Positive and Negative Liberty: Who has more Freedom?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 лип 2024
- We often think of freedom as being able to act without restraints. But as one’s freedom can affect the freedom of another, acting without restraint usually creates problems. To prevent that, we create rules. Philosopher Isaiah Berlin went one step further and distinguished two types of freedom: negative liberty, the absence of constraints, and positive liberty, the power to act regardless of limitations.
SUPPORT us to understand our society better!
/ sprouts 🐦:
DOWNLOAD video without ads and background music 🤫:
sproutsschools.com/video-less...
SIGN UP to our mailing list and never miss a new video from us 🔔:
eepurl.com/dNU4BQ
SOURCES and teaching resources 🎓:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/li...
VISIT our website 🌐:
sproutsschools.com/two-types-...
CONTRIBUTE by upvoting your favorite topic or suggesting new ones☑️ :
sprouts.featureupvote.com/
THANKS to our patrons
This video was made with the support of our Patrons: Adam Berry, Alex Rodriguez, Andrea Basillio Rava, Anil Raut, ArkiTechy, Artur, azad bel, Badrah, Cedric.Wang, Christoph Becker, David Markham, Delandric Webb, Dexter, Digital INnov8ors, Dr. Matthias Müller-Mellin, Duane Bemister, Elias Reuss, Eva Marie Koblin, Fatenah G Issa, Frari63, Gerry Labelle, Harmoniac Design, ICH KANN DEUTSCH UND ES WAR EINFACH!, Izzy, Jannes Kroon, Jeffrey Cassianna, Jim Pilgrim, Joanne Doyle, John Burghardt, Jorge Luis Mejia Velazquez, jun omar ebdane, Khadijah Sellers, Leonel, Liam Dalling, Linda Kinkead, Linus Linderoth, Lucia Simone Winston, Mambo no 9, Marcel, María, martin, Mathis Nu, Max 707, Mezes.Macko, Michael Brown, Michael Paradis, Natalie O’Brien, Okan Elibol, Oweeda Newton, Patricia Labovszky, Peihui, Povilas Ambrasas, Raymond Fujioka, Roel Vermeulen, Scott Gregory, scripz, Sebastian Huaytan Meder, Si, Solongo Ganbat, Stefan Gros, Stephen Clark, Stuart Bishop, Taka Kondo, Takashi HIROSE, Thomas Aschan, Victor Paweletz, Yassine Hamza, Yvonne Clapham and all the others. Thank you! To join them visit www.patreon.com/sprouts
COLLABORATORS
Script: Karl von Luckwald
Editor: Jonas Koblin
Artist: Pascal Gaggelli
Voice: Matt Abbott
Coloring: Sasalux
Editing: Peera Lertsukittipongsa
Sound Design: Miguel Ojeda
Production: Selina Bador
Fact-checking: Ludovico Saint Amour Di Chanaz
SOUNDTRACKS
Nice Toys - Studio Le Bus
Cheeky Plum Fairy - Shaun Frearson
The Haunted Manor - HWIYO
Magical Keys - Studio Le Bus
DIG DEEPER with these top videos, games and resources:
Read about freedom in philosophy
philosophynow.org/issues/143/...
Read about the thoughts of Locke on Freedom
plato.stanford.edu/entries/lo...
Read more about the Two Concepts of Liberty
plato.stanford.edu/entries/li...
SOURCES
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Con...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positiv...
CLASSROOM ACTIVITY
Visit our website to get access to suggested activity for your classroom on this topic!
CHAPTER
00:00 Introduction to two concepts of liberty
00:50 Negative liberty
02:39 Positive liberty
04:06 Clash of ideologies
04:39 What do you think?
04:59 Patrons credit
05:07 Ending
#sproutsschools #freedom #philosophy #sociology #isaiah
Excellent piece. Another one straight to the homeschool playlist. Massive props to you guys for not paywalling content. The lessons you're teaching are far too important for today's society to limit their reach... makes me want to support you just for that fact alone.
Thank you so much for the feedback! And yes, we do depend on the support of people that appreciate our work via patreon.com/sprouts. :)
There is a balance that needs to be in play. While hard work and diligence should pay off, they need a proper safety net to make sure people don't fall so far that they can't get back up.
there's never a perfect liberty, but as the example demonstrated it all comes down to everyone's situation. For the dude who has money, freeland is almost a prison, for lily is a place that takes care of her and offers greater opportunities to change her life and overcome the financial and social burden. When frank runs out of money he will be back at freeland in an instance, when lily graduates and makes enough amount of money she will most likely become the same as frank was before he left for liberty.
That's not liberty, 1 of the 2 involves the use of offensive violence in order to intimidate otherwise innocent people into obeying authority. Since we started off naked in a tree/cave, was us not having pants, cars or shoes somehow a 'prison' back then? Liberty is not free stuff, it's simply not being ruled by somebody else against your will through the constant threat of violence.
That's very true, it's more of a situation. I do kind of relate with Healthcare expensive for ppl that doesn't fix their diet at all. Perhaps things need to be evaluated for tax priority.
Both have their own dangers. Both too little and too much government will hurt us either way. Then there will be opportunists who will take advantage of either and everything in between.
Do what you can do, move to where you think is best and try to make the world a better place.
Well said
The most mature response in the comment section.
it isnt this simple, take for example west and east germany, in west germany you had "freedom from" and in east you had "freedom to" (now, you could say this isnt exactly correct, and i agree with that, but just bear with me),
poor people in west germany that didnt had good schooling/opportunities, tended to move in east germany, where they could flourish.
competent people in east germany that were schooled essentially for free felt like that now that they had their set of skills, the state now held them down instead of helping them further, they tended to move in west germany and occupy well-paid jobs
this resulted in west germany having more competent people and east germany poor people seeking help, and as a result, east germany was in a severe disadvantage, causing their government to decide to build a wall and prevent competent people from migrating.
Chad Liberals:🌝
But what does ' .sling the world a better place mean ' ?
As with most things I feel that a "middle ground" would be the ideal solution. Take the best of both, and eliminate the troubling aspects of each. A pipe dream, I know.
The problem with middlegrounds is that they are rarely in the middle.
The concepts are usefull and the examples illustrate them quite well, I think. Although as somebody pointed out:
1: External Force limits your freedom to act
2: Inability limits your freedom to act
Neither is completely true, since not all force is bad and not all inability is bad.
Force corrects our behavior where necessary and inability motivates to go forward.
Force also affects our behavior where _not_ necessary.
@@UncleKennysPlace Exactly, but what constitutes necessary force and pointless force is not completely clear.
That's what democratic politics about: to try and find the most tollerable middle ground, where one hopes for the highest amount of necessary force and least amount of unnecessary, or opressory force.
@@thrall1342 This all sounds rather parental. Is the initiation of offensive violence not primarily an ethical matter? 'Necessary' is subjective & could excuse just about anything. I argue that there is only just force vs violent crime, just force being a proportional response to a credible allegation of violations of someone's basic rights & violent crime being 'obey or else violence.'
@@johnnyshanksalot8358 I don't think I was speaking about violence at all, but about forced behavior in the context of the video.
As such, excessive taxation could for a example be seen as a kind of force. Maybe even a violent one, since it is quite literally "pay or else violence" (violence = forcefully go to prison).
@@thrall1342 If something isn't voluntary then isn't it inherently accomplished using the threat of future acts of offensive violence by definition?
What is or isn't 'excessive taxation' is subjective but consent is not. If we can all understand the moral concept of consent as it applies to sex then why would that moral concept suddenly vanish when you put your pants on & talk about taxes or law?
i may be wrong, but i would argue that this is not really about Liberty, but about Governance.
both examples showed individual issues with the System they lived on, with the solution being to move out of it.
it is also not about being negative or positive, but about being weak or strong, since negative and positive most of the times implies "good" and "bad"
negative and positive doesn't imply good or bad all the time: negative symptoms of schizophrenia takes sensation away from you while positive symptoms add unnecessary sensations and hallucinations. You could think of positive and negative liberty as "liberty through adding governance" and "liberty through subtracting governance" respectively
@@echometerainNegative Inflation and Positive HIV are also examples where Negative and Positive have an inverse Good/Bad correlation.
But it doesn't change that we see one as Bad while the other is Good. Replacing Negative Liberty for Weak Governance and Positive Liberty for Strong Governance tells us exactly what we aim for in here: more or less government impact on our lives, and neither is bad or good by themselves.
@@echometerain Negative and positive DO imply bad or good. As you have shown, in your example, they actually ARE NOT NECESSARILY bad or good, but they DEFINITELY DO IMPLY bad or good ... and we all know how easy it is to influence people, when those in charge decide to call 'good' what's beneficial to themselves and 'bad' what they do not personally like. 'Negative' and 'positive' are far beyond medical symptoms. They are powerful words to control others. Words easy to use and even easier to abuse.
Isaiah Berlin's distinction between positive and negative liberty is less a "theory" that can be "right or wrong" as it is a distinction that can be more or less meaningful or helpful. Personally, I find the distinction tremendously meaningful and helpful. Incidentally, I didn't find the explanation of the terms here very enlightening. I would ask two questions with the regards to the two kinds of liberty: Does a person have the (negative) liberty from some intrusion into their life? And if not, who is intruding? And does a person have the (positive) liberty to do some thing in their life? And if not, who ought to make it so that they would have that liberty? When arguing about freedom, it is obviously very often an argument about what kinds of laws we want a governmental body to pass and uphold in our area. Laws are dictates about what should not and what should be done. As such, every law is an encroachment upon the negative liberties of the people the law applies to. In practical terms, when people (generally on the right) argue for total (negative) liberty, they are rarely arguing for the abolishing of all laws. This means, usually, that they actually do recognize some positive liberties that they think are worth protecting. The argument then becomes not an absolute between either negative or positive liberty, but between what kinds of things we would want our governmental bodies in our area to ensure our positive liberty to pursue.
I liked the comparison technique. Food for thought.
Quite arguable whether the smog from the car smoke is an infringment of positive or negative liberty. Edge cases like this one or worse make this dual freedom concept quite shaky.
I think that John Stuart Mill said ''one is truly free when one is fully aware of ones actions' consequences''. True.
I believe that one knows one's rights, once one is aware of his/her obligations first.
I remember our elementary school teacher who said that our rights stop exactly where other people's rights begin.
Liberty 🙂
The theory is a distinction without a difference I think. A positive liberty to one person can be interpreted as the absence of a negative liberty to another. In this example, Frank wants fredom from paying high taxes for other's healthcare. Lily wants freedom to live healthy. Both end up paying taxes for healthcare, the difference is what services do they receive for that money.
Sprouts, you all outdid yourselves with this one. Chapeau!❤
Thank you p.
Posetive liberty sounds like a very needed thing
Left a lot out. The smaller the government, the more prosperous the people. The more prosperous the people, the more generous they are with charitable causes, like healthcare and social ills.
The larger the government, the more restrictions placed on creative solutions. People tend to look to government to handle all social ills. This has NEVER succeeded in the past and I doubt that it will EVER work.
There's no such thing as small government. British Empire and USA as a superpower required big government.
What if you could select what your taxes paid for? ( with your income tax.)
You can select whether your taxes go to
public school / children education home or private
health care
Military
Foreign aid
infrastructure
Border control
National debt
Currency and inflation. Etc
( after government employees are paid, I guess)
There will be less resentment for uses of taxes.
It would require certain programs to communicate more with the population and innovate around wants and needs, thus becoming more efficient
Also to insensitive more balance taxe revanue, tax payers could "select all" for a reduced taxes (5-10% give or take.)
What if you did not pay for millitary. Will the millitary not defend you?
for me i can relate to team frank but i also can empathize and relate to team Lilly also so i'm a 50/50 type
I think that liberties can be divided up... but I also believe that the ones presented are ill defined, almost any freedom "from" can be described as a freedom "to" do the opposite, kinda.
Can you elaborate that thought a bit more, preferably using the given examples ?
@@thrall1342 person A wants freedom from society and its obligations, He is independent and probably handle most of the things people pay taxes for, so if he can carry his own weight and his family plus complete strangers. person B want freedom from responsibility, she is part of society that desperately needs others assistance and willing to give her help to those in need. both sides forget that they are part of society, person A doesnt realize no matter how much he wants to be secluded he will encounter something he cant take care one day, person B doesnt realize people who work at hospitals also needs to eat and live, since tax is low government cannot support health care so they allocated it to private health care companies, also smog she doesnt like are also produced by people who needs the car to do their job and live. honestly both are idiots, and they will choose whichever society feels right for them, or complain about it while living in there instead of just moving.
Incredible. An actual balanced, unbiased presentation of these concepts is hard to find, these days.
Both are important. Freedom to can stimulate creativity and personal development. Freedom from removes barriers. Balance
Newly subscribed and thoroughly enjoying the videos. Previous secular home schooler and finding critical thinking videos was often difficult and am finding these to be more without bias pushing one to think through topics. Excellent. Make thinking cool again!
amazing video, excellent explanation
Kudos to the creators for making learning so engaging and enjoyable! 📚🎉"
Glad you enjoyed it!
Wow! I always thought that liberty isn't always good. Now it makes sense.
I think calling that "positive liberty" is a misnomer. when framed this way, it just means the ability to make other people do things you want. This concept should be referred to as freedom vs order; not positive vs negative freedom.
negative and positive doesn't imply good or bad all the time, negative symptoms of schizophrenia takes sensation away from you while positive symptoms add unnecessary sensations and hallucinations. You could think of positive and negative liberty as "liberty through adding governance" and "liberty through subtracting governance" respectively
@@echometerain Negative and positive DO imply bad or good. As you have shown, in your example, they actually ARE NOT NECESSARILY bad or good, but they DEFINITELY DO IMPLY bad or good ... and we all know how easy it is to influence people, when those in charge decide to call 'good' what's beneficial to themselves and 'bad' what they do not personally like. 'Negative' and 'positive' are far beyond medical symptoms. They are powerful words to control others. Words easy to use and even easier to abuse.
@@echometerainLiberty by adding governance is an apparent paradox, as long as the needs for justice and security are exceeded.
I think this is about the difference between the two form of fairness, justice and sociality. "Just" means you pay your own expenses, "social" means other people do. Mostly there is some middle ground, e.g. insurances etc. .
@@echometerain7
I can see that this channel doesnt "like" comments or suggestions contrary to its own stated rational. Yours is the best contradiction to this arguement. Yet, you get no love from the author.
It's a dynamic which you over simplified, injecting more human nature, greed and corruption into your liberty formulas would give a clearer picture.
To me it seems positive liberty is a correction of natural injustices where negative liberty is simply preserving the natural state of things. Though positive liberty can be useful for those with severe disadvantages it’s also easy to overdo, for example taking into account only the amount of effort someone put into getting a job rather than their natural skill at it. If our society operates like this there will be a lower standard of living for everyone as the society will be ran less efficiently, which in the long run hurts those with disadvantages more than those disadvantages themselves. Creating a culture of generosity towards those with these disadvantages is the best option, as it supports them without the need for force or a less efficient society.
I would argue that "fair redistribution" of wealth is an oxymoron.
Yes haha, is it fair to steal someones money and give it to someone else
I think negative liberty is sort of the natural state and positive liberty are things we can do as a society to make the natural state easier on people. I agree with some aspects of each situationally, but think positive liberty is an added benefit, something to strive for, rather than a right.
i agree with you 100%
I think from what i see negative liberty is good for thosse that can acomplesh things by them selys wall positiv is for thos hoow cant help them selfs
I definitely support the concepts of two forms of liberty which have been added to the set of moral foundations discussed by Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues.
Thank you
Well, what if the high costs of education and healthcare are... created by licensing (when you need an expencive certification to do anything in education or healthcare), methode of state funding (look at the education cost in the USA), market intransparency (when you don't know all options and prices).
Interesting, seeing now I am a positive liberty advocate.
Frank is a champion
Oh your comical animation style is a breath of fresh air and also reminds me of simpler times. You guys are really doing a great job.
Btw, I feel I'm more towards positive Liberty.
Thank you!
I would not say the two concepts are "right" or "wrong"; that are both reasonable, just different.
Calling this "2 types of liberty" is outrageus. This is FREEDOM vs ORDER. We need some of both, the problem is agreeing on how much of what we want. Absolute Freedom is anarchy, where everyone can do whatever they want, there is no law, and ultimately strong will exploit the hell out of the weak. Absolute Order...well for that we have examples in history. Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, North Korea. To not fall into either extreame is a very delicate balance with slipery slope effect...sadly most of the world is already past the point of no return and is doomed to repeat the mistakes of XXth century (Ok most of "rich" world, 3rd world don't really matter in this discussion when you are borderlane starving every other day political system is meaningless cuz you can't do anything either way)
Both have advantages, but currently we as a collective society with many different geopolitical situations, it would be near impossible to achieve both. I am my own person, and my peers keep me in check. Those who believe I am not my own person try to check mate me. You see where this is going.
What happens when most of the people with money who want to avoid having it taxed move to Liberty, and most of the poor who want free things move to Freeland?
I believe it is right. I am a negative liberty person
Absolute freedom can't exist in a civilized society. After all, living in a society means we all have to sacrifice ,Little bit with our individuality . So I vote for positive liberty as it will empower every individual to raise their standards in the society irrespective of the societal structural obstacles.
1. When you see things as positive and negative is thinking there's a duality. In reality, not everything is black and white.
In my opinion, in any society there is degrees of how much positive and negative liberty to the way things are run.
2. In our world, we see countries that are more polarizing to positive or negative liberty. Places like North Korea or Iran, function in negative liberty. The United States and Europe operate more in positive liberty.
I think that Government should only exist based on consent and that if the Government has no ability to win people to support it without threat of violence then the state is profoundly illegitimate. Negative Liberty is the freedom to choose. Consent is everything in interpersonal relationships but we forget it all together when we look at government as a society.
Let's just have both. It looks black and white but there is gold in grey
Positive is what benefits me.
Negative is what benefits you.
How about; live and let live?
I think he's wrong. There are thing aren't mention like the health issue. Collectivists think will be the same expensive but with freedom of regulations and all prices get cheaper. I think this needs to be re-thinked, there are some topics that in both cities realities that needs modification.
Well, if you take care of yourself, you'll pay less for healthcare. Healthcare and whatever should only be for the unconditionally disadvantaged, like disabled people
insert billionaires and remove education based on critical thinking and logic and you don't have to worry about either. Both liberties become illusions for the governed to fight with each other over.
Another thought: we are all born in the second world, where we are unable to do anything and need help.
All wealth of mind and body that comes afterwards needs to be earned.
If it is altruistically provided to you, somebody else needed to earn it. So one should be very carefull to feel "entitled" to altruism, as you then justify taking away something that others have earned.
If you don't get it you die
@@juanpablobascur3708 That's what I said. What's the relevance ?
I think to ask the question "which kind of liberty is right or wrong" is woefully misguided. In a functional society I'd argue you need both. What matters is how these liberties are applied. Like why does there need to be a law about lifting weights? That's just silly.
Freedom = 💸 !!
What about neutral liberty?
I think what matters is education.
If you don't know that you are certainly NOT mentally free, you won't know that we, as society, NEED a government.
With that said, the less, the better.
I would consider myself an advocate of what I called neutral Liberty there should be a system put in place to help people help themselves and the purpose of government is simply to do 3 things 1.create a safe environment for the masses 2. Defend against threats.
3. Create Mutual Security for the masses which is essentially everyone having access to the essentials of life and protecting the rights of individuals.
The idea of neutral Liberty is that the government should not distract itself with anything other than these three directives a government position is not for imposing an ideology rather be a liberal ideology or conservative ideology it is strictly for maintaining these three fundamental function and nothing more
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
I do wonder if there isn't a middle road between both freedoms. Things aren't generally just black and white but 49 grades of grey. Or even more shades, but I don't want to go there. :D
That is actually, where this video is fails. The theory isn't about any specific policies, because someone's freedom to usually impacts someone's freedom from and the other way round. The theory is an explanation why seemingly ANY policy can be marketed as supporting "Freedom". The word doesn't mean anything. If politicians have nothing to say except that they want "Freedom", we should very suspicious. It usually happens when there are some interests that not named there.
Canada vs America
I'm definitely somewhere in the middle
A bird needs both wings to fly.
I think the best system is altruistic capitalism, but that will not happen for the same reason positive liberty is not viable: the human condition. Positive freedom always sounds wonderful, but there are so many people not like Lilly, who want positive liberty for pursuing a well-paying and useful degree. There are many who want a large welfare state so they need not do anything. My sister is one of those people. It is at that juncture, alongside politicians who begin to hoard money from taxpayers (as we have seen in every socialist nation), where positive liberty begins to breakdown.
On the flip side, some people are starting behind the eight ball with negative liberty. For instance, Frank looks down on people who are overweight, but some people have genetic and biological dispositions that prevent them from being able to stay fit and healthy without an unattainable amount of micromanagement. And it is harder to get to school when not from a wealthy family. I think there are ways to work around those barriers, but none of them are easy and that is where negative liberty falls short, “equal opportunity” may be equally available but not equally achievable. In other words, everyone can go to university, but it is harder for some to make it a reality. There are people in these situations that could benefit from help and economic benefits from a welfare state.
So there is no right answer, but the right question is: how do we balance these realities?
bingo.
Yep 😂
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Very interesting. I didn't know about the two concepts of liberty before now. I'm still a bit confused by the two types so I'll be rewatching this until they are clear to me. But so far, I suspect I have positive libertarian leanings. But are the two mutually exclusive?
sounds like you're talking about the Canadian/US border... (he says, happily Canadian)
Depends? Push pull of private sector business v. Government. Which has the power? Who wields the pocketbook? Do you really want a privatized police and fire departments? Do you really want a public hospital? So many variables but one constant: MONEY. Whoever possesses the most can declare if anything is for the public good or for their own profit or ANY COMBINATION within, regardless of whether you want Liberty From or Freedom To. That's just society making you think you actually have a choice. You don't. Look at how politicians kotow to the Christian Nationalist by choking off MILLIONS to public school making them less efficient and then funneling the money to Religious Schools through "Vouchers." Another words, gutting every states Department of Education and giving it BACK to THE HARPER VALLEY PTA, very local vocal narrow control. So the idea we have a choice is untrue. If you can, save or develop wealth and you can pick and choose your own LIBERTY FROM and FREEDOM TO ...
So basically, positive liberty isn't liberty at all but dependence on the state. Sounds like double speak because "negative" liberty is simply liberty.
Then why is it that every first world country that institutes positive liberty policies happier, healthier, more educated avd overall more successful then those that don't I'll wait.
@WokeandProud lol is it really?.......
@@otxoawolf9054 Yes they are objectively unless you want to argue with basically every study on it ever the data is against you cope.
@WokeandProud in some small homogeneous countries it works initially. Unfortunately over time they end up like Venezuela or Cuba particularly when their system gets hijacked by out of control immigration. Studies show some of the picture. History shows the rest.
I really wish it your point were true. I've just lived long enough to know it's not.
@@otxoawolf9054 More right-wing tripe Cuba and Venezuela only ended up the way they did because of US sanctions and interference. Meanwhile every other first world nation "homogeneous" or not (weak nazi dog whistle btw) who push social safty programs are doing splendidly moving on.
The problem is as long as there's private property, true liberty is impossible
Some people think positive liberty is great,
To have so little of our lives left to fate,
Others will pay,
For our way,
Because we want to live in a nanny state.
Some people give businesses the power to create rules by bribing officials.
Also, Americans die because they can't afford medical attention for themselves so they don't go to the doctor.
In comparison other places where the state covers some of the expanses people are more motivated to the doctor when they're I'll.
You know that where there are private prisons there are more prisoners, because of business owners actually motivating officials to arrest people instead of like... Rehabilitation or arresting real criminals instead of people doing minor shit for the first time.
That's negetive freedom for ya', where other don't pay for essential services and people get incarcerated or dead because it pays someone else...
Food for thought, ah?
@@davesvens8697
Mao created a utopia robust,
Not for him but for us,
The deaths of a few,
Tens of millions no one knew,
With all positive liberties that cuss.
@@puddintame7794
Dude... Like, the Nazis and the Italian fascists were free market at the beginning of their rule (they changed to more left leaning approach at the beginning of the war, like everybody else), Franco changed from left leaning economy to free market.. he was fascists also.
So dude..People die in dictatorships where they have free markets.
Also, how many people die in America because of avoidable gun violence?
"Negetive liberties "
Like, o.k. I get it, but when you go too far somethimes with that approach you will fuck everything.
@@davesvens8697 Are you saying that the Nazis were free market libertarians? My take on Main Kampf is quite a bit different. Have you read it?
The Libertarian and Social Democrat duopoly of narcissism,
Liberty is the capacity to improve one’s environment either selfishly or righteously
প্লীজ অ্যাড বাংলা সাবটাইটেল,please add bangla subtitles
This sort of binary thinking is core to the social polarization taking place right now. Maybe it's just a side effect of sporting a brain with 2 halves, but we will never solve complex issues like these with such crude approaches.
It's also very easy for those who have chosen freedom from moral constraints to pit these perspectives against each other, to the detriment of all of their freedoms.
I think these two concepts of liberty are too limited. What about the concept of personal liberty, in which your lack of freedom is caused by your own needs. In which you might be a slave of addictions (porn, drugs, tobacco, food, tattoos, professional sports...), and, of course, of your fundamental and other needs.
The idea of "negative freedom" makes no sense. How is it "freedom" to be forced to pay somebody else's bills? Redistribution is obviously the opposite of freedom.
That said, I think some government is needed. But I don't call that "freedom."
IMHO it is erroneous to separate Freedom or Liberty into two "concepts" when in fact we are talking about two "dimensions" of the same right.
So America has neither freedom from nor freedom to for the majority.
If you don't pay taxes on your house they will take it. But there's no public healthcare and education is a joke designed to force schools to buy new books from the same companies that design the tests determining their funding.
If you're rich you have both kinds of freedom here. Laws with fixed financial penalties have these penalties set too low to affect the wealthy, and a good enough laywer can pay experts to say nearly anything in other court cases. But if your business fails they will bail it out, if it's big enough.
Liberty to is just changing names. There may be law too someting, not liberty too. Everything else is just consequence ot using wrong words.
Franks on point with this one. well done FREELAND
I think we got the worst of both worlds.
I'm neither I'm as far left as you can get I'm for a full on market socialist system where the working class own the means of wealth production.
Lmao I dont care, you dedicate your life to politics, you a loser
"What are you? Social Liberal or calssic Libertarian?"
"Maoist."
I'm Frank, but both are wrong. Both cases it's not Freedom/Liberty/Wolność (In Poland we have only one word for IT, it's Wolność. And still, we don't have it 😆).
Wow. That was quite a politically biased cartoon. You had me hooked when you had the stealing the apple example, then you taught the exact opposite message and wrapped it up in political biases.
Ah yes, we should have the balance with the government, because without it the people will be broken. Just like slaves should be in balance with their masters, because without them the slaves will be broken...
Balance,just balance😊
Let's hope Frank doesn't get hit by a bus, since his healthy lifestyle will do zip for him then paying the astronomical healthcare bills.
All society is a wrestling match between limiting individual options and ensuring individual freedoms. Frank's individualistic ideals are great for Frank, but they allow the option for him or others to do things that might hurt society as a whole, for example if he home-schools his children without sex ed, or exposure to other members of the society. I personally think the basics: Food, shelter, healthcare and education should be equalized across all citizens for the sake of a stable society, but things like whether Frank wants to work out should not be.
100% agree.
Wtf, now I don't know what I want.
Lily is a Collectivist.
people need to be protected by the govern,because of that,they need to abondon some"freedom" to make social system keep running.I dont like to be ruled too much,but some of them are necessary like food,shelters,medical assistance.
So the first one need to know that everyone may fact some serious situation,like sick or plague, offense,losing job ,or others.If government cant provide necessary assistance to their,the government lose it's meaning and value.
Anarco-capitalism.
Do not intiate fraud or violence against anyone.
Freedom to boss others around isn't freedom at all and shouldn't be given the legitimacy of being referred to as any type of liberty.
The concepts of "Positive and Negative", as well as "Right and Wrong" stem from one's perspective and are not absolute. So, your presentation of the subject "Liberty" is flawed from the beginning. I suggest you present the subject as it relates to "Responsibility" to obtain a pertinent presentation.
The definition of Liberty sounds like an oxymoron
those jewish people are so smart. go Berlin!
How many of these basic human rules do you want to break
Autism: YES
China and the US
The problem is, that each of them thinks they are in the right.
If we live in a world where everyone is equal, has equal chances and the outcomes are solely determined by your actions, the first example would be right.
But sadly this is a dream world that does not exist. Illness, birth defects, accidents, even when you are not responsible or did anything wrong can alter your life.
Who looks out for the blind? Tells the deft and speaks up for the mute?
Because the reality is, that there are people who require help by default and by no fault of their own, we need a world like in the 2nd example.
The first one is simply not reality and sadly will never be.
I would caution, as this thinking does in my opinion make you one of the characters, thinking that they are right, when the idea of democracy is to productively combine the knowledge and limit the blind spots of as many people as possible.
I believe one could make the same argument the other way around. As food for thought:
You: - "If we live in a world where everyone is equal, has equal chances and the outcomes are solely determined by your actions, the first example would be right."
VS: - "If we live in a world where everyone is altruistic, cares for the greater good and does not push for egoistic actions against reasonable interests of others, the second example would be right"
You: - "But sadly this is a dream world that does not exist. Illness, birth defects, accidents, even when you are not responsible or did anything wrong can alter your life."
VS: - "But sadly this is a dream world that does not exist. Egostism, machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy exist in the most 'advanced' of societies and in the most respected individuals. The world is not made up of angels and each of those can ruin everything if you give them too much power over others."
You: - "Who looks out for the blind? Tells the deft and speaks up for the mute?"
VS: - "Who limits the one seeking power for corrupt reasons by pretending to do good for others ?"
You: - "Because the reality is, that there are people who require help by default and by no fault of their own, we need a world like in the 2nd example.
The first one is simply not reality and sadly will never be."
VS: - "Because the reality is, that there are people who would use the position of savior and power for personal gains and force everybody else and by no fault of those other people, to do what they proclaim all in the pretens to be altruistic.
The second one is simply not reality and sadly, never will be."
I would personally always go for a democratic mixture with division of power and federalism, so that if one system becomes corrupt, people have the chance to evade and starve it of its resources.
Another thought:
The first one can build wealth by eradicating limits to freedom.
The second one can only be built by being wealthy already and only so far, as it is not sabotaging the foundation of your wealth.
I simply make an observation.
In my reality, people are not the same. They never have the exact same starting points and there is no guarantee that you will forever be healthy and never involved in an accident.
I found that in life shit can and does happen.
As a society we either help each other or let each other die.
Everthing else just prolongs suffering.
@@salihnu I think you are convolving different things. You make an observation, say that the first is not possible, so the second has to be better. What you do not seem to consider is that the second might not be better.
There is a middle ground between "helping" and "letting each other die" and "prolonging suffering", because not all "help" is usefull and not all "suffering" is harmful.
An extreme example that still holds general knowledge:
"helping" somebody who is screwing up his life pushes him deeper into self caused misery, but
"hurting" him in the short run by telling him his faults might "help" him much more in the long run.
Lily's desired "freedoms" are not freedoms at all but entitlements. She is free to get healthcare and pursue her dreams, but she does not have the means to do it and thinks she is entitled to them.
A continuing gross weakness in these presentations is ignoring the scope of governance. With private property (as in personal life, liberty, and property) there is the need of individual rights and freedoms. With public property (as in air and water that leaves private property or on public lands) there is the need for collective rights and freedoms. The private scope is up to the individual to manage while the public is up to the society to manage. I live in a house that had to change its design because it had too many windows having two for the corner bedrooms. It would be okay to limit the amount of windows on public buildings to what the collective felt appropriate; but, not my home on private land! I have the freedom to walk around naked on my property. If I want to walk around naked on public lands, society may have deemed that inappropriate forbidding it. I have the right to teach my kids what I feel appropriate. If I put my kids into a public teaching institution, society will be determining what is appropriate for the kids. I have the freedom to pollute my body in private or on my land. In public spaces, society may have decided I may not drink sugar drinks, smoke drugs, nor enjoy pizza. Usually for private there are prohibitions while for public there are permissions. If society did not endorse a "freedom of speech" in public spaces then speech in public would only be that allowed by the collective.
How to explain the differences between republicans and democrats without telling people you're doing so... :)
Communism vs Capitalism (freedom)
The first case is like socialism and the second one capitalism
Tell me you don't know what socialism is without telling me you don't know what socialism is.
first
Frank believes being forced to do things you don't want is unfair (being forced is unfair). Lilly believes being free for others to do what you want is unfair (being free is unfair).