this was brilliantly explained, I appreciate the inclusion of practical examples and its application in relation to the welfare state and libertarianism, thank you!
if only my prof would teach this clearly ... 3 hours in class and I couldn't understand a single word, 10 mins here and I'm already a pro in it lol thanks a lot
Taking "Classical Political Thought" and "American Slavery" courses at my University currently and I found this video incredibly helpful and informative!
I really like this video. I'm a lover of negative rights, and this video helps me at least see the other side of my staunch beliefs. It has provided me with a shovel to the rabbit hole I was looking for.
I had always thought I was free, but after listening to this video, I found I am just free negatively. I love the positive liberty and I like your expression about the difference about negative and positive liberty. May recognizing what is the negative liberty and the positive liberty, it's more likely to achieve positive liberty. Looking forward to your next video.
great video on discussing these two types of liberty. I use to be a Ron Paul supporter and even an anarcho capitalist until I objectively evaluted what I was reading from people like Murry Rothbard and Frédéric Bastiat. I realized by focusing soley on negative liberty it would lead to massive parts of the population to be uneducated and consumed by poverty. Btw an other good video would be to evaluate equality. Many people say they support equality but they don't always mean the same thing.
+James Tibbs The free market does not make the poor poorer and the rich richer. In the free market, everyone becomes richer through time. You may end up with a smaller share of the 'pie'. But the 'pie' will become increasingly bigger. Today, in America, everyone can afford it's own food, shelter, water, electricity and transport. In the near future (around 50 years), everyone will be able to afford healthcare and education.
+Frank AnCap Reason and logic is to find a good balance between negative and positive liberty. Too far in one direction leads to corporate or government tyranny and then to civil war.
@@m.v.d.4615 Negative rights don’t lead to either corporate or government tyranny. If the state isn’t given the power to do something, then the corporations cannot lobby the state to do it.
@@VeryProPlayerYesSir1122 One of the important words in the A. J. Liebling quote is "guaranteed." For example, several years ago Ron Reagan Jr. recorded an ad for Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) urging people to support separation of church and state. They applied to run the ad during the Super Bowl but the OWNER of the media corporation refused to run the ad. OWNERS of media can legally refuse to run ads they don't like. So even though FFRF had plenty of money, they couldn't access the media platform. Your point is technically true in that I could easily print a stack of ads on my home printer and post them around town, but my "positive freedom" to access the wide distribution of a TV network is not "guaranteed." One would need the resources of a Rupert Murdoch to buy and OWN a giant media company to be "guaranteed" that access. I think this is a good illustration of Berlin's concept of "positive freedom."
I've been Googling a variation of this topic for months, even asking directly to my lawyer friends the differences between these two liberties, all to no avail. And just as I was beginning to think nobody really knew the difference--that this was just some murky legal philosophy tossed around by entitled patricians--this guy comes around and totally redeems them all! Yeah, this was super helpful. Thanks!
Let's not forget that among resources one should also consider 'time'. If one works 50-hours a week and a good income, is that truly freedom? I guess it's personal, but the importance of time is often overlooked.
negative liberty is the true liberty But we shouldn't deny that the positive one is also a strong portion of liberty itself, so the freedom of being educated will never be attained without internet, books, scholars(other people), education system (schools)
I had a hard time making sense of the term, but this actually cleared up many more things i couldn't understand, like libertarism and the difference of the american left and right parties. Thank you for the video!
We can individually exercise the mercy we are freely given, humanity, not just as a society, but person to person, and good judgement for ourselves for one another and find we are free. I'm not always right but I know grace and building relationships will see us through. Fan of MLK. Llee
Although John Stuart Mill does discuss what you call negative liberty, in his essay On Liberty he outlines a political philosophy that is derived from the positive liberty to be able to contribute to society as a whole through innovative ideas and ways of living. He argues that this positive liberty is a public utility from which everyone stands to benefit. From his argument it follows that to deny any group access to this positive liberty on grounds of gender, race or social class is harmful to society because it deprives society of potential benefits that these groups could contribute to society.
I would say one thing that negative liberty has going for it is that it actually can be delivered. Trying to achieve a concept like eradicating everyone's fear or want is ridiculous on its face. Even without going to extremely phobic places, these things can openly oppose each other, i.e. one person may be afraid of people owning guns while another person would be afraid of not having one.
So question, two treaties of government by John Locke, I understand that our Constitution and bill of rights have a lot of influence from John Locke and natural law. So my question is, what kind of freedom/sovereignty is John Locke writing about?
Locke's liberty is largely a negative liberty in terms of non-interference but it could be interpreted as having elements of positive liberty because the social contract implements a governing structure to protect LLP.
At 0:30 you say: "Negative liberty can be defined as the freedom from outside interference, the operative word being from. Whereas positive liberty is the freedom to act upon one's will, the operative word being to." Later at 7:20 you contradict that very statement, saying: "Freedom from want, and freedom from fear. These are positive liberties that he is talking about..."
You can't ignore what the "from" and the "to" are referring to. "From an external force" and "to act upon one's will." Negative liberties protect you and your property from others. Positive liberties entitle others to you and your property (or entitle you to someone else's person or property). "Freedom from want" can be understood as imposing an obligation on others to satisfy your wants, which would make it a positive liberty. Reformulated using "from" and "to", it might be "freedom to someone's property to satisfy my wants."
It’s simple actually, “want” and “fear” aren’t external. They aren’t “outside” interference. FDR’s positive liberties are stupid, though. No human has ever enjoyed them.
@Tom Richey great video! I was just wondering; would you identify Jean-Jacques Rousseau as of having a more negative or positive concept/view on liberty? He argues that we should return to the natural state and leave the 'social contract'/civilisation behind, but at the same time he argues that the solution for this problem is for some rational people to constitute good laws?
Thanks a lot im doing an exam based on on liberty and this really helps. Just a question though. Isn't FDR's freedom from fear negative freedom because that's freedom from feeling afraid?
Like! Greate explanation! I have a question: Negative liberty is very important to me but I want our society to provide a common and universal basic minimum standard for all, like basic food, basic shelter, basic healthcare, basic education and even basic income. And I am willing to pay higher taxes to achieve this. What ideology do I belong to?
I did a test and now I know what I am: A libertarian socialist. 8values.github.io/results.html?e=90.2&d=88.8&g=89.6&s=96.3 www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-8.5&soc=-8.21 www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Libertarian%20Socialism
If it is argued that wealth is being held unjustly. Then denying someone access to that wealth is an infringement of negative liberty. There is NO NEED to appeal to a spurious positive liberty!
Great explanation! Thanks. Especially that part with the slave and the notion of positive liberty. Also, I'm writing a paper on Rousseau and I'm inclined to think that we can locate in his writings both conceptions of freedom (freedom from x) and (freedom for x). What's your take on that? Thanks in advance and keep up awesome work!
