No, no, you people have misunderstood the concepts of positive and negative freedom. 'Positive' does not stand for 'positive things', like putting a stop to genocide and vice versa.
POSITIVE FREEDOM - freedom of something
NEGATIVE FREEDOM - freedom from something
In other words, positive freedom means that you have the liberty to enjoy things that support you in exercising your rights, while negative freedom means that you are free from oppressive structures and institutions, violence etc. that stop you from exercising your rights. Examples of negative freedom are easy to come up with: the society takes care of security, both domestic and foreign, so we can get on with our lives without constant fear; each person has full rights to his property and so on. What causes the most debate is defining the concept of positive freedom in each society. In Nordic countries positive freedom means that each citizen has full rights to completely free education all the way to University, high level of social security and government sponsored health insurance - it is believed that this way the people have no fear of being left on their own with their basic needs (Maslow). In US positive freedoms are mostly disregarded in favor of negative freedoms - the belief in people building their own fortune, with minimal outside influence.
The elemental part of the 'freedom debate', so to speak, is also the matter of drawing the line in where one person's freedom ends and another's begins. The generally accepted 'rule of the thumb' is that one's liberties end where another's begin, ie. you have no 'freedom of punching a fellow man in the face', because fellow man's 'freedom of being punched in the face' overcomes it. This definition is actually a lot harder in real life politics, and this is where the current flow of conversation comes in: should people be allowed to make choices that (indirectly) violate other people's rights? And in this case, I would not see it as black and white as you do, Retlaw. Not being able to make a choice (or limiting the number of options) is something society does in order to keep us from ripping each other's throats out (social contract).
Technology that cares...
-
Smiley
- Righteous Subjugator
- Posts: 3186
- Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 11:20 pm
- Location: Denmark. Smiley-land.
- Contact:
If everyone was able to think for themselves, plan ahead and avoid pitfalls, then those positive examples freedom would be negative, as long as the freedom of choice is forced upon you(at the expense of something else, such as high taxes and forced education).
People would be stifled, feel choiceless and forced.
In my case, just going along for the ride in the educational system was a negative experience.
I got lost and had no purpose throughout all of it, getting told I could do and be anything and was lost in that security.
If I had been forced to make choices and carefully weigh them underway, I would likely have had a much better experience and come out much better for it.
Would I have to choose between a "every man for himself and his fortune" contra having a society that's founded on helping one another, I would choose the latter though.
I'm doing fine though, I get by with a good margin of comfort and I enjoy my job. The system works, the rest is up to myself.
My point though, is that society on a broad view is NOT able to think for themselves, plan ahead or avoid pitfalls. Proof and examples are aplenty.
Commercial use of measuring mind and mood would definately be a negative impact, but social application would be welcome(and hopefully not abusive or designed for control).
I like Retlaw's idea of karmic justice and balance, but I think it's closer to a romantic fantasy than reality.
I can't imagine how you would ever measure it, you'd need to define a limit of time for how long it takes to balance things out. If there is no limit, then it just falls down to chance and then of course it seems like things balance out. Also, when are things status quo?
How do you define balance?
Was there balance for the millions of jews who died during world war two?
Is there balance for fugitives who are lost in bureaucracy and are homeless for decades?
If balance is that loosely defined, such as on a "cosmic scale" isn't it rather just a way of life and relying on hope and faith, than any kind of true balance?
People would be stifled, feel choiceless and forced.
In my case, just going along for the ride in the educational system was a negative experience.
I got lost and had no purpose throughout all of it, getting told I could do and be anything and was lost in that security.
If I had been forced to make choices and carefully weigh them underway, I would likely have had a much better experience and come out much better for it.
Would I have to choose between a "every man for himself and his fortune" contra having a society that's founded on helping one another, I would choose the latter though.
I'm doing fine though, I get by with a good margin of comfort and I enjoy my job. The system works, the rest is up to myself.
My point though, is that society on a broad view is NOT able to think for themselves, plan ahead or avoid pitfalls. Proof and examples are aplenty.
Commercial use of measuring mind and mood would definately be a negative impact, but social application would be welcome(and hopefully not abusive or designed for control).
I like Retlaw's idea of karmic justice and balance, but I think it's closer to a romantic fantasy than reality.
I can't imagine how you would ever measure it, you'd need to define a limit of time for how long it takes to balance things out. If there is no limit, then it just falls down to chance and then of course it seems like things balance out. Also, when are things status quo?
How do you define balance?
Was there balance for the millions of jews who died during world war two?
Is there balance for fugitives who are lost in bureaucracy and are homeless for decades?
If balance is that loosely defined, such as on a "cosmic scale" isn't it rather just a way of life and relying on hope and faith, than any kind of true balance?
Testicular Pugilist
All choices are binary. All choices can be broken down into binary logic in at least a symbolic way. The problem, then, is definition and reality. Positive and negative freedoms are easily expressed and assumed when the given is that a society is responsible and thoughtful enough to understand, respect, and act on them.
The problem comes when your given is not true, or any given is not true as is often the case. In the case of a societal safety net(welfare/SS) the common person may never see a dime of it, or only at the end of their life, while many take advantage of the system and it seems that those who truly need it rarely see it. I understand the logic of 'we have to do something to try to help those in need', but in the end, at least in the US, it seems to simply perpetuate the lifestyle and thought process that got these people there.
I am very much one for as little government control as possible, at least in this country, as I've seen what happens when it does intervene. For other countries, especially those in europe, you seem to have it under control. I just can't see a similar system working currently in the US with the general mindset.
The problem comes when your given is not true, or any given is not true as is often the case. In the case of a societal safety net(welfare/SS) the common person may never see a dime of it, or only at the end of their life, while many take advantage of the system and it seems that those who truly need it rarely see it. I understand the logic of 'we have to do something to try to help those in need', but in the end, at least in the US, it seems to simply perpetuate the lifestyle and thought process that got these people there.
I am very much one for as little government control as possible, at least in this country, as I've seen what happens when it does intervene. For other countries, especially those in europe, you seem to have it under control. I just can't see a similar system working currently in the US with the general mindset.
...signatures? WTF?
-
Tingel Tangel
- Fascist Bitch
- Posts: 760
- Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
- Location: On my feet
It's generally hard to implement politics of one country into the structure of another - my memory of Comparative Politics as a course always contained the angle of 'so why wouldn't this be doable in country B, when it seems to work so well in country A?'. Something the 'scholars' seem to remember to think of, but the people carrying it out in real life do not.
A clear example would be the political unrest and tumult that France experienced in 2006, when directly trying to implement the Flexicurity system that functions immensely well in Denmark - Smiley's already made a sideline comment towards it. We're told that we can do what we want, and if we fail, the system will have our back. It's a general model of put and take; The system shows us trust, we pay the trust back by working effort. We show the system trust, it pays us back when we're having a rough time.
Though, this does involve a great deal of what some people would concider Government Surveilance - we offer up our economies, our wherearbouts, our consumer habits and so on and so forth, and can be found in several different systems: but we do so, as a society, trusting in the fact that these systems will protect and honour us as individual citizens. (This sounds very polished - I'm taking the ultimately pro side to emphasize the example.)
But this is trust that has been built up over -years-. They tried directly implementing the clauses and laws of Danish businesses and the labour market into a society, that doesn't have the same employer/employee trust, and the effect was a massive sense of insecurity, that led to a series of public protests verging on riots.
I think, Caleb, that implementing a system such as ours our any other European one, that's vastly different from yours, could work - but never, ever, ever overnight. It's a general sense of gaining trust in the government first.
A clear example would be the political unrest and tumult that France experienced in 2006, when directly trying to implement the Flexicurity system that functions immensely well in Denmark - Smiley's already made a sideline comment towards it. We're told that we can do what we want, and if we fail, the system will have our back. It's a general model of put and take; The system shows us trust, we pay the trust back by working effort. We show the system trust, it pays us back when we're having a rough time.
Though, this does involve a great deal of what some people would concider Government Surveilance - we offer up our economies, our wherearbouts, our consumer habits and so on and so forth, and can be found in several different systems: but we do so, as a society, trusting in the fact that these systems will protect and honour us as individual citizens. (This sounds very polished - I'm taking the ultimately pro side to emphasize the example.)
But this is trust that has been built up over -years-. They tried directly implementing the clauses and laws of Danish businesses and the labour market into a society, that doesn't have the same employer/employee trust, and the effect was a massive sense of insecurity, that led to a series of public protests verging on riots.
I think, Caleb, that implementing a system such as ours our any other European one, that's vastly different from yours, could work - but never, ever, ever overnight. It's a general sense of gaining trust in the government first.
-
Kashluk
-
Smiley
- Righteous Subjugator
- Posts: 3186
- Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 11:20 pm
- Location: Denmark. Smiley-land.
- Contact:
For one, I'm not sure I'd like to see it either.Caleb wrote: I am very much one for as little government control as possible, at least in this country, as I've seen what happens when it does intervene. For other countries, especially those in europe, you seem to have it under control. I just can't see a similar system working currently in the US with the general mindset.
Not because I think that it the long run it wouldn't hold up(I think it would), but because there needs to be a place where the romantic dream of freedom lives on.
In comparison, I see the US as a lot less free in some ways, than here.
My grand-cousin from California got suspended from school for having a toolknife in his backpack at school, followed by a trip to the police-station and being forced to attend some anti-violence classes or whatever.
Also, the way some of the police there handles minors with alcohol. (I don't know how the different states handles it.)
Maybe it's because alcohol(beer in particular) is such a big part of our culture that, that kind of overreaction offends me, and *my* sense/understanding of freedom. You're almost expected to be able to handle a beer or two at age 15(while individuality applies, it's still common).
Here he would've gotten told to be careful with it and depending on his history, his parents might have gotten a notice.
The same kind of hysteria and overreaction is beginning here and it's aggravating. People are being jailed and fined for having tool knives in their cars, due to the ongoing gang-violence in Copenhagen.
Sig worthy.Kashluk wrote:Especially in a nation that was founded on the principle of "fuck the government, kick the tea in the sea".
Testicular Pugilist
