Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. “ Equal Rights Amendment
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
I’m telling you, the greatest political advancements in the history of mankind have been constructed under the umbrella of negative liberty.
Both positive and negative liberty restrict freedom. In fact, this is the purpose of government, to restrict freedom. “If men were angels, no government would be needed.” But, the government should provide as much freedom as possible without tipping the needle toward chaos.
Since freedom is the highest good for humanity, and government, by its very nature must restrict it, government is fundamentally against the highest good for humanity. Therefore, government must work in such as way as to restrict freedom as little as possible. And the front line of this governance is the opposing sides of positive and negative liberty. And the first squad on the front line is how the government constructs laws.
It seems counter intuitive to say that negative liberty (that which restricts) provides greater freedom than positive liberty (that which enables) but that’s what I’m going to argue now.
Consider these two “laws”
Negative Liberty: Don’t kill your neighbor.
Positive Liberty: Ensure that your neighbor lives.
Which one of these laws restricts liberty the most? In the negative liberty example, I am only required to commit no murder. If that were the only law, it implies that I could steal from him, lie to him, beat him up, steal his wife and drink all his beer if I were so inclined. Of course, additional laws are required but constructed in such a way that the citizen is told what may NOT be done, rather than what MUST be done.
Look at the positive liberty command, “Ensure that my neighbor lives.” This command enslaves me to my neighbor. It requires that I make sure he is well fed, that he takes care of himself, that he doesn’t smoke or drink, that he drives carefully and wears a seatbelt. Not only that, it requires me to keep an eye on him to make sure he does these things when he thinks no one is looking.
Of course, moral philosophy is generally phrased positively. It must be. “Love your neighbor” “Do unto others and you would have them do unto you”. This is because the person is telling you how to live your life. And rightfully so, it is the purpose of moral philosophy. But, we are talking here about government, not religion or morality.
Proponents of Positive Liberty argue that the government ought to be a reflection of our morals. (Some proponents on the Right argue this as well, but they’re confused) That if we should “feed the poor” that WE THE PEOPLE should “feed the poor” through the instrument of government.
But here is the greatest danger. When Jesus says, “Feed the Poor” the command is not backed up with threat of force and imprisonment. Jesus never said, “If you give me the money, I’ll feed the poor for you.” This is what Boatmoney was saying in a previous article and I didn’t quite understand it. But I think I do now. A moral command from an individual is left for you to choose whether or not to follow it. That is what makes it a moral choice.
Listen to this closely. When a politician says, “We will feed the poor” he is NOT saying “I will feed the poor” or “You should feed the poor”. He is saying that “I will make you feed the poor by taking your money and giving it to them. And if you don’t, I’ll throw your ass in prison.” This is not a moral choice on your part, this is coercion. And you can bet your ass that the politician is NOT paying a single red dime to feed the poor, he is forcing you to and giving himself a pat on the back.
But let’s go further, because this is what government does. The government works under the premise “All people will be provided an equal opportunity”. And this takes a tremendous amount of resources. Trillions of dollars a year to be exact. And laws, my god so many LAWS!! We have to have an army of politicians and institutions shuffling money and paper and court documents and lawyers (my God the LAWYERS!!!) all to insure that every one is PROVIDED with equal opportunity.
Not only that, but because the government must tax and accrue an incredible amount of resources to do this, we citizens now become enslaved to the media. Because these assholes must be WATCHED! With trillions of dollars running through the open veins of D.C., we have to be constantly watching them because we know they will (and do) steal from us.
In a negative liberty statement, “The Government shall not hinder, nor allow others to hinder, another’s opportunity on the basis of their race, gender or religion”, the only resources that are needed are a single law and provisions for enforcement. Instead of being forced to provide my neighbor with opportunity, I am simply required to not hinder it without spending my every waking moment thinking about what he might be doing (or who he may be marrying). The government requires less resources to carry out its mandate and I am not enslaved to being a political watchdog.
I remain free to live my life away from Fox News and MSNBC.
But it really all comes down to this. I do not, under any circumstances, trust the men and women who make up our governing body. They have given me absolutely no reason to in 200 years (in 10,000 years for that matter) because the very nature of the people who want power makes them untrustworthy to have any.
This is what Boatmoney was saying earlier: Proponants of positive liberty want to pay some higher taxes and feel like they have made a moral (or patriotic) choice, but they really haven’t. All they have done, is empowered the politicians with more money, and more say over their lives. In order to make their moral choices easier, they have simply enslaved themselves to the state.
There. I did it. Not elegant, but there it is. Positive and Negative Liberty and why I am for Negative Liberty. Feel free to argue with me now. The arguments have been laid out.
Thanks for slugging your way through all this and helping me out along the way.
There are some who would argue that government should exist to protect liberty. Our constitutional republic was designed to do just that. One could argue that in protecting liberty government is in fact limiting freedom, and I suppose that is right. Protecting the right to due process of law does restrict the freedom of the mob to go out and lynch Joe-blow.
I agree with you completely. Government should restrict liberty; humanity in it’s current state should not allowed to be completely free.
But where we draw that line is the matter at hand…
Josh can you put these all in a single word file, compress it, and email it to me. Good stuff. Seems I hear echos of old ECA high school lectures.
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.
Nat's Blog - My Amigo
Mollygrubs - The Dr. is quite MAD!
Zombo - You can do anything
Website by Ryan Crisman
I’ve really enjoyed reading these. And while never so eloquent as you, I too am “for” negative liberty. But that is a long ramble I’ll not tag on this.