As promised, I’m going to try to muddle my way through positive liberty. Here, I will try to offer the reason why I believe this argument is compelling and worth hearing. Then in a later article, I will present my argument why I believe that, in the end, positive liberty is more constricting of liberty and not within the realm of federal governance.
What is positive liberty? To reiterate, positive liberty in a political sense is about the government enabling people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To put it in an incredibly simplistic way, positive liberty would say something like, “The government will help racial minorities pay for college” as opposed to a negative liberty statement like, “The government will not bar racial minorities from college nor restrict any financial assistance to them.”
Positive liberty states that the government must work in a pro-active way to provide people with the resources necessary to live a free life. Many American government programs are based on the idea of Positive liberty. The most obvious examples are welfare programs, student loan assistance, the proposed health care system reforms, racial quotas, and so on.
Nothing is more insidious than positive liberty in the hands of a dictator. The twentieth century is filled with dictators or oligarchies hiding their corruption, suppression, and even murder behind concepts of positive liberty. The USSR, China, and modern day Venezuela are example of totalitarian brutalism in the name of positive liberty. And most conservative pundits argue that totalitarian brutalism and positive liberty go hand in hand. But this is a false causal relationship. It’s like blasting the whole of Christianity because of witch burnings. The argument at hand is positive liberty in the hands of a democracy or republic. In the hands of a corrupt government, there is no liberty whether positive or negative. So those pundits (God I HATE THEM!) who scream and yell and even cry and lament that the USA is going to become the Soviet Union because of liberals have either misunderstood the problem or are purposely getting viewers riled up to increase their ratings. I’m going with the latter. If anyone is destroying the USA it’s pundits. I’m not kidding.
Positive liberty demands that all people have an equal chance to life, liberty and the pursuit if happiness. Mr. A and Miss B want to be nuclear physicists. Mr. A comes from a rich family, he lives in a safe neighborhood, he went to the finest schools and his father went to Harvard. Miss B comes from a single parent family, is very poor, lives in a gang/drug infested neighborhood, she went to 3 high schools none of which had a descent library and 20% of the students were illiterate. On top of all that, the world of nuclear physics is a male dominated world that practically bans women from full participation. These two people do not have an equal chance at pursuing their potential. Obviously, Mr. A doesn’t need any help. If he applies himself he’ll get what he wants. Hell, if his father is rich enough he may get what he wants even if he doesn’t apply himself.
Miss B, though there’s a problem. There are so many challenges there. First, her single mom needs financial assistance, next we need different job opportunities for the young men on the streets selling drugs and shooting each other, the schools in the neighborhood need more money to be properly staffed and supplied, and last we need to insure that the world of nuclear physics allows opportunity for all qualified people to participate. That’s a lot of stuff there.
So, why should the government be involved here? There are a lot of good church programs and private charities out there! Why should the government be taking care of this problem? Before we answer that, let’s ask a different question. Who is the government? In a democracy or a democratic/republic WE are the government. The government is not some separate cabal conspiring to destroy us. If we are truly a democracy, then the government is us. So we have nothing to fear! The democratically elected government is simply us organized, brought together and given the power to make the changes we want. So why wouldn’t we want to get together and help Miss B pursue her dreams and at the same time make our streets safer and schools better?
Church programs and private charities do a great many wonderful things, but only government has the scope, the power and the resources to make real changes. Let’s be honest here. Thousands of churches across the country are working miracles bring meals and comfort to the needy. BUT churches do not have the ability or resources to help those people get out of the situation they are in. There are other private volunteer groups by the thousands to help people find jobs and make their lives better. But all these organizations work separately and independently of each other with no coordination. The government is far better suited for the central planning necessary to help all Americans live a better life. The government already has the bureaucracy in place, the infrastructure in place and all the tools they need to bring change in people’s lives. No other organization, not a single one, has the scope to really bring assistance. What organization could bring together and coordinate all the necessary pieces to bring about affordable loans to poor aspiring college students? Who else could possibly give assistance to every struggling educational institution across the country? What other organization can bring help to every struggling family out there?
This is the heart of the progressive movement. It demands that citizens are pro-active in government. It demands that we the people become more involved in expressing our values. And since only the government is our collective medium for this, it is through government that we speak. It demands a free press to keep an eye on the politicians we hire. The government is our statement about ourselves to the world. If our government is not providing help to the poor, the minorities, and the oppressed then WE are not doing it either. We are the government.
I think I have presented the argument for positive liberty fairly without creating a straw man. If you have something to add about positive liberty, or feel I have misrepresented it please let me know. For those of you are against it, please hold your thoughts for now. You will have your turn.
Before I get to why I think negative liberty offers more liberty and a freer society for everyone, next I will write some thoughts about the “American Dream”. Thanks for reading. More to Come!
You mean I wrote all that and I don’t even get a small response? Pfft.
Easy there, skipper. LOL, I had to think about your comment for a while, came up with my answer and then forgot to write it! Sorry. It was rude of me. Shitsurei shimashita!
For proponents of positive liberty there should be no seperation between the governing and the governed. They demand high government activism. This is why you are more likely to see “liberal” protestors than “conservative”. Looking at Miss B’s situation, the view of positive liberty is that her problem is systemic. No amount of “widow’s pennies” are going to fix that. And since the government created that system, only through government can it be changed.
I think you may have confused your terms. No one is equating government assistance with altruism here. I know I may have in past conversations, but I was wrong to do so. Government assistance and altruism are not exclusive of one another. A welfare program does not relieve us of our duty to one another. As far as Christ’s opinion of governance, I would say he was rather nonchalant about it and in fact stayed away from politics. So to say whether or not Christ was for or against Medicare is problematic.
“Should we pay taxes?”
“Who’s picture is on this dollar bill?”
“George Washington”
“Well, give to George the things that are George's. Give to God the things that are God's.”
As for that “stuffy bureaucrat shuffling papers”, be grateful for them. I am. They are what keeps government running from year to year. They are the one’s who pay our soldiers, keeps files of criminal’s DNA, and put gas in our space shuttles. It doesn’t matter if you’re a small church, a town or an Empire, if there is no beauracracy there is only chaos. Are they perfect? Who is? My two cents.
To sum up positive liberty’s rebuttal: A person can and should do both. A citizenry should express their wishes for a better world individually and collectively. Sometimes, the only way is through government action like the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Sometimes, a homeless man just needs a meal. And sometimes, it’s much more complicated than that.
You are a wonderful positive liberal.
Um, you may have misunderstood me. I was simply making the case fairly for positive liberty. I am in fact, against it. I will make the case, and a more compelling one I believe, for negative liberty. If you thought this article was my defense of positive liberty you misread it. It isn’t. Before I argue against it, I have to state what it is.
Where I disagree with you is not on a basis of right vs left or conservative vs liberal (I am really neither) but in your statement that liberals believe that government assistance is a substitute for altruism. Some do, some don’t.
The following are my personal beliefs on your comments:
1)That Christ made no statements concerning this matter. In fact, purposely stayed away from politics even though he had been given every opportunity.
2)That the word “bureaucrat” is not a naughty word.
The rest is trying to make sure I get the positive liberty argument correct before I argue against it.
Well said.
1. I didn’t say that our Lord Jesus Christ made any political comments either. If you read it that way, then I didn’t articulate my thoughts properly. But Christ did speak on human relations which are certainly relevant in politics.
2. I used the term bureaucrat negatively, but it was not a general attack on the position.
Argue on, you crazy diamond.
Recent Daily:
Our Trip to America Part 1
A Happy Wedding and Baby Video
Bottom Biting Bug
The Value of Flashing
Hugh Jackman Gets Groped
A little Enka!
I like Chinese
Napping and Bitching
Damned Hilarious
The Evergreen English Academy
Recent Random Rambles:
Think you can play keys?
Watch this! Unreal.
Inspiration from Olympia
Civic Rambling: On Negative Liberty
Civic Rambling: On Liberty Part 4
Civic Rambling: On Liberty Part 3
Sports Day Pics
Stephen Cobert's Alpha Dog of the Week
The Media
Civic Rambling: On Liberty Part 2
Links:
FailBlog - This site makes me raff.
Mollygrubs - The Dr. is quite MAD!
Zombo - You can do anything
Nat's Blog - My Amigo
Website by Ryan Crisman
This is quite an argument. I’ll say one thing which I haven’t thought out and I may not be able to articulate to my satisfaction. You wrote that we are the government. This is true. But I don’t think we can leave it there. I think everyone can agree in practice there is a degree of separation between the people and the governing body. Good deeds need to come straight from the heart. It’s true that a single individual doesn’t always have the resources to tackle a certain issue, but on the other hand, if that individual’s big contribution to society is his voter ballot, he’s falling far short of contribution. People being involved on a personal level, organized or individually is the essence of what I believe God is asking of his creation for their personal responsibility to care for each other. Some stuffy bureaucrat shuffling papers in a government office is not what our Lord had in mind when he talked about altruism. Government may seem like an easy solution, but the rewards of civic involvement are far greater.