• _NoName_
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    I imagine it’s a “negative liberty vs positive liberty” conundrum.

    American libertarianism seems to consistently skew towards negative liberty, which is complete autonomy to anything but without any power or resources. I believe this predilection came from Ayn Rand and Reaganism, and that It now manifests mostly as anarchocapitalist sentiments.

    I’m a bigger fan of positive liberty - possessing the resources and power to do what you desire within a constrained system.

    Unfortunately we live in a society which provides neither. The amazing results of constant compromise.

    • r3df0x ✡️✝☪️@7.62x54r.ru
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      The problem is defining what acceptable positive rights involves. There are people who think that having to “work to survive” is somehow a major human rights abuse. I don’t think that anyone should be entitled to not have to work unless they are severely disabled and can’t work. At the same time, expecting people to work multiple jobs is corporate oppression.

    • HANN@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      I really like your answer but to me this is what motivated me towards libertarianism. We have been voting between two parties that both are authoritarian in different ways and the result stinks. Let’s try the other half of the compass for a change. If government sucks then don’t vote for more government to fix the corrupt system. Vote to limit government and give power back to the people.