If you are a Libertarian and hold liberty as your core value, why do you not believe in universal healthcare? Nothing impacts liberty more than sickness and death.
If you are a Libertarian and hold liberty as your core value, why do you not believe in universal healthcare? Nothing impacts liberty more than sickness and death.
You're viewing a single thread.
Tldr non partisan answer: Libertarian philosophy favors negative rights over positive rights.
Negative rights oblige others to not impede (like not censoring free speech).
Positive rights oblige others to provide something (like healthcare).
Imo, it would be better worded as follows:
- Negative liberty: freedom from something.
- Positive liberty: freedom to do something.
That's probably the more popular way, but I think it's easier to misinterpret. For example the freedom of speech, one could think of it as the freedom to speak instead of the freedom from undue censorship. But that right is usually considered a negative one.
For example the freedom of speech, one could think of it as the freedom to speak instead of the freedom from undue censorship.
As I currently understand it, freedom of speech is regarded as a negative liberty because it is purely focused on freedom from the government imposing restrictions on what you can and can't say. It's not, however, the government giving you the freedom to say whatever you want, whenever you want, under any circumstance — e.g. people are free to trespass you from their establishment if they don't like what you are saying.
I agree that it's a negative liberty. It's just the from/to language can be misconstrued IMO, the not impede/oblige others framing is more clear without additional information. It's, again IMO, targeting the core of the differential. Asking of others for inaction vs asking for action.
IIUC, I just think that the intent/mentality is somewhat altered in what you described in this comment. For example, you said "Positive rights oblige others to provide something (like healthcare)." — positive liberty isn't necessarily about forcing people, in an authoritative manner, to do things for, or to, another person. It's essentially taking the position that people should have the freedom to experience life on a level playing field, if you will — it is interested in lowering the amount of barriers preventing people from doing what they want. I don't think your wording is necessarily incorrect, I'm just not convinced that the connotation is the same.
I think this cleared up our disconnect. I chose oblige to indicate that they require others to do something for them to occur. Most often paying taxes, to pay the provider of a service. This typically isn't a 'at gunpoint' interaction. But negative rights will never require another to do something for it to be practiced.
I agree with your highlighting of the philosophy behind them. I was more concerned about a short rememberable way to differentiate the two.
So I chose oblige vs force to make sure it had the connotation of a civil concession.