_mm_ Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 Agree to disagree. We are going to have to here. Just not on the same page in how we define them. No, freedom of speech is a negative freedom and a negative freedom only. I hold completely the opposite view from you. Freedom of speech is innate to the liberty man has in the state of nature. Western Governments do not "possess" the right to free speech from the outset. They take from the individual's unadulterated freedom. Being born into a society is involuntary, hence it must be fully dissociated from state. I think you misunderstand my point. Taking my definition of negative freedoms, I am saying that Freedom of Speech is only negative freedom in the context of Western Constitutional Law. I say that, because it is a freedom from government restraint of speech, not a guarantee of ultimate freedom. Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech (at least in the States, where it’s actually written down) doesn’t mean that an employer can’t stop you from posting your political beliefs on your desk, it only stops the government from stopping you from doing so. Ultimately, within this context Freedom of Speech is a social construct and a negative liberty (again taking the definition as freedom from restraint). Taking my definition of positive freedoms as freedoms of pursuit without inhibition, then the affirmative action of speaking freely regardless of whatever restraints may or may not have placed or removed is a positive freedom. The question comes in whether you think constitutional rights are reserved or conveyed. I think that due to the nature of organized government, those rights are going to be conveyed unless explicitly stated as being reserved. In terms of Constitutionally guaranteed Freedom of Speech, it is conveyed as a mechanism of limiting your positive freedom to speak with the social inhibitions of libel, for example. Tort actions for libel or slander do not violate one’s constitutional right to freedom of speech, but they do limit one’s right to speak freely. No, that's not a positive freedom. If it is a positive freedom then the negative freedom does not exist. I hold that the negative freedom exists because of the basic principles of private property, so the latter does not exist. agree to disagree. we define the concepts differently. for what it's worth, i think you are using inverted reasoning in this statement and bootstrapping your notion of negative freedom to an acceptance of private property rights. you follow this by saying that because negative freedom exists, positive freedom does not. while i concur that that is a statement, i don't find that it is a properly formulated logical one. I hold the view that it is only historical positioning that prevents Locke from being a philosophical anarchist. His attempt to dilute the threshold in consent theory is the one major gripe I have. I hold that the state of nature and civil society are one and the same and that to enter a state requires express and unanimous consent, and it must only be logical for one to vest that consent in as far as that state can better protect one's life, liberty and property. so, Locke’s proffering the notion of a social contract was a concession to the times in which he came, but his theory that property is a natural right is not? How is his opinion that property is a natural consequence of labor not equally as defined by his surrounding culture and based upon a millenia of agrarian development within it? Considering that his thought developed at a time when deviation established agrarian culture was seen as "primitive," I find it fair to critique his contention that property is a natural right of labor as one borne of his culture. To take as given that property is a natural consequence of labor demands that you adhere to Western concepts of ownership. again, my complaint is that this Lockean notion of property rights is a hinge proposition (if you will allow me to drop a little Wittgenstein), upon which his reason and inquiry is based from which he formulates his conclusions. It being a hinge proposition does not invalidate it, but it does demand that the thought stemming from it accept it. this is exactly where i was going with my mention of normative impulses. i would posit that hinge propositions are effected by the normative impulses imbed by our culture and that basing an entire philosophy on one hinge proposition is symptomatic of the Christianized impulse of Western society. Embarrassing your captors with reason and ridicule into unlocking the handcuffs is a more satisfactory solution, though and here's where you let me down. your homework is to sell some drugs in a non-coercive manner or engage in a non-coercive exchange of sexual pleasure for money. live outside of the boundaries of society! break free from the taxman! sex and drugs are perfectly satisfactory! get your nose out of those "books" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.C.G. JAG Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 It all puts me in mind of an sitcom ala Anti - Citizen Smith, but I can't quite find the title. Any takers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 It all puts me in mind of an sitcom ala Anti - Citizen Smith, but I can't quite find the title. Any takers? Shameless? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 Shameless? yes you are Blackpool Jags sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.