"It is interesting how, once one edits justifications for violence down to a length suitable for T-shirt slogans, political distinctions between left and right disappear." - Sarah Vowell
The raving, sanctimonious liberal mentioned the distinction between Freedom From versus Freedom To. Ignoring the writer after the first couple paragraphs was easy, but this started quite a bit of thinking on the distinction between Freedom From and Freedom To.
The father of this concept is probably Isaiah Berlin who talked about Negative Liberty and Positive Liberty in the 1950's. This is a seemingly simple concept that is actually less straight forward than it appears at first glance. As it is a concept in the political realm, it is sadly claimed by both the political left and right in haughty fashion. Ideologues in both camps claim to own moral superiority here.
I've read a little more about Isaiah Berlin, who was an admitted liberal, but at a different political time than today. I do wish I could have a picture of me that is as menacingly smart as this one of him...
Negative and Positive Liberty should not be thought of as bad vs. good or wrong vs. right. In simplest forms, Negative Liberty is the absence of external barriers to freedom, Positive Liberty is the ability to act without barriers to freedom. A simplified example is in order.
I am going to the store to buy soap.
If there is no soap to buy, I have neither negative, nor positive freedom.
If there are three bars of soap and I can buy any of them, I have both positive and negative freedom. There is a choice (Negative Liberty) and I can choose freely (Positive Liberty).
If there are three bars of soap, and one costs $1, another $7 and the third $45, but I only have $2, I have negative freedom (I can buy any bar I choose), but not positive (my money constraints mean I can only buy the $1 bar). Money or internal limits do not have to be the only constraint on Positive Liberty; if a large, vicious dog is snarling over one bar of soap, my Positive Liberty is constrained since I also value my hands.
Conceptually, Negative Liberty is a precondition for Positive Liberty. If there is no soap, or only one bar of soap, my choice is limited. It doesn't matter how much money I have, my Positive Liberty is constrained by my Negative Liberty.
How liberals like to twist the concept into their favor:
Everyone should have at least enough money to choose between two kinds of soap, so we'll take $6 from the rich, give it to the poor to allow them positive freedom.
How conservatives like to twist the concept into their favor:
By taking $6 from the rich, you may have deprived the rich of being able to buy the $45 soap, or being able to spend that money on other things where the rich had Positive Liberty.
The conservative argument gets a little difficult if the rich has $238,922 - there is almost no reduction to the Positive Liberty of the rich in this case. However, if the rich has $12 (still substantially more than my $2), the Positive Liberty of the rich is greatly affected. If the rich has $238,922, but $156,223 is taken in small increments to increase the Positive Liberty of the poor for a myriad of things, it is arguable that the Positive Liberty of the rich person has now been negatively affected. Where this is in reality, is a matter of perspective.
The concept can be taken to the extreme. This can be instructive, or it can be what the ideologues on both the political left and right like to do to try to make a point. The limits of total Negative Liberty is anarchy - no limits at all. I can take any soap I want and do anything I want to get the soap I want, Total Negative Liberty!
The limits of Positive Liberty is Communism - no choice since everyone must be completely equal in Positive Liberty. I have one soap, we all have one soap, and we will all like it!
And so, much like EVERYTHING else in life, there is a balance. And where this balance lies is dependent on the political wing. Sadly, these choices toward both the left or right are end up being coercive.
Conservative: I should be able to buy guns.
Liberal: I should be able to walk down the street in even the worst neighborhood without fear of getting shot (never mind knives, clubs, etc.).
Conservative: I agree, so buy a gun and protect your liberal-ass self.
But this is coercive. The liberal may be afraid of guns; the liberal may be of limited means and so can not afford the gun or the training to use it properly, etc. And taxes are already paying for police to provide for the general good of the community.
Liberal: In order to have any liberty, I need to be healthy and so health care must be available.
Conservative: I'm 24 and very healthy, I don't want to buy health care insurance, besides, I just finished college so I'd rather spend that money on beer.
Liberal: You don't have to buy it.
But this is coercive, since not buying health care now comes with a punitive tax!
<slight rant> In reality, the 24-year-old will be covered by his parents policy which is the most coercive part of Obamacare. This is coercive to the parent's employer. CUT THE UMBILICAL CHORD ALREADY!!! At 24, the beer drinker should be able to take care of himself!!! <end slight rant>
Golly Jeepers, this post is turning politically negative which was not the intent, since I'm mostly a political agnostic, I'll go back to soap...
We might want to look at why I have limited Positive Liberty. Is my inability to buy $7 soap because I decided to buy a very expensive shampoo? Not much sympathy there - I've purposefully limited my Positive Liberty with respect to soap, by choosing to buy something else. Is my inability to buy $7 soap because I worked for a poorly run company and lost my job - maybe being helped out to buy good soap for a short time will help with my future employment prospects by smelling better? Is my inability to buy $7 soap because I'm in college - maybe I should suck it up with cheap soap and plan that some day, I may be able to buy $7 soap. Is my inability to buy $7 soap because I quit high school and now make very little money - maybe I need help for a little while, but ultimately I should be able to work toward opportunities to correct my poor past decisions and buy better soap in the future.
Lets take the issue of soap a bit further. Sometimes, Positive Liberty can and should limit Negative Liberty. But the line can get quite grey.
Let's say that we've had new companies come into the soap market and now there are 5 soaps to choose from. Choice and competition brings down the price of the expensive ones, but raises the cost of the cheap ones a bit since the supply of soap raw materials is now more limited. (Oops, by having more Negative Liberty, Positive Liberty may be decreased for some. So free market forces can actually decrease freedom.)
Now, it is determined that one of the soaps is really bad for the environment, so it is forced to be taken off the market. This is bad for Negative Liberty - one less soap to choose from. But may be good overall - people are free from the tyranny of dead fish. But who decides that the soap in question is bad? Science can determine this, but scientific understanding evolves over time. And are all scientists devoid of soap preferences and investment in the soap companies? Does a soap study funded by the soap industry mean it is axiomatically flawed? And what if all soap is a little bad and the one soap is proven to be only slightly worse for the environment, but I can use much, much less of it, so it has a net positive - should it be banned? But if it isn't banned, then that frees another person to use a lot more of it than is really needed and kill fish. And if all soap is a little bad, should it all be banned, thus freeing people from the tyranny of dead fish, but subjecting everyone to the tyranny of stinky people?
Nope, the fish are telling us that there are no simple answers, just degrees of dead fish.
The entire concept of liberty is a political, or at least authoritative, construct - so I guess this post had to become political.
But the sad thing is, we don't really have that much liberty, positive or negative, in politics.
In theory, I can vote for anyone I wish this coming November, I have a lot of Negative Liberty with respect to my vote. I can even write myself in on the ballot. My Positive Liberty is restricted in that there will likely only be two realistic choices in November for president. My Positive Liberty is further restricted in that we appear to be heading toward a situation where both of those choices are really, really bad. Even worse, my Negative Liberty isn't even all that good, since most of the listed choices are not as different as they would like to pretend that they are. Both are more interested in their own Positive and Negative Liberty, and people like them, than they are in the Positive or Negative Liberty of the average voter.
So in the end, I guess I'm just a dead fish. A very soapy dead fish.
No comments:
Post a Comment