Talk:Positive liberty

message: Metaphysical libertarians believe in free will and that individuals should be able to make their own choices without external constraints. As a result, they often view freedom and liberty as central values in their philosophy.
However, different people may have different understandings of what these terms mean. For metaphysical libertarians, freedom and liberty may be tightly linked to their belief in free will and individual autonomy. They may view any external constraints on an individual's actions or choices as an infringement on their freedom and liberty.
Therefore, to ensure that these concepts align with their philosophical beliefs, metaphysical libertarians may seek to control the meaning of the words "freedom" and "liberty." They may argue that the common usage of these terms does not accurately capture their specific philosophical views, and may therefore insist on defining these terms in a way that aligns with their beliefs.
Overall, the desire to control the meaning of these words is likely rooted in the deep-seated belief that freedom and liberty are fundamental to their worldview and that any deviations from their understanding of these concepts would be a threat to their philosophical beliefs.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edunoramus (talk • contribs) 16:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preamble for the Metaphysical Libertarians

message: The citations are done incorrectly, no? I don't have time to change them now.
Why have an article where the criticism of the idea is twice as long as the idea itself?
If you had a different article in the wings the whole time, just waiting to use it, why didn't you use it?  Instead you waited until I wrote my article so you could replace it with yours.  Rather uncool. - I agree!;)
:I didn't have a different article beforehand. I just rewrote it afterwards. Do you think it's worse? Evercat 00:51, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not worse, just surprising to see a complete replacement.
Just wanted to mention that the article states Berlin is credited with the idea of positive/negative liberty. I'm no expert, but T.H.Green, in 1880, wrote "Liberal Legislation and Freedom of Contract," and discusses positive and negative liberty. The college text, "Ideals and Ideologies: A Reader" http://www.mypearsonstore.com/bookstore/ideals-and-ideologies-a-reader-9780205779970 explicitly states as much, on pg. 105.  ~B.E.T.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.77.249 (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Early comments

message: ' Also, Berlin's argument is not valid for any state that does not presume to know the wishes of its citizens. For example, if the state asks the citizens what they want instead of making that decision for them, positive liberty can be guaranteed without any hint of totalitarianism. '
:this is IMO completely unsupported by anything other than POV. Sam [Spade] 21:38, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from article

message: This article is wrongly equating positive liberty with positive rights. Positive liberty is the liberty to act. A positive right is a right to be provided with something by others. RJII 22:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: positive liberty versus positive rights

message: The article needs concrete examples of positive liberties. - Quirk 20:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: The article uses these terms too loosely; it should at least be clear which sense of the word is intended.  Also, the label of "conservative," with regard to Cotton Mather, is anachronistic.--WadeMcR 03:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only does the article use them loosely, it seems to be wrong about them.  One part states that positive liberty is associated with liberalism while negative is associated with libertarianism, which I take exception with.  If anything, positive liberty tends to be more common in 'right-wing'/conservative circles with negative liberty being closer to liberalism/left-wing thought as well as libertarianism.  --The Way 11:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conservative"/"liberal" 

message: Among the right-wing, conservatives also embrace some forms of positive liberty. Most notably, Puritans such as Cotton Mather often referred to liberty in their writings, but focused on the liberty from sin (e.g. sexual urges) even at the expense of liberty from the government.
Please include a quotation to explain what you mean by "at the expense of liberty from the government."
I feel this statement about "right-wing conservatives" innaccurately implies their support for positive rights. A Christian understanding of freedom in Christ from sin (a positive liberty to reach our potential as human beings) does not necessarily imply anything regarding government and rights.
However, this my understanding and I have not thoroughly studied the issue. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
:Not all Christians believe that government must become involved in helping individuals achieve positive liberty in the form of freedom from sin; however, the Puritans placed many restrictions on individuals using government to restrain other liberties (ie freedom of religion) in order to promote their idea positive liberty. The statement should be clarified to show that this is only certain groups like the Puritans, not all right-wingers or Christians.--Bkwillwm 05:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian interpretation 

message: The entire criticisms section is based off one article from the Cato Institute. Either that was one very good article, or too many references are being used from that source. In lieu of better examples, I didn't delete the whole section, though I believe it needs to be cleaned up. --Jamesia 05:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: after reading the 'criticism' i thought to myself, 'i imagine all this comes from the same guy and from a right wing conservative thinktank." according to wikipedia, kelley is an aynrandista and the CATO institute is, of course, a right wing conservative thinktank. this article, or atleast the 'criticism' is mostly a hit piece written by someone with a political opinion to get across  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.109.133 (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The entire Negative Liberty and Positive Liberty articles have been crafted by Libertarians for propaganda use. That's why both of the articles are so incoherent when read by anyone ignorant of either subject. Heck, I know a great deal about both subjects, and I get confused by both articles. Both sides are basically arguing in the articles themselves. Rather than read as a fluid article, they're both jumbled and contradictory within themselves. It's ironic that the libertarians, who abhor coercion, seek to manipulate information in an effort to coerce people into believing one thing or another. -- Jamesia (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright I put up the request for additional references in November 2007. As of now, February 2009, no other references have been put up. I'll leave in the first paragraph that references the same article and delete the rest. A year and a half is enough time to wait on more referenced information. Jamesia (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: There is no justification for merging this into the negative liberty article. It's a totally different concept. The tag should be taken off IMO. There is a need to have a clear distinction between the two concepts and two separate articles is the best way to do that. Here are my four tildes 24.174.82.195 (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who proposed the merger. I was inspired by articles such as Negative and positive rights, Natural and legal rights, Claim rights and liberty rights, etc, all of which discuss the distinction between two opposite ideas which are defined in large part by their opposition to each other. Seems like the same sort of thing could apply here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I think a third article comparing them would be OK, but definitely not just one article discussing the differences between the two. Philosophically, they're distinct. For instance, you wouldn't have just one article for both capitalism and communism. They're distinct; separate entities. I think it's the same situation here. They're not always used in opposition to the other. You'd have to transform the Liberty article to make it work. This is one of my favorite articles and I refer back to it often. I don't support a merge. Jiminezwaldorf (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also disagree with the idea of a merge. The difference between the two is held pretty well in the Isaiah Berlin article with his Two Concepts. There's no point in making yet another article to say, pretty much, the same thing.Pongley (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge? Why?

message: The image with its comment about being in jail, in addition to messing up the lede, bore no real relation to the civil society issue the article text is about. Had it been something about political prisoners or the like that would have been different. The loss of liberty which duly processed criminals suffer isn't even "negative liberty" so was just a goof/doof. Imprisonment is a negation of liberty, but that's not what "negative liberty" means, a negation of liberty and "negative liberty" have only a superficial connection, it would not be overreaching to say they had none. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrelated to incarceration of duly convicted criminals 

message: A Short description should be short – current advice talks of a 40 character limit – see WP:SDSHORT.
Also, a Short description should not attempt to define the article's subject – see WP:SDNOTDEF.
A Short description exists only to clarify which article has been found by a search.
 was 128 characters long.
I have changed the Short description to  which takes a phrase from the article's own lead.
Can anyone think of a more suitable short text? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 15:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short description  

message: I’m assuming this article is on “Group Positive Liberty,” yet it is not clear.
To be clear, Group Positive Liberty/Freedom is the Eastern philosophy of freedom, as opposed to the western ideology of individual liberty.  This philosophy suggests that freedom exists in policy that benefits the groups liberty over the individual’s liberty.
Examples of Group Positive Liberty policies are seatbelt laws, DUI law enforcement, indoor smoking bans, gun bans, GNU/GPL, and the nCoV19 lockdowns. Restricting personal liberty for the greater good is Group Positive Liberty.
The end result of group positive liberty is totalitarianism (not personal opinion). 2600:1009:B150:EA3D:1997:C54B:F3E6:4DD9 (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failure to distinguish between group and individual liberty?