|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 13 2012 04:30 renoB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 04:13 TheFrankOne wrote:On December 13 2012 04:06 renoB wrote:On December 13 2012 01:26 Startyr wrote:
For somewhere like the US what would be the better path? which is more likely, that the government can reduce the gap between rich and poor and therefore have lower taxes or does it not really have any control over the difference between rich and poor so the only way to reach a more equal and therefore better society is through taxes and welfare?
If nothing else politicians from the most unequal countries should pay much closer attention to the systems of Scandinavian countries and/or Japan if they actually want to head towards a better society. Which way do you think is better? It's an interesting idea to say the least but I think what it touches upon most is the differences between positive and negative liberty. Much of europe embraces positive liberty, in the sense that society should provide tools (government programs) to people to put them on equal footing with those born more fortunate. Negative liberty however; is the idea of removing those barriers instead (keeping government from impeding with our lives), while people do start at different levels, they can all achieve the same goal, there is just disparities in the effort they will have to put in based upon if they were born in a fortunate family or not. But which one seems more realistic? Economical? Equal? Fair? American culture, at least originally, embraced the idea of negative liberty, which is why our constitution is so limiting and based upon competing powers, and the bill of rights keeps the government from touching specific rights of individuals. Over the years, especially through Hoover and FDR's presidencies we've seen huge strives to become more like european nations, by embracing positive liberty. I think we're seeing the negative effects of positive liberty throughout the world right now with the Euro crisis, and even countries like sweden who are sending their citizens to other countries (like norway) because they can't provide jobs for them. This altruistic idea of positive liberty has overwhelmed the idea of having a sustainable economy. We've got government dipping their hands into everything to "protect" citizens, but when government gets involved its easily corrupted and used for someones advantage. Hence the housing and credit crises (as far as I've read most economists agree moral hazard was a significant part of this). From reading everything on this post and basically everywhere on the internet, I see that the choice to embrace positive or negative liberty is based upon the persons societal upbringing and life experiences. I do not think its possible to have a successful society with these two ideas mixed, as you can see with the muddled mess that is American Politics. The Euro Crisis has nothing to do with what your talking about. That's all about divorcing fiscal and monetary policy and using creative accounting to join the Euro in the first place. They are completely related. When you have countries like Greece, Italy, and Spain who have prioritized positive liberty and have used government programs to try and create equality. These countries have gone bankrupt from trying to work in line with this notion, which is causing more fiscally intelligent countries like Germany and France to bail them out. Now, Greece is facing huge unemployment rates because Germany won't pay for their government programs that employs a large part of their population.
It isn't as though France and Germany don't have welfare states also. By your reasoning, Germany should be even worse off than Greece since they are even more generous with social benefits. The difference is that Germany is a rich country for a number of reasons. America, despite everyone's seeming insistence to the contrary, is a rich country as well and is not really in the same position as Greece or Spain or Somalia.
|
On December 13 2012 04:30 renoB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 04:13 TheFrankOne wrote:On December 13 2012 04:06 renoB wrote:On December 13 2012 01:26 Startyr wrote:
For somewhere like the US what would be the better path? which is more likely, that the government can reduce the gap between rich and poor and therefore have lower taxes or does it not really have any control over the difference between rich and poor so the only way to reach a more equal and therefore better society is through taxes and welfare?
If nothing else politicians from the most unequal countries should pay much closer attention to the systems of Scandinavian countries and/or Japan if they actually want to head towards a better society. Which way do you think is better? It's an interesting idea to say the least but I think what it touches upon most is the differences between positive and negative liberty. Much of europe embraces positive liberty, in the sense that society should provide tools (government programs) to people to put them on equal footing with those born more fortunate. Negative liberty however; is the idea of removing those barriers instead (keeping government from impeding with our lives), while people do start at different levels, they can all achieve the same goal, there is just disparities in the effort they will have to put in based upon if they were born in a fortunate family or not. But which one seems more realistic? Economical? Equal? Fair? American culture, at least originally, embraced the idea of negative liberty, which is why our constitution is so limiting and based upon competing powers, and the bill of rights keeps the government from touching specific rights of individuals. Over the years, especially through Hoover and FDR's presidencies we've seen huge strives to become more like european nations, by embracing positive liberty. I think we're seeing the negative effects of positive liberty throughout the world right now with the Euro crisis, and even countries like sweden who are sending their citizens to other countries (like norway) because they can't provide jobs for them. This altruistic idea of positive liberty has overwhelmed the idea of having a sustainable economy. We've got government dipping their hands into everything to "protect" citizens, but when government gets involved its easily corrupted and used for someones advantage. Hence the housing and credit crises (as far as I've read most economists agree moral hazard was a significant part of this). From reading everything on this post and basically everywhere on the internet, I see that the choice to embrace positive or negative liberty is based upon the persons societal upbringing and life experiences. I do not think its possible to have a successful society with these two ideas mixed, as you can see with the muddled mess that is American Politics. The Euro Crisis has nothing to do with what your talking about. That's all about divorcing fiscal and monetary policy and using creative accounting to join the Euro in the first place. They are completely related. When you have countries like Greece, Italy, and Spain who have prioritized positive liberty and have used government programs to try and create equality. These countries have gone bankrupt from trying to work in line with this notion, which is causing more fiscally intelligent countries like Germany and France to bail them out. Now, Greece is facing huge unemployment rates because Germany won't pay for their government programs that employs a large part of their population.
You should probably stop talking about Europe. You have no idea what's going on over there and what the causes of their financial problems are. If you can't even differentiate the issues between Greece, Italy, and Spain, you really should just keep quiet until you read more.
|
On December 13 2012 04:43 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 04:30 renoB wrote:On December 13 2012 04:13 TheFrankOne wrote:On December 13 2012 04:06 renoB wrote:On December 13 2012 01:26 Startyr wrote:
For somewhere like the US what would be the better path? which is more likely, that the government can reduce the gap between rich and poor and therefore have lower taxes or does it not really have any control over the difference between rich and poor so the only way to reach a more equal and therefore better society is through taxes and welfare?
If nothing else politicians from the most unequal countries should pay much closer attention to the systems of Scandinavian countries and/or Japan if they actually want to head towards a better society. Which way do you think is better? It's an interesting idea to say the least but I think what it touches upon most is the differences between positive and negative liberty. Much of europe embraces positive liberty, in the sense that society should provide tools (government programs) to people to put them on equal footing with those born more fortunate. Negative liberty however; is the idea of removing those barriers instead (keeping government from impeding with our lives), while people do start at different levels, they can all achieve the same goal, there is just disparities in the effort they will have to put in based upon if they were born in a fortunate family or not. But which one seems more realistic? Economical? Equal? Fair? American culture, at least originally, embraced the idea of negative liberty, which is why our constitution is so limiting and based upon competing powers, and the bill of rights keeps the government from touching specific rights of individuals. Over the years, especially through Hoover and FDR's presidencies we've seen huge strives to become more like european nations, by embracing positive liberty. I think we're seeing the negative effects of positive liberty throughout the world right now with the Euro crisis, and even countries like sweden who are sending their citizens to other countries (like norway) because they can't provide jobs for them. This altruistic idea of positive liberty has overwhelmed the idea of having a sustainable economy. We've got government dipping their hands into everything to "protect" citizens, but when government gets involved its easily corrupted and used for someones advantage. Hence the housing and credit crises (as far as I've read most economists agree moral hazard was a significant part of this). From reading everything on this post and basically everywhere on the internet, I see that the choice to embrace positive or negative liberty is based upon the persons societal upbringing and life experiences. I do not think its possible to have a successful society with these two ideas mixed, as you can see with the muddled mess that is American Politics. The Euro Crisis has nothing to do with what your talking about. That's all about divorcing fiscal and monetary policy and using creative accounting to join the Euro in the first place. They are completely related. When you have countries like Greece, Italy, and Spain who have prioritized positive liberty and have used government programs to try and create equality. These countries have gone bankrupt from trying to work in line with this notion, which is causing more fiscally intelligent countries like Germany and France to bail them out. Now, Greece is facing huge unemployment rates because Germany won't pay for their government programs that employs a large part of their population. It isn't as though France and Germany don't have welfare states also. By your reasoning, Germany should be even worse off than Greece since they are even more generous with social benefits. The difference is that Germany is a rich country for a number of reasons. America, despite everyone's seeming insistence to the contrary, is a rich country as well and is not really in the same position as Greece or Spain or Somalia.
I don't think I was clear in what I was saying, because you've misunderstood my intention. Germany and France HAVE the resources to provide their welfare state. Especially Germany because much of their economy is very niche based and so companies all over the world buy components from companies there. You don't see Germany going into extreme debt to pay for its programs like the southern european countries have done. The notion of positive liberty overcame their sense of fiscal intelligence, where they set themselves on a path of bankruptcy because they would rather embrace the aspects of positive liberty over having a sustainable economy.
|
On December 13 2012 04:30 renoB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 04:13 TheFrankOne wrote:On December 13 2012 04:06 renoB wrote:On December 13 2012 01:26 Startyr wrote:
For somewhere like the US what would be the better path? which is more likely, that the government can reduce the gap between rich and poor and therefore have lower taxes or does it not really have any control over the difference between rich and poor so the only way to reach a more equal and therefore better society is through taxes and welfare?
If nothing else politicians from the most unequal countries should pay much closer attention to the systems of Scandinavian countries and/or Japan if they actually want to head towards a better society. Which way do you think is better? It's an interesting idea to say the least but I think what it touches upon most is the differences between positive and negative liberty. Much of europe embraces positive liberty, in the sense that society should provide tools (government programs) to people to put them on equal footing with those born more fortunate. Negative liberty however; is the idea of removing those barriers instead (keeping government from impeding with our lives), while people do start at different levels, they can all achieve the same goal, there is just disparities in the effort they will have to put in based upon if they were born in a fortunate family or not. But which one seems more realistic? Economical? Equal? Fair? American culture, at least originally, embraced the idea of negative liberty, which is why our constitution is so limiting and based upon competing powers, and the bill of rights keeps the government from touching specific rights of individuals. Over the years, especially through Hoover and FDR's presidencies we've seen huge strives to become more like european nations, by embracing positive liberty. I think we're seeing the negative effects of positive liberty throughout the world right now with the Euro crisis, and even countries like sweden who are sending their citizens to other countries (like norway) because they can't provide jobs for them. This altruistic idea of positive liberty has overwhelmed the idea of having a sustainable economy. We've got government dipping their hands into everything to "protect" citizens, but when government gets involved its easily corrupted and used for someones advantage. Hence the housing and credit crises (as far as I've read most economists agree moral hazard was a significant part of this). From reading everything on this post and basically everywhere on the internet, I see that the choice to embrace positive or negative liberty is based upon the persons societal upbringing and life experiences. I do not think its possible to have a successful society with these two ideas mixed, as you can see with the muddled mess that is American Politics. The Euro Crisis has nothing to do with what your talking about. That's all about divorcing fiscal and monetary policy and using creative accounting to join the Euro in the first place. They are completely related. When you have countries like Greece, Italy, and Spain who have prioritized positive liberty and have used government programs to try and create equality. These countries have gone bankrupt from trying to work in line with this notion, which is causing more fiscally intelligent countries like Germany and France to bail them out. Now, Greece is facing huge unemployment rates because Germany won't pay for their government programs that employs a large part of their population.
Your combining issues. France and Germany can have the 'positive liberty' charge labeled against them as easily as Spain or Greece, 'fiscally responsible' and 'negative liberty embracing' are not the same thing. The debt problems faced by these countries are disastrous because of the euro, they have no printing press which creates real default risk. France has one of the largest government sectors in the Eurozone so you can't point to large governments and say that causes the euro crisis.
On Greece:
http://euobserver.com/economic/30015
"Greece is indeed a unique and particular case in the EU," Mr Rehn said. "Greece has had particularly precarious debt dynamics and Greece is the only member state that cheated with its statistics for years and years."
On Spain: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17753891
+ Show Spoiler +
The Spanish government's debts were a mere 36% of its gross domestic product (GDP) (the output of its economy) in 2007, while the German government's were 65%.
What's more, Madrid was in the process of paying its debts off - it earned more in tax revenues than its total spending. In contrast, Berlin regularly broke the maximum annual borrowing level laid down in the Maastricht Treaty of 3% of GDP.
Evidently, this crisis has nothing to do with the recklessness of Spain's government.
Instead, it was other people in Spain who behaved recklessly.
Interest rates fell to historic lows when the euro was launched in 1999. So Spain's banks, property developers and ordinary home-buyers collectively borrowed and fuelled an enormous property bubble.
The Eruo Crisis is all about the way bond markets treat debt inside of a currency union. there is real default risk and so borrowing costs are far more vulnerable to economic shocks than states with their own currency. they have gone bankrupt because of the currency union.
TLDR: Greece went bankrupt because of its own fraud and Spain went bankrupt because of its massive property bubble and both of these problems are badly exacerbated by the currency union.
|
On December 13 2012 04:30 renoB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 04:13 TheFrankOne wrote:On December 13 2012 04:06 renoB wrote:On December 13 2012 01:26 Startyr wrote:
For somewhere like the US what would be the better path? which is more likely, that the government can reduce the gap between rich and poor and therefore have lower taxes or does it not really have any control over the difference between rich and poor so the only way to reach a more equal and therefore better society is through taxes and welfare?
If nothing else politicians from the most unequal countries should pay much closer attention to the systems of Scandinavian countries and/or Japan if they actually want to head towards a better society. Which way do you think is better? It's an interesting idea to say the least but I think what it touches upon most is the differences between positive and negative liberty. Much of europe embraces positive liberty, in the sense that society should provide tools (government programs) to people to put them on equal footing with those born more fortunate. Negative liberty however; is the idea of removing those barriers instead (keeping government from impeding with our lives), while people do start at different levels, they can all achieve the same goal, there is just disparities in the effort they will have to put in based upon if they were born in a fortunate family or not. But which one seems more realistic? Economical? Equal? Fair? American culture, at least originally, embraced the idea of negative liberty, which is why our constitution is so limiting and based upon competing powers, and the bill of rights keeps the government from touching specific rights of individuals. Over the years, especially through Hoover and FDR's presidencies we've seen huge strives to become more like european nations, by embracing positive liberty. I think we're seeing the negative effects of positive liberty throughout the world right now with the Euro crisis, and even countries like sweden who are sending their citizens to other countries (like norway) because they can't provide jobs for them. This altruistic idea of positive liberty has overwhelmed the idea of having a sustainable economy. We've got government dipping their hands into everything to "protect" citizens, but when government gets involved its easily corrupted and used for someones advantage. Hence the housing and credit crises (as far as I've read most economists agree moral hazard was a significant part of this). From reading everything on this post and basically everywhere on the internet, I see that the choice to embrace positive or negative liberty is based upon the persons societal upbringing and life experiences. I do not think its possible to have a successful society with these two ideas mixed, as you can see with the muddled mess that is American Politics. The Euro Crisis has nothing to do with what your talking about. That's all about divorcing fiscal and monetary policy and using creative accounting to join the Euro in the first place. They are completely related. When you have countries like Greece, Italy, and Spain who have prioritized positive liberty and have used government programs to try and create equality. These countries have gone bankrupt from trying to work in line with this notion, which is causing more fiscally intelligent countries like Germany and France to bail them out. Now, Greece is facing huge unemployment rates because Germany won't pay for their government programs that employs a large part of their population.
This is very interesting. I have never seen those outlandish claims substantiated. If I look through the history of those countries it seems to be a more diverse group of problems that I cannot in any way wrap into a "positive freedom" expression. I am especially hard pressed on Italy.
Edit:
Frankly TheFrankOne gave good reasons for Spain and Greece. Italys problem is historic and is called debt. It has not grown very much recently.
|
reno b wrote (only want to quote a part of the post)
***It's an interesting idea to say the least but I think what it touches upon most is the differences between positive and negative liberty. Much of europe embraces positive liberty, in the sense that society should provide tools (government programs) to people to put them on equal footing with those born more fortunate. Negative liberty however; is the idea of removing those barriers instead***
I dont realy understand this difference between positive and negative liberty, they are two completely different things and do not neccesarely exclude eachoter.
***Negative liberty however; is the idea of removing those barriers instead***
What you mean with "thoose barriers", it looks like you are pointing at the "tools, government programs" in the line before.
How is a government program to help certain people a barrier for other people?
You could argue the increased tax rate but that i hardly find a satisfactory answer, seeing the verry small percentage of tax wich is used for these programs.
It is verry well possible to have tools and government programs for poor people and at the same time remove juridical barriers for setting up business for example, or firing people.
They do not neccesarely exclude eachoter i think
|
On December 13 2012 07:05 Rassy wrote:
reno b wrote (only want to quote a part of the post)
***It's an interesting idea to say the least but I think what it touches upon most is the differences between positive and negative liberty. Much of europe embraces positive liberty, in the sense that society should provide tools (government programs) to people to put them on equal footing with those born more fortunate. Negative liberty however; is the idea of removing those barriers instead***
I dont realy understand this difference between positive and negative liberty, they are two completely different things and do not neccesarely exclude eachoter.
You might as well go to the original source for this one.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Interesting poll.
Almost two-thirds of Americans say that the November election results give President Obama a mandate to raise taxes on the wealthy, according to a new survey. A new Bloomberg News national poll finds that 65 percent of those surveyed — including 45 percent of Republicans — say that Obama campaigned, ran and won on his pledge to hike taxes on income brackets over $250,000. But almost the same number of Americans — 64 percent — say that Obama also has a mandate to protect popular entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. Those results give Obama a mandate on his tax proposal — but make it clear that the public is deeply opposed to any entitlement reforms that might be part of any "grand bargain" over taxes and spending between the House GOP and the Obama administration. Both sides have been at odds over how to unwind the pending combination of tax increases for all Americans and automatic spending cuts. Republicans have largely refused to budge on the principle that tax rates should not go up for anyone. The White House has argued that their proposals were exactly what Obama ran on — but Republicans have charged that the first administration counter-offer included tax increases that Obama didn't mention on the stump. The Bloomberg survey also finds that Obama's job approval has increased since the fall. The poll finds that 53 percent of adults approve of the job the president is doing — versus 49 percent in September. On the specific issue of the economy, Obama's approval is up seven points from September — jumping to 48 percent, from 41 percent. On the issue of business, 54 percent of Americans say Obama has struck "about the right balance" in dealing with businesses. And 33 percent say that he's too anti-business. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/12/poll-obama-has-a-mandate-to-raise-taxes-151753.html?hp=t3_3
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
positive liberty is not really teh only way to describe a concern over how people are actually living. berlin's coinage is necessary for his attack on positive liberty as nongenuine (presumably because only a libertarian agent has access to her own preferences).
i suggest broadening your readings, young hedgehog of liberty
|
On December 13 2012 04:51 renoB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 04:43 HunterX11 wrote:On December 13 2012 04:30 renoB wrote:On December 13 2012 04:13 TheFrankOne wrote:On December 13 2012 04:06 renoB wrote:On December 13 2012 01:26 Startyr wrote:
For somewhere like the US what would be the better path? which is more likely, that the government can reduce the gap between rich and poor and therefore have lower taxes or does it not really have any control over the difference between rich and poor so the only way to reach a more equal and therefore better society is through taxes and welfare?
If nothing else politicians from the most unequal countries should pay much closer attention to the systems of Scandinavian countries and/or Japan if they actually want to head towards a better society. Which way do you think is better? It's an interesting idea to say the least but I think what it touches upon most is the differences between positive and negative liberty. Much of europe embraces positive liberty, in the sense that society should provide tools (government programs) to people to put them on equal footing with those born more fortunate. Negative liberty however; is the idea of removing those barriers instead (keeping government from impeding with our lives), while people do start at different levels, they can all achieve the same goal, there is just disparities in the effort they will have to put in based upon if they were born in a fortunate family or not. But which one seems more realistic? Economical? Equal? Fair? American culture, at least originally, embraced the idea of negative liberty, which is why our constitution is so limiting and based upon competing powers, and the bill of rights keeps the government from touching specific rights of individuals. Over the years, especially through Hoover and FDR's presidencies we've seen huge strives to become more like european nations, by embracing positive liberty. I think we're seeing the negative effects of positive liberty throughout the world right now with the Euro crisis, and even countries like sweden who are sending their citizens to other countries (like norway) because they can't provide jobs for them. This altruistic idea of positive liberty has overwhelmed the idea of having a sustainable economy. We've got government dipping their hands into everything to "protect" citizens, but when government gets involved its easily corrupted and used for someones advantage. Hence the housing and credit crises (as far as I've read most economists agree moral hazard was a significant part of this). From reading everything on this post and basically everywhere on the internet, I see that the choice to embrace positive or negative liberty is based upon the persons societal upbringing and life experiences. I do not think its possible to have a successful society with these two ideas mixed, as you can see with the muddled mess that is American Politics. The Euro Crisis has nothing to do with what your talking about. That's all about divorcing fiscal and monetary policy and using creative accounting to join the Euro in the first place. They are completely related. When you have countries like Greece, Italy, and Spain who have prioritized positive liberty and have used government programs to try and create equality. These countries have gone bankrupt from trying to work in line with this notion, which is causing more fiscally intelligent countries like Germany and France to bail them out. Now, Greece is facing huge unemployment rates because Germany won't pay for their government programs that employs a large part of their population. It isn't as though France and Germany don't have welfare states also. By your reasoning, Germany should be even worse off than Greece since they are even more generous with social benefits. The difference is that Germany is a rich country for a number of reasons. America, despite everyone's seeming insistence to the contrary, is a rich country as well and is not really in the same position as Greece or Spain or Somalia. I don't think I was clear in what I was saying, because you've misunderstood my intention. Germany and France HAVE the resources to provide their welfare state. Especially Germany because much of their economy is very niche based and so companies all over the world buy components from companies there. You don't see Germany going into extreme debt to pay for its programs like the southern european countries have done. The notion of positive liberty overcame their sense of fiscal intelligence, where they set themselves on a path of bankruptcy because they would rather embrace the aspects of positive liberty over having a sustainable economy.
you do realize that Germany and France were the countries that blew through the European Debt Stability pact first, several times? And then changed the rules to make it so? Or that Spain had a budget surplus all the way up to the financial crisis?This isnt some deep dark secret, this is literally a couple minutes on wikipedia.
|
On December 13 2012 10:31 oneofthem wrote:
positive liberty is not really teh only way to describe a concern over how people are actually living. berlin's coinage is necessary for his attack on positive liberty as nongenuine (presumably because only a libertarian agent has access to her own preferences).
i suggest broadening your readings, young hedgehog of liberty
I construe this as directed at me, as I am a young hedgehog, but I have two objections to to it.
First, it is wrong to construe my post as an endorsement of Berlin. I replied to a person who was unable to understand the distinction between positive and negative liberty, in part because of a poor exposition of that distinction in the post that person replied to. It seemed helpful to direct that person to the original source of the distinction, at least under that name.
Second, it seems excessive to characterize Berlin as offering an "attack on positive liberty as nongenuine". He takes both types of liberty to be legitimate values, and, as a value pluralist, would be extremely happy to take on board your claim that "positive liberty is not really [the] only way to describe a concern over how people are actually living". He does say a lot of things about how the notion of positive liberty has been misused, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't value what he would take to be proper applications of the value. For he also thinks that negative liberty can be misused, and has been misused for propertarian purposes.
edit1:
On December 13 2012 11:17 oneofthem wrote:
i wasn't directing that at you. the other poster (name i forgot too lazy to scroll up and read) basically posted like 10 times bashing positive liberty so yea, that's pretty bad.
Ah, I was thrown off by your direct mention of Berlin (I didn't notice that other poster ever mentioning him by name). I'll stand by the parts of my second objection that are still applicable.
edit2:
edit: yea berlin is against misuses of liberty, but more famously he is the coiner of the divide between positive and negative liberty and that distinction has been put to work moreso than the distinction between proper and improper uses of liberty.
Still not completely sure I follow. I think the distinction between positive and negative liberty is a fine one to draw as long as one doesn't:
(A) take the distinction's presence to ipso facto delegitimize one of the two types, or
(B) think that one should be concerned with no value other than liberty.
So I don't see how Berlin's distinction can be faulted, since it doesn't necessitate these further views and he didn't himself endorse them. Is he to be blamed for the mere fact that certain libertarians take his distinction and then add on to it (A) and (B) style theses?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i wasn't directing that at you. the other poster (name i forgot too lazy to scroll up and read) basically posted like 10 times bashing positive liberty so yea, that's pretty bad.
edit: yea berlin is against misuses of liberty, but more famously he is the coiner of the divide between positive and negative liberty and that distinction has been put to work moreso than the distinction between proper and improper uses of liberty.
|
Regarding the Berlin article: His definitions seem to be very solid and the first page is very well worth reading for everyone. The rest of the article is, however, a lot of staccato thoughts, with some good ideas, but a lot of filler. Coming to the discussions it is pure rambling and lack any cohesive structures and aims as would normally constitute a comparison. He is mixing where he writes about the freedoms despite headlines and he definately has a clear bias in what he chose to touch on.
Am I just overly critical of the form or is it a bit too much train of thought for anyone else?
|
Negative freedom is, roughly, a matter of which
doors lie open to you, it is concerned exclusively with opportunities;
positive freedom is a question of whether or not you can go through the
doors
This i find verry difficult to understand.
Could someone maybe give me an example of positive and negative freedom to make it a bit more clear?
I read the first page of the link and it does not make things anny more clear for me unfortunatly.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
negative liberty concerns restrictions on a person, like, u cannot go through dat door! positive liberty is asking whether that person has the ability (or, actual choice, in the language of liberty) to do something. like, u have no legs, so u cannot go through that door (or choose to go through that door).
|
Somebody's getting nervous 
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is fundraising off the ongoing fiscal cliff negotiations, asking supporters to donate to his reelection campaign in the interest of fighting President Obama's "dangerous debt scheme."
The Courier-Journal reports that McConnell sent an email to potential campaign contributors on Friday.
"President Obama and his allies have not only pressed harder on the gas pedal as we careen toward the cliff, now they’re threatening to set the car on fire too," McConnell's email reads. "The White House is busily lining up Wall Street special interest groups to pressure my colleagues in the Senate. I need your help. Can I count on your support to fight against President Obama’s plan for unlimited debt?"
McConnell continued: "As I lead the fight against his dangerous debt scheme, Barack Obama has placed a huge target squarely on my back. As I fight for you, I need your generous support to fight off his attacks."
A poll released Tuesday by Democratic firm Public Policy Polling showed that McConnell, who won reelection in 2008 by a relatively small margin, is deeply unpopular in his home state. The poll found that just 37 percent of Kentucky voters approve of the minority leader, while 55 percent disapprove.
Mitch McConnell Fundraising Off Fiscal Cliff Negotiations
|
On December 14 2012 03:57 farvacola wrote:Somebody's getting nervous Show nested quote +Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is fundraising off the ongoing fiscal cliff negotiations, asking supporters to donate to his reelection campaign in the interest of fighting President Obama's "dangerous debt scheme."
The Courier-Journal reports that McConnell sent an email to potential campaign contributors on Friday.
"President Obama and his allies have not only pressed harder on the gas pedal as we careen toward the cliff, now they’re threatening to set the car on fire too," McConnell's email reads. "The White House is busily lining up Wall Street special interest groups to pressure my colleagues in the Senate. I need your help. Can I count on your support to fight against President Obama’s plan for unlimited debt?"
McConnell continued: "As I lead the fight against his dangerous debt scheme, Barack Obama has placed a huge target squarely on my back. As I fight for you, I need your generous support to fight off his attacks."
A poll released Tuesday by Democratic firm Public Policy Polling showed that McConnell, who won reelection in 2008 by a relatively small margin, is deeply unpopular in his home state. The poll found that just 37 percent of Kentucky voters approve of the minority leader, while 55 percent disapprove. Mitch McConnell Fundraising Off Fiscal Cliff Negotiations
Only 2 countries in the world have a set debt ceiling: USA and Denmark. The rest of the world? They tax and spend and have softer "goals". The crisis from hitting the ceiling is therefore pretty artificial given other countries have far more debt. It is therefore a bit ambitious to use a severe austerity on military budget to avoid accumulating more debt. On the other hand, the taxation system in USA is a sieve. Plugging some of the holes and getting taxes to a more reasonable level seems like the way to solve it anyway.
Mitigation of the effects of automatic increase in taxes and austerity on army budget would seem like something the republicans would be far more interested in than Obama.
|
Indeed, the entire concept of a "debt ceiling" as political talking point only really makes sense from the perspective of misleading demagoguery; the word "debt" is quite a useful tool for politicians looking for surface-level reactions and incomplete consideration.
|
On December 13 2012 04:30 renoB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 04:13 TheFrankOne wrote:On December 13 2012 04:06 renoB wrote:On December 13 2012 01:26 Startyr wrote:
For somewhere like the US what would be the better path? which is more likely, that the government can reduce the gap between rich and poor and therefore have lower taxes or does it not really have any control over the difference between rich and poor so the only way to reach a more equal and therefore better society is through taxes and welfare?
If nothing else politicians from the most unequal countries should pay much closer attention to the systems of Scandinavian countries and/or Japan if they actually want to head towards a better society. Which way do you think is better? It's an interesting idea to say the least but I think what it touches upon most is the differences between positive and negative liberty. Much of europe embraces positive liberty, in the sense that society should provide tools (government programs) to people to put them on equal footing with those born more fortunate. Negative liberty however; is the idea of removing those barriers instead (keeping government from impeding with our lives), while people do start at different levels, they can all achieve the same goal, there is just disparities in the effort they will have to put in based upon if they were born in a fortunate family or not. But which one seems more realistic? Economical? Equal? Fair? American culture, at least originally, embraced the idea of negative liberty, which is why our constitution is so limiting and based upon competing powers, and the bill of rights keeps the government from touching specific rights of individuals. Over the years, especially through Hoover and FDR's presidencies we've seen huge strives to become more like european nations, by embracing positive liberty. I think we're seeing the negative effects of positive liberty throughout the world right now with the Euro crisis, and even countries like sweden who are sending their citizens to other countries (like norway) because they can't provide jobs for them. This altruistic idea of positive liberty has overwhelmed the idea of having a sustainable economy. We've got government dipping their hands into everything to "protect" citizens, but when government gets involved its easily corrupted and used for someones advantage. Hence the housing and credit crises (as far as I've read most economists agree moral hazard was a significant part of this). From reading everything on this post and basically everywhere on the internet, I see that the choice to embrace positive or negative liberty is based upon the persons societal upbringing and life experiences. I do not think its possible to have a successful society with these two ideas mixed, as you can see with the muddled mess that is American Politics. The Euro Crisis has nothing to do with what your talking about. That's all about divorcing fiscal and monetary policy and using creative accounting to join the Euro in the first place. They are completely related. When you have countries like Greece, Italy, and Spain who have prioritized positive liberty and have used government programs to try and create equality. These countries have gone bankrupt from trying to work in line with this notion, which is causing more fiscally intelligent countries like Germany and France to bail them out. Now, Greece is facing huge unemployment rates because Germany won't pay for their government programs that employs a large part of their population.
This is completely false. You very clearly are uninformed about the problems of the European countries you mention.
|
Whelp, score one victory for the old curmudgeon in John McCain, for Susan Rice has officially withdrawn as nominee for Secretary of State. Personally, I think this good for the White House, in that it allows them to spend political capital elsewhere when in reality the appointment of Susan Rice is of relatively little consequence. Whether or not this was truly of her own volition I'm not sure we'll know, but I'm glad we can all finally move on. Somewhere in Massachusetts, Scott Brown is smiling.
Susan Rice withdrew from consideration for the Secretary of State position on Thursday, citing Republican criticism of her record that had signaled a tough confirmation battle.
In a letter to President Obama, Rice said she could have done the job "ably and effectively," but added that "I am now convinced that the confirmation process would be lengthy, disruptive and costly -- to you and to our most pressing national and international priorities."
Rice will remain as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
In a statement, Obama praised Rice, while criticizing the "unfair and misleading attacks" on her by Senate Republicans and others over the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
"Her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first," Obama said.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and other Republicans had criticized Rice over a string of Sept. 16 television interviews in which she attributed the Benghazi attack to the protest over an an anti-Islam video. Officials later said organized terrorists carried out the attack that killed U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
Rice pulls out of Secretary of State race David Jackson, USA TODAYShare 13 Comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
