Freedom: When it it positive? When is it negative?

[Democratic Hawk]

Can you elaborate on what you understand to be positive freedom and what you understand to be negative freedom?

For example, discrimination. I see the freedom from being discriminated against as trumping the freedom to discriminate

Am I correct in thinking that positive freedom refers to freedom from , while negative freedom refers to freedom to ? I've even tried refering to Isaiah Berlin's 'definition' of the two and I'm no further forward

Obviously, positive and negative freedom must mean different things to those on the left and those on the right of the ideological spectrum

Dave

[Gabu]

Am I correct in thinking that positive freedom refers to freedom from , while negative freedom refers to freedom to ?

My interpretation of them is the exact opposite: that positive freedom talks about something that you can do, while negative freedom talks about something that others cannot do to you.

[Emsworth]

Negative freedom involves the right to be free from being forced to do something. Positive freedom, on the other hand, involves the right to be free to do somehting.

To put it another way: Positive rights impose an obligation on other people to perform certain actions. Negative rights impose an obligation on other people to not perform certain actions.

If someone has a negative right to life, then everyone else is prohibited from killing that person. If someone has a positive right to life, then everyone else might be required to rescue that person when he falls into danger.

[Democratic Hawk]

Negative freedom involves the right to be free from being forced to do something. Positive freedom, on the other hand, involves the right to be free to do somehting.

So neither in itself equates with positive freedom being good (positive in that sense) and negative freedom being bad (negative in that sense)

From your definition, it would seem that both are, and all freedom is,  desirable

Dave

[Gabu]

So neither in itself equates with positive freedom being good (positive in that sense) and negative freedom being bad (negative in that sense)

Yes.

From your definition, it would seem that both are, and all freedom is,  desirable

Dave

Not exactly.  Positive and negative freedom are actually largely in opposition to one another.  Allowing someone to do an action to other people takes away others' freedoms not to have that action done to them.  A balance is required, because no man is an island.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For example, discrimination. I see the freedom from being discriminated against as trumping the freedom to discriminate.

I must disagree with you here because you are confusing two entirely different things, "the freedom from being discriminated against" and "the freedom from being discriminated against by the government".  Discrimination (in the political sense of by race, gender, creed, etc.) is certainly stupid for the discriminator to do, but I don't want government outlawing stupidity by privaye individuals.  That premise has been used by too many totalitarian regimes to jusify their outrages for me to be comfortable with that.

[Rin-chan]

It's positive when used during a revolution or to free enslaved or opressed people or really nice things like that.

It's negative when used by people like opebo.

Rin-chan

[John Dibble]

Positive freedoms, or a better term would be 'rights', are generally something that has to be given to you by the government or someone else - such as the 'right' to healthcare, or the right to a fair trial by jury, ect.

Negative freedoms/rights are inherent and need not be provided - they only need not be interfered upon - such as free speech, press, bearing arms, ect.

[afleitch]

Positive freedoms, or a better term would be 'rights', are generally something that has to be given to you by the government or someone else - such as the 'right' to healthcare, or the right to a fair trial by jury, ect.

Negative freedoms/rights are inherent and need not be provided - they only need not be interfered upon - such as free speech, press, bearing arms, ect.

Brings back memories of my essay on Rawls, Barry, Kenny, Kymlicka...

I'm going to post it on here when it's returned (with edits) as I hope it would be interesting.