Is there really a distinction between "positive" and "negative" freedom?

[Trystan]

Negative freedom: freedom from - e.g. freedom from slavery. Now presumably the freedom from slavery gives us a freedom to - to do things like move around freely, for example, which we would not have under slavery.

Positive freedom: freedom to, e.g. to be free to buy food. This presupposes freedom from poverty,

I'm sure there's more to it than this, but so far the distinction seems like bullshit to me.

Discuss?

[Hyacinth]

Negative freedom: freedom from - e.g. freedom from slavery. Now presumably the freedom from slavery gives us a freedom to - to do things like move around freely, for example, which we would not have under slavery.

Positive freedom: freedom to, e.g. to be free to buy food. This presupposes freedom from poverty,

I'm sure there's more to it than this, but so far the distinction seems like bullshit to me.

Discuss?
I think you're absolutely right; the distinction is purely an artificial one, and if we look at our usage of the term "freedom" with respect to an agent, the best analysis seems to take a form that combines the two elements, something to the effect of: and agent A is free from some obstacle O to be/not be/do/not do X. It doesn't make sense to speak of an agent being free to do something which they are incapable of doing, the agent has to have the capacity/power to do whatever it is that they want to do to be counted as free to do it.

[Atrus]

I'm not entirely sure of myself, but it seems to me that without both then it is not true freedom? So surely then, neither are actual freedom, so "positive" and "negative" doesn't matter, it isn't freedom without both, in which case the positive and negatives cancel out.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Negative liberty is freedom from restraint without respect to self-imposed restraint or impossibility. It means other people or governments are not imposing artificial restraints on you.

Positive liberty involves doing things to make it possible for someone to maximize their own negative liberty. For instance, if there is a river no one can cross, building a bridge allows people to cross it.

If people can't maximize their own freedom because they are under the influence of drugs, forcing them to get help could maximize their positive liberty but undermine their negative liberty.

[BobKKKindle$]

There is an important distinction to be made here. Negative freedom is concerned with what we can do without encountering physical interference from the state or other members of society, and based on this understanding of freedom the state needs to exist in order to prevent individuals from committing acts of aggression against each other and violating the rights of those who are unable to protect themselves. The proponents of this conception, including Hobbes and Locke, have often used the concept of a state of nature in their explanations of how the state comes into existence, and what it is for, and in this condition the absence of a state means that they are no restrictions on our freedom, and men are forced into conflict with each other in order to secure access to the resources they need to survive - in other words, to secure their self-preservation - leading to a life that is, to use Hobbes's expression, "nasty, brutish and short". Positive freedom differs from this negative conception in that it recognizes that external constraints in the form of state coercion are not the only ways in which our freedom can be restricted. Acknowledging the role of economic circumstances is one way of interpreting this, but historically the theorists associated with positive freedom, of which Rousseau is the most famous, have focused on the role of internal obstacles - elements of human psychology that limit our ability to pursue what is in our best interests, and lead us into doing things that are harmful. Rousseau focused on what he described as "amour propre", or the search for dominance and approval, whereby we are constantly engaged in an effort to place ourselves in positions of social dominance and receive the admiration of other people, such that our behavior is eventually determined by whatever it is that people are liable to admire, regardless of whether such behavior is intrinsically beneficial. As a solution to what he saw as a decadent and corrupt society, in which all social relationships are characterized by power and inequality, Rousseau proposed the social contract, through which each individual is given an equal role in deciding what laws should be passed, and laws impact each individual in exactly the same way, thereby generating a general will, which reflects what is in the shared interests of the community. The most controversial aspect of Rousseau's theory is the notion that the only reason why someone would ever be opposed to the general will is because they are not aware of what is in their best interests, rather than because they have legitimate grievances against what the community has decided, such that, by being forced to obey the laws, they are not having their freedom restricted, but are actually being forced to be free, due to the fact that living under the law means that men are no longer subject to the control of their passions, but can make informed and rational decisions. The notion that men are not always rational in their decision-making is a central observation of positive freedom, and also something that has been criticized by theorists such as Berlin, who see this observation as a recipe for an intrusive state that uses the language of freedom to control the behavior of its citizens. Marx is also associated with positive freedom, as he was aware of the ways in which our personal relationships are corrupted under capitalism due to the predominance of commodity production, and argued that the overthrow of capitalism would create a basis for each individual being able to assert genuine control over their lives, and allow for the development of each individual's talents and abilities.

[autotrophic]

The difference is that negative freedom is created on an individual level, while positive freedom is a result of collective effort. One can have negative freedom (freedom from constraint) on an isolated island in the middle of an ocean, but one cannot have positive freedom in the same situation. As Bakunin said:


Even the most wretched individual of our present society could not exist and develop without the cumulative social efforts of countless generations. Thus the individual, his freedom and reason, are the products of society, and not the vice versa: society is not the product of individuals comprising it; and the higher, the more fully the individual is developed, the greater his freedom -- and the more he is the product of society, the more does he receive from society and the greater his debt to it.

I like to think of libertarianism as a tendency towards negative freedom, whereas socialism is the tendency toward positive freedom. Hence, I am a libertarian socialist.

[Glenn Beck]

Negative freedom is a politically useless and purely formal definition of freedom according to which laws against rape and murder violate freedom and thus freedom is not something with any intrinsic value (except most people who favor negative liberty are bourgeois economic liberals who believe "maximizing freedom" means deregulating the economy because they believe that the freedom to own and develop property is in fact good in itself regardless of its social consequences). I can't say it all makes much sense to me.

Positive freedom is a more meaningful definition imo because it takes into account whether the individual is in fact capable of doing what they are "free" to do without outside interference, and whether it is even worth doing in the first place. Someone who is prevented by outside force from harming someone is not having their freedom violated in any meaningful way, despite the purely formal definition of freedom as absence of external constraints.

Also Bob you know I love you baby but please, finish a point, press enter, type the next one. I lost my place like 3 or 4 times reading that and that was highlighting with the mouse as I went along.

[mikelepore]

The difference is that negative freedom is created on an individual level, while positive freedom is a result of collective effort.

In addition to that, there seems to be difference in complexity, or the number of steps that have to be accumulated. Freedom from a form oppression might result from one act of declaration, society's announcement of a new decision not to trample there. But, to use Dooga's example, establishing freedom to cross a river by building a bridge requires the accomplishment of a series of efforts.

[Dean]

Negative freedom: freedom from - e.g. freedom from slavery. Now presumably the freedom from slavery gives us a freedom to - to do things like move around freely, for example, which we would not have under slavery.

Positive freedom: freedom to, e.g. to be free to buy food. This presupposes freedom from poverty,

I'm sure there's more to it than this, but so far the distinction seems like bullshit to me.

Discuss?
All freedom is positive. Negative freedom from slavery is in fact positive freedom to control your own body. The distinction is merely a way to justify systems of exploitation and wage slavery with a false sense of respect fo those beign exploited.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

All freedom is not positive freedom. The distinction is important. In a communist society, positive freedom can justify stopping you from eating unhealthy food because it's not in your best interest and maximizing your potential. Communist philosophy is completely compatible with the idea of negative freedom. Exploitation is exploitation. It's direct harm to another person. Even people who believe in negative freedom disagree with that - the capitalists just deny they are causing harm.