Super-power
27-05-2005, 15:39
A lot of times on the NS board, I hear people complaining that certain economic/social freedoms are considered 'negative liberty' because they supposedly "harm" other people.
Well I'd like to correct the definition of negative liberty.
Negative liberty, in reality "is the absence of coercion from others." In other words, it is freedom from being forced to do something against one's own will, be it by the government OR the people.
We see aspects of negative liberty in the US's own constitution:
The First and Second Amendment - they are written as such, so that people are garunteed protection from gov't coercion (be it govt censorship of media/speech/religion or taking away firearms)
Take a look at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty) for a more in-depth look at negative liberty, and for counterpoints, here's the link to positive liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty)
Well I'd like to correct the definition of negative liberty.
Negative liberty, in reality "is the absence of coercion from others." In other words, it is freedom from being forced to do something against one's own will, be it by the government OR the people.
We see aspects of negative liberty in the US's own constitution:
The First and Second Amendment - they are written as such, so that people are garunteed protection from gov't coercion (be it govt censorship of media/speech/religion or taking away firearms)
Take a look at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty) for a more in-depth look at negative liberty, and for counterpoints, here's the link to positive liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty)