
The citations are done incorrectly, no? I don't have time to change them now.
Why have an article where the criticism of the idea is twice as long as the idea itself?
If you had a different article in the wings the whole time, just waiting to use it, why didn't you use it? Instead you waited until I wrote my article so you could replace it with yours. Rather uncool. - I agree!;)
Just wanted to mention that the article states Berlin is credited with the idea of positive/negative liberty. I'm no expert, but T.H.Green, in 1880, wrote "Liberal Legislation and Freedom of Contract," and discusses positive and negative liberty. The college text, "Ideals and Ideologies: A Reader" http://www.mypearsonstore.com/bookstore/ideals-and-ideologies-a-reader-9780205779970 explicitly states as much, on pg. 105. ~B.E.T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.77.249 ( talk) 09:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
' Also, Berlin's argument is not valid for any state that does not presume to know the wishes of its citizens. For example, if the state asks the citizens what they want instead of making that decision for them, positive liberty can be guaranteed without any hint of totalitarianism. '
I would like to add that John Stewart Mill's seminal "On Liberty", from the first paragraph on, deals specifically with the freedom from coercion by society, rather than "freedom of the will." Perhaps references to this should be in the "negative liberty" article instead?
I think you're basing what you call the views of "many anarchists, and others considered to be on the left-wing" mostly on your own views. Many anarchists readily use the terms "negative liberty" and "positive liberty", or "freedom" and "autonomy", to describe two sides of the same coin (freedom, liberty, or whatever you choose to call it). To say that the entire political philosophy of libertarian socialism "den[ies] that the concepts are even useful" is too imprecise. Anarchists simply deny that the two concepts can be separated or that one is more important than the other; the "coin" has two sides but it's still one coin. This is why I originally referred to the two concepts as "complimentary", because anarchists believe one is meaningless without the other. I'm not saying your use of the phrase "false dichotomy" is incorrect, to the contrary, it helps to emphasize the indivisible nature of freedom, but I do think it might be a bit confusing. -- Spleeman 18:09, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The last two paragraphs begin with "Defenders say" and "Positive liberty can also be seen". Let's get with it, y'all! Who, exactly, is making these claims? The article can only be improved by including this information. - Seth Mahoney 04:35, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
This article is wrongly equating positive liberty with positive rights. Positive liberty is the liberty to act. A positive right is a right to be provided with something by others. RJII 22:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I think there should be a reference to Justice Stephen Breyer's book "Active Liberty", and to Benjamin Constant's speech " Liberty of the Ancients and Moderns" to which he refers.
The article needs concrete examples of positive liberties. - Quirk 20:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The article is muddles the real idea. Here are examples of Group Positive Freedoms and Liberties: seatbelt laws, DUI enforcement, indoor smoking bans, GNU/GPL, and nCoV19 lockdowns. For example, according to this ideology, banning indoor smoking increases your liberty to go to pubs, because you won’t be forced to breathe smoke filled air. Likewise, over enforcement of DUI laws increases your liberty to drive without running interference from those wanting to go to pubs. Group positive freedom is an eastern philosophy. It is totalitarianism actualized. This is an important and timely topic. As is, the article is hopelessly flawed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B150:EA3D:1997:C54B:F3E6:4DD9 ( talk) 20:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I read this article several times and I still have no idea what the concept means. It needs to be clarified or deleted or something.
Salvor Hardin 22:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The two paragraphs after, "The idea of positive liberty is often emphasized by..." should probably be moved to the Criticisms section, since it seems to offer opinions other than positive liberty. This might make it less confusing as to what parts explain positive liberty (in the Overview section), and clarify the whole article some.
Jamesia 05:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The article uses these terms too loosely; it should at least be clear which sense of the word is intended. Also, the label of "conservative," with regard to Cotton Mather, is anachronistic.-- WadeMcR 03:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Among the right-wing, conservatives also embrace some forms of positive liberty. Most notably, Puritans such as Cotton Mather often referred to liberty in their writings, but focused on the liberty from sin (e.g. sexual urges) even at the expense of liberty from the government.
Please include a quotation to explain what you mean by "at the expense of liberty from the government."
I feel this statement about "right-wing conservatives" innaccurately implies their support for positive rights. A Christian understanding of freedom in Christ from sin (a positive liberty to reach our potential as human beings) does not necessarily imply anything regarding government and rights.
However, this my understanding and I have not thoroughly studied the issue. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The entire criticisms section is based off one article from the Cato Institute. Either that was one very good article, or too many references are being used from that source. In lieu of better examples, I didn't delete the whole section, though I believe it needs to be cleaned up. -- Jamesia 05:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it is sensible to use metaphor in the opening sentence of an article when supposedly providing a definition of the concept under discussion!
There is no justification for merging this into the negative liberty article. It's a totally different concept. The tag should be taken off IMO. There is a need to have a clear distinction between the two concepts and two separate articles is the best way to do that. Here are my four tildes 24.174.82.195 ( talk) 19:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, these sentences...
"Berlin believed that positive liberty nearly always gave rise to the abuse of power. For when a political leadership believes that they hold the philosophical key to a better future, this sublime end can be used to justify drastic and brutal means."
...don't belong in the opening. They're a criticism and as such they belong in the criticism section. I'll give it a few days. If no one objects then I'll remove them. Here are mu four tildes again 24.174.82.195 ( talk) 19:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Unless you're a newly hatched pod person, you already know that Positive and Negative Merger Foundation is not only truculent but is addicted to being truculent. But let me add that when Positive and Negative Merger Foundation promotes the idea of a "global village" it secretly means "global pillage". What follows is a set of observations I have made about condescending jokers. Positive and Negative Merger Foundation's idolators have already started to rob, steal, cheat, and murder. The result: absolute vapidity, shallow and postmodernist cacophony, lack of personality, monotony, and boredom. Positive and Negative Merger Foundation likes scare tactics that bar people from partaking in activities that cannot be monitored and controlled. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that I have to wonder where it got the idea that it is my view that "metanarratives" are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity. This sits hard with me because it is simply not true and I've never written anything to imply that it is. If some people are offended by my mentioning that Positive and Negative Merger Foundation's vicegerents believe a conspiracy of purblind spoilsports control banking, foreign policy, and the media, then so be it. Positive and Negative Merger Foundation's asseverations are in every respect consistent with the school of huffy thought that tends to dilute the nation's sense of common purpose and shared sacrifice. When I state that Positive and Negative Merger Foundation is a faithful student of Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese strategist who advocated demoralizing one's enemy as the highest art of warfare, I'm merely trying to deal with the relevant facts. Positive and Negative Merger Foundation's true goal is to palm off our present situation as the compelling ground for worldwide deconstructionism. All the statements that its operatives make to justify or downplay that goal are only apologetics; they do nothing to build bridges where in the past all that existed were moats and drawbridges. Despite what you may have been taught in school, I welcome Positive and Negative Merger Foundation's comments. However, Positive and Negative Merger Foundation needs to realize that we must undeniably raise a stink about Positive and Negative Merger Foundation and its insipid perversions. Does that sound extremist? Is it too brainless for you? I'm sorry if it seems that way but that's life. Given Positive and Negative Merger Foundation's record of shady dealings, we can say that its squibs are eerily similar to those promoted by madmen such as Pol Pot. What's scary, though, is that their extollment of commercialism has been ratcheted up a few notches from anything Pol Pot ever conjured up. In summary, things are apt to get worse before they get better. Is anyone listening? Does anyone care? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.105.56 ( talk) 13:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems like the idea of merging has been voted down. I question the motives for proposing it, personally. Anyway, it's been long enough. I'm taking off the merge tag. 24.174.82.195 ( talk) 01:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The image with its comment about being in jail, in addition to messing up the lede, bore no real relation to the civil society issue the article text is about. Had it been something about political prisoners or the like that would have been different. The loss of liberty which duly processed criminals suffer isn't even "negative liberty" so was just a goof/doof. Imprisonment is a negation of liberty, but that's not what "negative liberty" means, a negation of liberty and "negative liberty" have only a superficial connection, it would not be overreaching to say they had none. 72.228.190.243 ( talk) 09:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
A Short description should be short – current advice talks of a 40 character limit – see
WP:SDSHORT.
Also, a Short description should not attempt to define the article's subject – see
WP:SDNOTDEF.
A Short description exists only to clarify which article has been found by a search.
Capacity to act upon one's free will in the context of the broader society which places limitations on a person's ability to act
was 128 characters long.
I have changed the Short description to Concept of sociological agency
which takes a phrase from the article's own lead.
Can anyone think of a more suitable short text? —
GhostInTheMachine
talk to me 15:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I’m assuming this article is on “Group Positive Liberty,” yet it is not clear. To be clear, Group Positive Liberty/Freedom is the Eastern philosophy of freedom, as opposed to the western ideology of individual liberty. This philosophy suggests that freedom exists in policy that benefits the groups liberty over the individual’s liberty. Examples of Group Positive Liberty policies are seatbelt laws, DUI law enforcement, indoor smoking bans, gun bans, GNU/GPL, and the nCoV19 lockdowns. Restricting personal liberty for the greater good is Group Positive Liberty. The end result of group positive liberty is totalitarianism (not personal opinion). 2600:1009:B150:EA3D:1997:C54B:F3E6:4DD9 ( talk) 20:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)