|4 years ago :: Jan 25, 2011 - 7:00PM #1|
Isiash Belrin wrote the two concepts of liberity:
Negative freedom and positive freedom.
A positive freedom is a freedom to do something.
A negative freedom is it's opposite, the freedom not to do something.
Positive freedom a freedom to think, to jump, to skip.
Negative freedom a freedom not to think, not to jump, not to skip.
Positives and negatives of freedom.
So in a true negative freedom society, you are free only to express your freedom to not do anything, you are free only to not think, and if you do not think then you do not act.
As by contrast in a true positive freedom society you are free to do anything, but not free not to do things.
Right so choice is negative free society or positive free society, A negatively free society being pointless as you can only express your freedom to do nothing and a positive free society being anarchistic.
So Berlin here looks at problems relating to a completely free society, and decides that the greatest problem is revolution, as it leads to mass death and destruction. yet he fails to see that revolution can also be velvet, non-violent and peaceful.
So we have our list of all positive and negative freedoms, and now we use revolution to diferntciate these freedoms, and so with a new concern to prevent revolution, we move these freedoms from negative to positive depending on their ability to cause a revolution.
So here I believe Berlin divides all freedoms into could causes a revolution, and could not cause a revolution.
Negative freedoms are all kept, and the positive freedoms that could not cause a revolution, are added to them, which then becomes Neo-Negative freedom.
All the positive freedoms, with maybe a few negative freedoms(if these negative freedoms were to act in not preventing a revolution) becomes Neo-positive freedom.
The majority of freedom rest in the neo-negative freedom side.
Which is why we live in a neo-negative freedom society.
In a true negative freedom society we would only be allowed to; not think and so not act.
It's the fact that all actions, all freedoms, both positive and negative, stem from thoughts, that brings Berlin to attack thought, as the ultimate cause for revolution.
From this we then look at which thoughts could cause a person to become a revolutionary or inspire others to become revolutionary, these thoughts are prohibited, under neo-negative freedom system.
And as you cannot prevent thoughts and people thinking, you have to monitor them and should they show signs that they are thinking things they are not allowed, (as thoughts cause actions and so certain thoughts must be prohibited in a neo-negatively free society) you take steps to stop them- which in the extreme calls for drugging.
As thought rest in the mind, it is the mind that must be attacked, and drugs are an effective way to attack the brains ability to think.
The circus is another way to attack or dull thoughts also, to keep people busy, thinking about other things. Circus can be T.V or film but mainly any form of entertainment.
The point is to prevent revolution, and maintain the system. Which effectively means to keep those in power, in power.
The people in a neo-negative freedom society ofcourse can not know this reality, as to inform them, allows them the ability to pretend they are not thinking- Neo-postive freedom thoughts; Which could cause a revolution; So they can not know.
And there it is...
Also the people thinking neo-positive thoughts will therefore never know they are thinking them, and therefore will have no understanding of why certain things might be happening to them.
Important to understand here that Berlin is wrong
One: It is not thinking that causes revolution.
Two: As it is not thinking that causes revolution, they will occur anyway, leaving the whole system not fit for purpose, one, and two, allowing the true causes of revolution to slowly gather till bursting point- Ergo massive break down.
Three: The elites clearly use this and except it as it allows them to stay on top, they effectively trade off massive melt down for a belief that they will rule forever.
Four: As no-one is allowed to know that they live in a neo-negative freedom society, and what the implications of that are, the rulers over the top, effectively act as they want to, with everyone else completely ignorant to what they actually do.
Here the rulers are given a totally free hand to behave as they choose to, completely outside the rule of law, they are outside the negative freedom restrictions, and know what is ok and what is not.
Also the system itself works to protect their position and is meant to, also what ideas and thoughts are seen as exceptable, which thoughts are in the neo-positive freedom box, is at the mercy of those who run the system.
Our society is a negtive freedom society, please being to understand why mental health problems are through the roof!
|4 years ago :: Jan 25, 2011 - 8:23PM #2|
"It follows that a frontier must be drawn between the area of private life and that of public authority. Where it is to be drawn is a matter of argument, indeed of haggling. Men are largely interdependent, and no man's activity is so completely private as never to obstruct the lives of others in any way. 'Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows' the liberty of some must depend on the restraint of others."
Could it be that you're freedom to express your oppinion, could impinge on the freedom of someone else not to have to hear it?
What possible ways of twisting this theory to justify supressing people, did they think up?
I am going to add that I have in the above post gone to a foundationary idea about positive and negative freedom and how I feel it has been used.
"Freedom for the pike, is death for the minnows" fails, I feel to express the role the law has to play in the rights of man to be protected from certain behaviours, by other members of society, and also denies mans ability to rationally choose to not impinge on others, a statement that reduces man to slave of impulses, reduces man to an animal that has little or no self control or ability to self control.
If you look at statements about negative and positive liberity as listed on wilkipedia
Negative liberty is defined as freedom from interference by other people, or freedom from external restraint.
As such and if true, then we do not live in a negative freedom society, for we are all interfered with by those in power.
Positive Liberty is defined as the power and resources to act to fulfill one's own potential or an individual's freedom from inhibitions of the social structure within the society such as classism, sexism or racism and is primarily concerned with the possession of sociological agency.
Do you notice as defind, there are two different definations, on both sites for both.
And no mention of negative freedom society, and how the prevention of revolution, has impacted on these ideas of liberity.
It's a bit of a quagmire when looking into ideas of positive and negative liberty, I feel simply to confuse those that look into it, and then justify a negative freedom system as the greatest good, when it clearly is not. But then if I am correct about how this system works, you are not meant to know anyway.
|4 years ago :: Jan 25, 2011 - 9:20PM #3|
lonely robot: BBC documentary "The Trap" what happened to our dream of freedom?
0.41 Tony Blair: "To liberate Britian from all the old class devisions, structures, predudices"
Now that is a positive liberty, under that definition of positive liberty given in my above post from wikipedia.
Yet we live in a negative freedom society, where positive liberties are not meant to be present, they are opposed.
As shown here part three We will force you to be free.
Conclusion, that what is stated on wikipedia as negative and positive freedoms, with regards to negative freedom society, are not the same thing.
I suggest, as I have in my initial post that what the people in power call, positive liberty, is a very different thing, to what others do.
And that it is actions that cause revolution, along with the things those in power have decided should be included, that actually decide what a positive liberty is today.
|4 years ago :: Jan 26, 2011 - 10:04AM #4|
Positive liberty def 2. an individual's freedom from inhibitions of the social structure within the society such as classism, sexism or racism and is primarily concerned with the possession of sociological agency.
It occurs to me actually that surely that is a negative freedom, a freedom from interference by other people, or freedom from external restraint.
It implies that in a negative freedom society people are called to refrain, or are coerced to refrain from human interaction where ever possible, because that interaction in-of-itself could cause an infringement on the freedoms of the people involved.
It appears to call into being a world where everyone is alone, or a world where to join a group, or club or any form of organising is frowned upon, unless it has a nessecery social benefit, like work for example.
It also appears to be a convient way to stop social organisation, and therefore any type of revolt that could arise from it. I do ponder if religion is included, as a social structure that could impinge on the freedom of others, so is to be removed, maybe that is why religious symbols have been removed from schools ect. and why France is waging war on the Burqa right now.
|4 years ago :: Jan 26, 2011 - 10:24AM #5|
So putting it togther,
Negative liberty en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty
Negative liberty is defined as freedom from interference by other people, or freedom from external restraint, or an individual's freedom from inhibitions of the social structure within the society such as classism, sexism or racism and is primarily concerned with the possession of sociological agency.
Positive liberty: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty
Positive Liberty is defined as the power and resources to act to fulfill one's own potential.
What I see is that:
A positive liberty is a freedom for something.
A negative liberty is a freedom from something.
Which is social and not individual as my initial post stated.
So what then did Berlin do to these Liberties, to create what we call negative liberty society?
Well we know he sort to end revolution, so then all positive freedoms that could cause a revolution are banned.
and positive freedoms that do not cause revolution are added to negative liberty, which again would then become Neo-negative liberty.
Yet as a neo-negative freedom society must restict certain forms of thinking, it cannot be fully negative, or allow the people total freedom from any restraint.
Also what is a revolution? often it is the changing of those in power, therefore those in power, get a free hand do they not, to restrict those that they feel are attacking them, or pose a threat. Those in power after all decide today what is in the positve freedom box as I said before.
|4 years ago :: Jan 26, 2011 - 10:51AM #6|
Negative liberty is the garenteed imposition of the ruling group over the rest, a system that promotes despotism.
THE DEATH OF HISTORY
|4 years ago :: Jan 29, 2011 - 10:29PM #7|
A lie it cliams to promote a world where people are free, yet in reality it is a world that is inherenlty designed to enforce the rule of the ruling elite, and supress people that do not comply with their desire of how people should live.
We know that democray is something Negative liberity rejects, as democracy is a positive,
"Inherent to the concept of positive liberty is the idea that liberty is defined by the ability of citizens to participate in their government"
So just as a false idea of democracy has no doubt been used and allowed into this negative freedom system.
Other negative freedoms have probably been shifted into positve, these are freedoms from things, freedom from want for example as that idea contradicts the status quo and no doubt freedom from fear also, as those in power always have sort of scare the population in order to control them.
We therefore live in Neo-negaitve Liberty society, where your freedom from fear, want or exturnal interference are inherently not present. A false idea of negative freedom a neo idea of it. A system which is anything but what it claims, and ultimatley a system of control and domination, where those in power keep their power, not matter how abusive they become.
As shown negative freedom, rejects true democray so 'the democratic show' is really just that, a show and the real powers that be, go on un-effected and by the system protected.
|4 years ago :: Jan 29, 2011 - 11:33PM #8|
As another point this negative freedom system in which we live.
Is a system of very limited democracy to the point that it really isn't democracy at all, where business rules and the elite control.
Power is given to the market, and the market is international, and as each country becomes negatively free the elite that rule over the system take power over that country.
Negative freedom seen in that manner, promotes an ideas that is false firstly, but secoundly allows for the spread of an empire by stealth, "we invaded Iraq to bring democracy" in reality no, we invaded and brought negative freedom.
The velvet revolutions of europe brought the same thing, negative freedom, and so corporate control. Negative freedom is more than a simple system to control and dominate the people of a given country, rather it is a tool(or has become a tool) in global empire.
Although some corporations have a national idenity, many see themselves as international institutions. But also as the corporations and banks have power today, this is why they are too big to fail, for should they fail they loose their power.
Understand for a small country thinking of becomming negatively free, should they not be aware of what it means, they are taken over by stealth, as bigger exturnal corporations come in and by up everything.