![]() "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. It sure puts this quote of Jefferson's into context: Obviously the person in the house has a right to have freedom from being harassed, and everyone would agree to this, and so we are back at the balancing of positive and negative liberties.Īs a side note, would you believe that Thomas Jefferson considered "freedom from monopolies" as a fundamental human right? He wanted to have freedom from monopolies in commerce included in the bill of rights and he wanted a law forbidding the creation of standing armies, but unfortunately this stopped by George Washington and John Adams. I don't believe that anyone who has truly considered liberties would believe in pure positive liberty – that if someone had a megaphone and stood infront of someone's house and constantly yelled abuse at them would be somehow acceptable in a pure positive liberty of freedom to say whatever they like. This is balanced by the negative liberty of freedom from being subject of libelous statements etc. This is freedom to say whatever you please. In short a negative liberty can be understood as 'freedom from' and postive liberty can be understood as 'freedom to'.įor example, in the US there is protection around freedom of speech. Isaiah Berlin is well-regarded for introducing the concepts of positive and negative liberty, but actually Erich Fromm (of Frankfurt School fame) was the first person to bring up discussions of this understanding of liberty. There's a point that I think is being overlooked here, and it is that freedom and equality aren't necessarily opposing concepts - that if we look at issues from the perspective of negative and positive liberty it might help make more sense of the matter. Where do you place yourself, and what do freedom and equality mean to you? An additional complication is that freedom can mean different things to, say, an AnCap vs. I would place myself in this category.Įven among those for whom freedom is important, some of them care mostly only about freedom for themselves, while others care about freedom for everyone. ![]() A lot of anarchists of various persuasions fall in this category. People who care about both freedom and equality, but believe the two must move forward together, in lock-step. ![]() Some (but not all) state socialists fall in this category. People who care about both freedom and equality, but believe equality will tend to lead to freedom over time. Some (but not all) AnCaps fall in this category. People who care about both freedom and equality, but believe freedom will tend to lead to equality over time. Some (but not all) AnCaps fall in this category, and also, I suppose, post-left anarchists, but I don't know as much about their beliefs. People who care about freedom, but not equality. Some (but not all) state socialists of the Communist variety fall in this category. People who care about equality, but not freedom. I don't think anything in this category could be called anarchist. People who don't care about freedom or equality. Here are some of the different categories: I think this is the most fundamental and interesting way to categorize different anarchist beliefs. Basic questions should go to /r/Anarchy101. General discussion should go to /r/Anarchism. They must be on-topic, clear, intelligible, and succinct. Be charitable in your treatment of your interlocutor's argument. This subreddit does not qualify as a safe space topics and discussions may include triggers. Warning: Debate Anarchism is intended in part to serve as a front line for engagement with non-anarchists and therefore does not enforce /r/Anarchism's AOP. Challenge, Debate, and Discuss Anarchism!Īll political beliefs are welcome: Post your debate challenge, and see if any anarchists take you up on it!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |