NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm dying here for a good topic...one I can sink my teeth into for another hour or so before I go home...any suggestions?

Occ! Come say something to p*ss me off! :D

Edit: damn, she's off line.

Daddy or chips

Discuss

Daddy or chips

Discuss
A jar of almonds.

Popeye's fried chicken vs. KFC

I say Popeye's spicy cajun style is the best fried chicken ever. It's juicy, spicy and delicious. KFC tastes like deep-fried cardboard.

bah you yanks wont get my awsome satire of, McKains oven chips adverts

Popeye's fried chicken vs. KFC

I say Popeye's spicy cajun style is the best fried chicken ever. It's juicy, spicy and delicious. KFC tastes like deep-fried cardboard.
Never had Popeye's. Are they in Canada? Do you get spinach with that?

Canada: French or English?
Decide goddammit! :mad:

Stealing silverware and such similar things from public restaraunts.

Debate classic literature or movies or something... I did it with Orwell, and it seemed to go pretty good and didn't wind up degenerating into a flamewar or religious bickering.

Actually, I'm gonna see how that thread's doing now.

Never had Popeye's. Are they in Canada? Do you get spinach with that?
Not sure if they have a location in Canada. They don't have spinach, but they do have Cajun rice, beans and rice, crawfish, and many other fine foods to choose from.

I'm dying here for a good topic...one I can sink my teeth into for another hour or so before I go home...any suggestions?
Positive Liberty vs. Negative Liberty?

Positive Liberty vs. Negative Liberty?
Hmmm...I'm intrigued...define the two please.

De Bate - it's what u use to catch de fish

De Bate - it's what u use to catch de fish
debate

"Hey Joe, wanna go fishin'?"
"Alright, ya got debate?"

debate

Hmmm...I'm intrigued...define the two please.

Negative liberty is the right NOT to have something done to you - like the right not to be mugged.

Positive liberty is the right to recieve something, like the right to a house, or free food, or whatever other recievable thing people say is a right.

What about Reversed Positive Liberty - The mug to the right

Popeye's fried chicken vs. KFC

I say Popeye's spicy cajun style is the best fried chicken ever. It's juicy, spicy and delicious. KFC tastes like deep-fried cardboard.

Really? How good is deep-fried cardboard? :p

Negative liberty is the right NOT to have something done to you - like the right not to be mugged.

Positive liberty is the right to recieve something, like the right to a house, or free food, or whatever other recievable thing people say is a right.
I'm into that...

Ok, so most human rights are basically negative rights then?

Really? How good is deep-fried cardboard? :p
It's not so bad with enough hotsauce.

Hmmm...I'm intrigued...define the two please.
(NB: It has been a while since I had to study this so I may get certain things wrong, I'll do a google search after the post and correct any mistakes, positive liberty is the bitch).

IIRC it wa Isiah Berlin that coined the phrases "negative liberty" and "positive liberty."

Negative Liberty: The concept that most of us in the west have of Liberty. That is, the absence of controling forces on the individual. This is the easier one to understand (for me at least), mainly because we are bought up as having this concept of Liberty.

Positive Liberty: This is usually traced to Kant, the idea being that one is not automatically free because there are no resrictions on the individual. It stresses you must take control of your life. That is act with reason. For example a junkie is not free if they are on their way to their dealer to get their fix. They are under the control of something other then their rationality. To be free in the positive sence on must strip away all things that stop the will from being its own such as desires, likes, dislikes etc. After that the mind is capable of making rational objective decisions.

I'll have to do some googling so bear with me :)

I'm into that...

Ok, so most human rights are basically negative rights then?

Well that's where the disagreement pops up. Some people think that people's only human rights are negative rights, in which case they figure that yes, you have the right not to be murdered or stolen from etc etc. Most nations protect their populace's negative rights.

But some people feel that people also have the right to food or housing or free health care and so on.

Often the question arises as to whether giving someone food so they don't die is protecting a positive or negative right. Some might argue that people have the right not to die from starvation, but others might say that food was too obvious a positive right and so on and so forth.

Also, in some cases, positive and negative rights run into eachother and conflict. Do smokers have the right TO smoke in a public place, or do non-smokers have the right NOT to inhale second hand smoke?

This is why it's such a potentially complex discussion point.

Uh-oh...we have two different definitions...

Negative liberty is the right NOT to have something done to you - like the right not to be mugged.

Positive liberty is the right to recieve something, like the right to a house, or free food, or whatever other recievable thing people say is a right.
I wish I could be that succinct. :(

Positive Liberty: This is usually traced to Kant, the idea being that one is not automatically free because there are no resrictions on the individual. It stresses you must take control of your life. That is act with reason. For example a junkie is not free if they are on their way to their dealer to get their fix. They are under the control of something other then their rationality. To be free in the positive sence on must strip away all things that stop the will from being its own such as desires, likes, dislikes etc. After that the mind is capable of making rational objective decisions.


That's a tricky one though, because it's sometimes hard to define what is desire and what is objective reason. Since people so often agree on objective reason, is it even true that such a logical absolute exists? I mean, we're influenced by our surroundings all the time. That's unavoidable. To strip away all external influence is to completely isolate the individual, which is impossible anyway, since the absence of anything could be considered an influence itself.

I love where this thread is going...it's getting brainy, though it began with fluff:)

I wish I could be that succinct. :(

Don't worry, I'm probably wrong on some level. I was just trying to give a sort of topic introduction without plunging into a great lengthy philosophical treatise. Which I did in my next post after that anyway. Ah well.

That's a tricky one though, because it's sometimes hard to define what is desire and what is objective reason. Since people so often agree on objective reason, is it even true that such a logical absolute exists? I mean, we're influenced by our surroundings all the time. That's unavoidable. To strip away all external influence is to completely isolate the individual, which is impossible anyway, since the absence of anything could be considered an influence itself.

True. But isn't this why Hegel put such a lot of stress upon the type of society required for (his concept of) freedom to exist?

Don't worry, I'm probably wrong on some level. I was just trying to give a sort of topic introduction without plunging into a great lengthy philosophical treatise. Which I did in my next post after that anyway. Ah well.

You still put it better then I could though ;)

Which is why I am so bad at essays, I never know how to use on word so I put ten in it's place. Getting better though, so there is hope :D

True. But isn't this why Hegel put such a lot of stress upon the type of society required for (his concept of) freedom to exist?

I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're getting at. I'm not exactly a Hegel expert, I'm only familiar with his ideas about the evolution of society in terms of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, and thus of the interconnectedness of past and present social situations. What was his emphasis as far as freedom-related utopia is concerned?

Which is why I am so bad at essays, I never know how to use on word so I put ten in it's place. Getting better though, so there is hope

Don't worry, with essay technique it's often good to be able to spam clever-sounding words in great quantities at your reader, you've just got to make sure you do it in the right places :D

That's a tricky one though, because it's sometimes hard to define what is desire and what is objective reason. Since people so often agree on objective reason, is it even true that such a logical absolute exists? I mean, we're influenced by our surroundings all the time. That's unavoidable. To strip away all external influence is to completely isolate the individual, which is impossible anyway, since the absence of anything could be considered an influence itself.
but once you strip all influence away, doesn't that just leave you with nothing but desire? to aquire some substance, experience , feeling?

but once you strip all influence away, doesn't that just leave you with nothing but desire? to aquire some substance, experience , feeling?

What I should have said was not desire, but rather, reason based on desire. My point was that this kind of reason is inseperable from what one might consider objective reason, because to create absolute impartiality from desire or from external influence is to remove all input on which reason can be based.

I understand what you're getting at though, but I think desire for experience would have to be classed as something which would generate bias too, so that too would be removed. So objective reason is impossible, because to remove all factors detrimental to objectivity is to remove all factors on which reason can be based.

I'm sorry if my delivery is becoming more and more foggy. I understand what I mean, I hope it's coherent enough for everybody else.

Sorry Sinhue, I'm not debating unless you promise not to pounce :p ;) :D

What I should have said was not desire, but rather, reason based on desire. My point was that this kind of reason is inseperable from what one might consider objective reason, because to create absolute impartiality from desire or from external influence is to remove all input on which reason can be based.

I understand what you're getting at though, but I think desire for experience would have to be classed as something which would generate bias too, so that too would be removed. So objective reason is impossible, because to remove all factors detrimental to objectivity is to remove all factors on which reason can be based.

I'm sorry if my delivery is becoming more and more foggy. I understand what I mean, I hope it's coherent enough for everybody else.
i actually understand what you are saying here. and i agree.

I kind of feel (assuming I have analyzed the two positions correctly) that government should only be engaged in the defense of "negative liberties" as the definition of positive liberties here suggests that people are entitled to sustenance whether or not they work, and we all know that society cannot function unless government forces all citizens to engage in some kind of socially approved work to make their sustenance. (i.e If a man should not work, than neither should he eat.)
Defending negative liberties enforces this concept by bringing punitive action against individuals who attempt to achieve their desires by taking advantage of other citizens engaged in socially approved work and taking their resources.
Of course there also instances where people become incapacitated and need someone else to defend their "positive liberties" and these need to be determined by society on a case-by-case basis.

I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're getting at. I'm not exactly a Hegel expert, I'm only familiar with his ideas about the evolution of society in terms of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, and thus of the interconnectedness of past and present social situations. What was his emphasis as far as freedom-related utopia is concerned?

From what I remember, Hegel thought that freedom was only compatible with one form of government and society (the Rational Community). The Government was to be a Constitutional Monarchy (who had limited power) with a parliament, but with a restricted franchise on voting (he was no democrat). The monarch was to be supported by a dedicated civil service that would be thouroughly meritocratic (as well as being appointed by the monarch). The Civil service would make up the executive. The legitslature would be made up of two houses. The upper house, made up of the landed class. And the lower house, that would be made up of the business class. (NB: the lower house would represent the large-scale interests of the professional guilds and corporations rather then individual citizens) The idea being that a constitutional monarch could be an impartial arbitrator and could rationally have the power for giving a final decision. This presupposes that the monarch is free of any ulterior motives of course and is free of class interests. He also believes that in a stable enough community the monarch need only behave as the British monarchy (insofar that they are just a rubber stamp)

In terms of society he believed in three main aspects, the family, the corporations and the wider society.

(I should say that I should dig out my notes, but my organisation is unorthodox to say the least and my notes have probably disappeared into L-space)

The (nuclear) family teaches us to be altruistic and to be considerate of other people. As well as beginning our developement as people. However the family is inherently unstable. We grow and age and leave it, which is where the wider society and corporations come into play. But I am stuck with out my notes so this is shaky at best.