Philosophy
Liberty Types
- pink101
- RLSharp
- pink101
- RLSharp
- pink101
- RLSharp
- pink101
- pink101
- RLSharp
- pink101
This archived discussion is "read only" due to the absence of an active Feature Writer/moderator for this topic.
« Previous 1 2 Next »
» pink101 - Teaching Liberty
In response to Different Languages posted by RLSharp:"If positive liberty is about being able to get what you want, what happens if you don't know what you want (or what is best for you?)."
If that is Berlin's question, then, that is the area where where his position falls down.
My hypothecation is that a person has to experience the concept of liberty in the sense that it was developed by our forefathers as Sons of Liberty. Berlin's philosophical development took place in a foreign culture.
My idea is that liberty--to be positive--would accept the different conditions under which different people are born. (The Lucky Sperm club?) While I do not support much of the communist conceptualization, it has to be recognized that it does have some good points. Has berlin explored the potential fruits of teaching liberty as a required subject in primary and secondary schools?
-- posted by pink101
» RLSharp - Teaching Liberty
In response to Teaching Liberty posted by pink101:Just to clarify, the question there wasn't what Berlin thinks people SHOULD ask, but what he thinks dictators COULD ask. In other words, he thinks a misunderstanding of positive liberty could be used to (wrongly) justify the dictatorship. That's his fear. He personally thinks that liberty requires us to be able to act without government interference, at least in our pursuit of legitimate values. We can't be free to kill people, but we can be free to choose our own careers.
The problem of birth is interesting though. If I am born in a ghetto to parents who don't teach me or care about education (for example), then how free can I really be in a modern society? Technically, I am as free as anyone else, from a negative perspective. I can pursue any career I want. But from a positive perspective, birth matters. That's because my chances of becoming a doctor are hindered when compared to someone born in a more affluent situation.
I haven't read anything from Berlin about education, but another philosopher, George Crowder, believes that modern states should educate people in their options in order to make sure they are as free as possible to make choices for themselves AND carry those choices through (so negatiev AND positive liberty should be enforced through education).
But I am curious about what you mean by "accepting the different conditions under which different people are born". Does 'accept' mean just allow for it, or does it require some sort of activity from the state?
-- posted by RLSharp
» pink101 - Teaching Liberty
In response to Teaching Liberty posted by RLSharp:"I am curious about what you mean by 'accepting the different conditions under which different people are born'. Does 'accept' mean just allow for it, or does it require some sort of activity from the state?"
What I mean is that positive liberty ought to appreciate the conditions of a person's birth. Like you say, a person born in a ghetto has limited options from which to make any choices. A state that claims its rules include positive liberty should be held responsible for equalizing opportunities regardless of the conditions of birth. For example, free education all the way.
-- posted by pink101
» RLSharp - creating positive liberty
In response to Teaching Liberty posted by pink101:Ah, I see your point. It's a tricky issue though. Some would say that you are then punishing people who have money. After all, why shouldn't they get free education too? It isn't their fault that other people are poor. Nor is it their fault that they have money. In fact, some would say that this would encourage poorness. I think that's a copout, myself. I think very few people choose to be poor just to get welfare or grants or whatever. The drawbacks far outweigh any benefits.
However, in any case, this is where the conflict between liberties occurs. In order to pay for that free education, you would have to increase the taxes on other people. So if I am a taxpayer, you would be interfering in my life (in my negative liberties) in order to provide those positive liberties for someone else.
I honestly don't know if that would be wrong. It's a question that very much concerns me, but I don't know the answer. Can you think of another way to provide positive liberty here without taking away negative liberty from other people?
-- posted by RLSharp
» pink101 - creating positive liberty
In response to creating positive liberty posted by RLSharp:.
You can say those things.
.
You have some one who has made a lot of money and they're complaining they shouldn't be penalized with high taxes to educate the poor. After all, they were born in a ghetto and had to climb the ladder. What kind of b.s. is that?
.
The same argument can be made for every public expenditure including highways, bridges and wars. If I don't drive a car and use the highways and bridges, why should I have to pay taxes to support them? If the water is on my ranch, why should I share it with you? This is the old Greek argument about justice. What does it mean? Does justice equalize or does it support persons born into the lucky sperm club? Is justice being punished for having done wrong? What is justice?
.
At his point in the history of civilization we ought to be able to stand up and be counted as a full fledged member of society regardless of our economic condition. What's wrong with taxing the rich right up to their eye teeth? What will they do, dry up and blow away? I don't think so. The majority should be able to exercise their rights without any complaints. It is important the people discuss these things.
.
.
-- posted by pink101
» RLSharp - creating positive liberty
In response to creating positive liberty posted by pink101:Yes, it is very important to discuss these things. What is happening is a shift in how much states can do. In the Greek City State, states simply could not afford to feed everyone. In the modern world, this is less clear. We probably could feed the hungry of the U.S. by raising taxes. The resources exist in this country. The question then becomes whether or not we should use them that way.
I'm with you on the problem with arguing that others should struggle just because you did. That argument doesn't make sense as stated, but many people do feel that way. In fact, it seems to be the idea behind fraternity pledging: I suffered as a pledge and now I will make you suffer like I did. That's kind of silly.
However, many people believe not only that it is not their responsibility to raise others out of poverty but that this would actually be a bad thing to do. The thought is that struggle makes us better people. If we take away that struggle, then we take away motivation and growth.
That way of thinking is more reasonable, IMO. However, I think most people who are against taxes and public goods follow that "why should I" approach that you mentioned. It's a real problem, because it amounts to indifference and laziness and selfishness. That is not a moral position. Unfortunately, it's pretty common.
-- posted by RLSharp
» pink101 - We Could
In response to creating positive liberty posted by RLSharp:.
I guess, as a society, we could reason these things out.
.
I understand the daily cost of the Iraq war is just around $225,000,000.00--that's more than $82,000,000,000.00 (eighty-two billion dollars) a year. Who is paying that tab? Don't forget to add the interest as it is almost all borrowed money.
.
America COULD afford to provide four years of college education to every person who can maintain a 3.5 academic level as well as 2 more years to every person who can maintain a 3.75 academic level, free of personal cost to rich and poor alike. Free education for qualifying medical school students would soon overcome the shortage of medical doctors and bring down the cost of healt care tremendously. Similar programs could be establshed across the board in any number of pursuits. Work programs could be put in place for environmental improvement, reforresty and rivers and stream clean ups. The investments would pay off and I'll wager there are stats to prove it.
.
That is, if we really could get serious about our ideas of liberty here in America.
.
But, philosophy and science are being put down by a certain brand of conservative politics. Even so, those who are gifted with understanding on the subjects should be busy putting ideas together for the future as it unfolds.
.
.
-- posted by pink101
» RLSharp - Liberty
In response to Liberty posted by pink101:I agree! Happy Fourth to everyone! Today is the day when we remember how our liberties were forged. All these arguments and debates over what liberty should mean would be fruitless if we didn't have a country that allowed us the freedom for open discussions.
As Pink said, Happy Birthday, America!
-- posted by RLSharp
» pink101 - Positive Liberties
In response to Liberty posted by RLSharp:.
I guess I'm starting to figure out the format in this site. I read your reply to my previous post at another location in this site. http://philosophy.suite101.com/blog.cfm/...
This comment you made got my attention:
.
"Just where do we draw the line on how much aid the government should provide in order to equalize our positive liberties, in order to allow us to lead the kind of lives that most people take for granted?"
.
I'm not positive that I fully understand what it means to live in a republic; but, I recognize that our republic is mediated with what it means to live in a democracy. Ours is, supposedly, a democratic republic; which, horror or horrors, makes us a "people's republic". In other words, we are set up to be a socialist state. So, what do you think about modifying your statement to read, "Just where do we draw the line on how much aid the government should provide in order to equalize our positive liberties, in order to allow us to lead the kind of lives that people have a right to lead in a socialist state?"
.
Horrors!!
.
Have we come to a place in our thinking where we are confusing what it means to live in a democracy with what it means to live in a capitalist state? The line of questioning can be turned around to seek some understanding about what rights corporations have to inveigle their ways into our societal institutions such as the educational with rules and regulations that favor the monied classes. Basically, our Educational Instirtution operates as a tool for the wealthy upper middle classes.
.
In a democratic republic, is it in the interest of the majority to change the processes of our Educational Institution so that all people are treated with equality? Or, should we continue to exclude the larger majority from gaining equality for higher opportunities?
.
-- posted by pink101
« Previous 1 2 Next »
This archived discussion is "read only" due to the absence of an active Feature Writer/moderator for this topic.
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.