5 ms·

>No, the two cases are fundamentally different You are going to have to explain why you think that; I can't understand where that conclusion could come from.

>No, the two cases are fundamentally different You are going to have to explain why you think that; I can't understand where that conclusion could come from. I'm assuming that by 'fundamentally different' you mean something which is naturally a positive liberty in your view, represented (presumably disingenuously in your opinion) as a negative liberty. I don't see how this distinction can be made however. The right to be free from slavery is framed as a negative liberty, and is considered morally just by reasonable people, but as you point out, it comes to the detriment of a certain segment of the population. This shows that you aren't distinguishing according to whether some individual is harmed by the granting of rights to another - so what is the point at which you consider some other negative liberty to be fundamentally different? In fact, I believe that argument against socialised healthcare has clear parallels with argument for slavery. In both cases, one set of people are conspiring to reduce the quality of life for another in order to take home more money for themselves. In both cases there exists a privileged class who, mostly by accident of birth, lives in relative luxury supported by the exploitation of a disenfranchised underclass. Those who feel that it is unfair to 'place a responsibility ... to provide for the care of others' are profiting immeasurably from a delicate and complex economic and social system, which provides a framework for the systematic exploitation of those to whom the privileged believe they owe no debt.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
I'm assuming that by 'fundamentally different' you mean something which is naturally a positive liberty in your view, represented (presumably disingenuously in your opinion) as a negative liberty. I don't see how this distinction can be made however. No, you're not getting the difference between positive and negative -- possibly I'm doing a poor job of explaining. Let me try one more time, and include a reference for further explanation. A negative liberty is enjoyed when I'm free of external limitations. I am allowed to do whatever I am able. The Bill of Rights is full of this stuff: free speech, freedom from seizure of property; etc. A positive liberty is enjoyed when someone empowers me to be able to do something. The health care debate hinges on the idea that society (by way of the gov't) must give healthcare to all who need it. You'll note here the critical element of an external agent providing the positive liberty. If I'm alone on a desert island, I have infinite negative liberty. However, positive liberties are quite impossible since there's no agent to enable me. For further discussion, see this Wikipedia article: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Liberty https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Liberty Individualist and classical liberal conceptions of liberty relate to the freedom of the individual from outside compulsion or coercion and this is defined as negative liberty. Social liberal conceptions of liberty relate freedom to social structure and agency and this is defined as positive liberty. The slavery example is not a counter-argument. The fact that someone who had been using you unjustly is now forced to mend his ways does not force us to look at something as a positive liberty -- else everything would be. Two centuries ago there were a lot of people doing something very evil. Damaging their livelihood by recognizing their victim's rights was only the transient consequence of righting the wrong, and is of no significance today. I have no obligation placed on me by the recognition that all my fellow humans own their own bodies. That is the crucial distinction. The fact that an external agent -- the other people in society -- must provide your positive liberty creates the odd condition in the healthcare question. Abstractly, I'm entitled to some healthcare, but the amount to which I'm entitled is fundamentally variable because the resources available to provide it are variable. One can imagine that I'm in the middle of a cancer treatment that I'd been "entitled to" when the stock market crashes and gov't tax revenue falls dramatically. With less money in the budget, the thresholds for what care can be provided must be shifted, and now I'm told that I'm no longer entitled to that expensive treatment. I have trouble accepting a moral code in which the difference between right and wrong (what we are morally obligated to provide to someone, in this case) can change with the business cycle and even with fashion. As an aside, the question of slavery is an extreme example here, but there is a conjunction. In the presence of positive liberty, the person claiming the liberty is indirectly claiming ownership of me (in a small degree). They assert that I must work in order to earn the resources that will enable their liberty (that is, I must pay into a fund so that they can get healthcare). In this way, positive liberties are directly destrictive of negative liberties.
- Waywocket 16y ago
  Thank you for clarifying. I disagree with your conclusion, but I believe I now understand why you hold it. The idea of positive/negative liberties was hard for me to grasp because it seems like a distinction which is of little practical significance in the real world, but I now understand how there is a meaningful difference, even though I contend that it is not an especially useful one.

CWuestefeld 16y ago

I'm assuming that by 'fundamentally different' you mean something which is naturally a positive liberty in your view, represented (presumably disingenuously in your opinion) as a negative liberty. I don't see how this distinction can be made however. No, you're not getting the difference between positive and negative -- possibly I'm doing a poor job of explaining. Let me try one more time, and include a reference for further explanation. A negative liberty is enjoyed when I'm free of external limitations. I am allowed to do whatever I am able. The Bill of Rights is full of this stuff: free speech, freedom from seizure of property; etc. A positive liberty is enjoyed when someone empowers me to be able to do something. The health care debate hinges on the idea that society (by way of the gov't) must give healthcare to all who need it. You'll note here the critical element of an external agent providing the positive liberty. If I'm alone on a desert island, I have infinite negative liberty. However, positive liberties are quite impossible since there's no agent to enable me. For further discussion, see this Wikipedia article: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Liberty https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Liberty Individualist and classical liberal conceptions of liberty relate to the freedom of the individual from outside compulsion or coercion and this is defined as negative liberty. Social liberal conceptions of liberty relate freedom to social structure and agency and this is defined as positive liberty. The slavery example is not a counter-argument. The fact that someone who had been using you unjustly is now forced to mend his ways does not force us to look at something as a positive liberty -- else everything would be. Two centuries ago there were a lot of people doing something very evil. Damaging their livelihood by recognizing their victim's rights was only the transient consequence of righting the wrong, and is of no significance today. I have no obligation placed on me by the recognition that all my fellow humans own their own bodies. That is the crucial distinction. The fact that an external agent -- the other people in society -- must provide your positive liberty creates the odd condition in the healthcare question. Abstractly, I'm entitled to some healthcare, but the amount to which I'm entitled is fundamentally variable because the resources available to provide it are variable. One can imagine that I'm in the middle of a cancer treatment that I'd been "entitled to" when the stock market crashes and gov't tax revenue falls dramatically. With less money in the budget, the thresholds for what care can be provided must be shifted, and now I'm told that I'm no longer entitled to that expensive treatment. I have trouble accepting a moral code in which the difference between right and wrong (what we are morally obligated to provide to someone, in this case) can change with the business cycle and even with fashion. As an aside, the question of slavery is an extreme example here, but there is a conjunction. In the presence of positive liberty, the person claiming the liberty is indirectly claiming ownership of me (in a small degree). They assert that I must work in order to earn the resources that will enable their liberty (that is, I must pay into a fund so that they can get healthcare). In this way, positive liberties are directly destrictive of negative liberties.

Waywocket 16y ago
Thank you for clarifying. I disagree with your conclusion, but I believe I now understand why you hold it. The idea of positive/negative liberties was hard for me to grasp because it seems like a distinction which is of little practical significance in the real world, but I now understand how there is a meaningful difference, even though I contend that it is not an especially useful one.