I’ve heard it the exact opposite. Freedom to is positive freedom which tends to be a more social leftist or social liberal trait. Negative freedom (freedom from) is typically a more modern right wing or libertarian trait. Basically enabling people via common social framework that gives people options and social mobility vs complete non-interference.
"Erich Fromm sees the distinction between the two types o**f freedom emerging alongside humanity’s evolution away from the instinctual activity that characterizes lower animal forms. This aspect of freedom, he argues, “is here used not in its positive sense of freedom to but in its negative sense of ‘freedom from’, namely freedom from instinctual determination of his actions.”
I don’t necessarily agree with the premise but it’s an example of the to/from dichotomy being used in the discussion around freedom.
In Europe, most want “freedom from”. As in, freedom from hate speech, freedom from Nazis, freedom from gun owning cowards, freedom from bullying, freedom from corruption
Free speech is as outdated as handguns, if you want a peaceful life and happiness
Guess that’s where all your problems are coming from 🤷
I’m pretty sure people everywhere want “freedom to” have a house, buy groceries and receive good healthcare, which are the most practical forms of positive freedoms in politics.
That means that everyone has access to those means. Many liberals and most conservatives do not support providing free housing, healthcare and groceries to people who don’t work. That’s why it’s a leftist take.
Ah okay. I thought you were saying that those takes aren’t political because everyone wants it. (Which is obviously not true).
As far as I understand in Marxism freedom is understood as having all the means necessary to make decisions over your own live, like education, housing and healthcare. So ‘freedom to’ would be used in the context of having freedom to choose your own path.
Freedom to have a house is in that sense sounds to me like an example of the capitalist definition of freedom from restrictions, because the freedom to have a house means freedom from land ownership laws that currently prevent most people from owning the land they live on (or claiming land for their own that isn’t in use if they’re houseless)
I didn’t invent that take if you think it’s strange. Ironically these interpretations of liberty originally came from European philosophers, originally Rousseau I think, so take it up with them. 🤷🏻
I don’t think they were thinking about in terms of freedom from hate but more like creating social structures in place to enforce people’s freedom in the face of something like hate vs eliminating any social structures that would not allow someone to hate whichever thing and whoever they want to.
I’ve heard it the exact opposite. Freedom to is positive freedom which tends to be a more social leftist or social liberal trait. Negative freedom (freedom from) is typically a more modern right wing or libertarian trait. Basically enabling people via common social framework that gives people options and social mobility vs complete non-interference.
Here’s a quote from the Wikipedia article on positive liberty that backs up this interpretation of the to/from distinction. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty):
"Erich Fromm sees the distinction between the two types o**f freedom emerging alongside humanity’s evolution away from the instinctual activity that characterizes lower animal forms. This aspect of freedom, he argues, “is here used not in its positive sense of freedom to but in its negative sense of ‘freedom from’, namely freedom from instinctual determination of his actions.”
I don’t necessarily agree with the premise but it’s an example of the to/from dichotomy being used in the discussion around freedom.
Strange take.
In Europe, most want “freedom from”. As in, freedom from hate speech, freedom from Nazis, freedom from gun owning cowards, freedom from bullying, freedom from corruption
Free speech is as outdated as handguns, if you want a peaceful life and happiness
Guess that’s where all your problems are coming from 🤷
Free speech (& freedom of association) are super important to a lot (most?) of us.
Unfortunately some people abuse this right, making the argument that they should be free to remove others freedom.
The paradox of tolerance is a highly recommended read written by the same guy who made falsifiabilty the cornerstone of the scientific method.
I’m pretty sure people everywhere want “freedom to” have a house, buy groceries and receive good healthcare, which are the most practical forms of positive freedoms in politics.
That means that everyone has access to those means. Many liberals and most conservatives do not support providing free housing, healthcare and groceries to people who don’t work. That’s why it’s a leftist take.
I don’t disagree, my point is that people in this thread have got positive and negative freedoms and rights mixed up
Ah okay. I thought you were saying that those takes aren’t political because everyone wants it. (Which is obviously not true).
As far as I understand in Marxism freedom is understood as having all the means necessary to make decisions over your own live, like education, housing and healthcare. So ‘freedom to’ would be used in the context of having freedom to choose your own path.
Freedom to have a house is in that sense sounds to me like an example of the capitalist definition of freedom from restrictions, because the freedom to have a house means freedom from land ownership laws that currently prevent most people from owning the land they live on (or claiming land for their own that isn’t in use if they’re houseless)
I didn’t invent that take if you think it’s strange. Ironically these interpretations of liberty originally came from European philosophers, originally Rousseau I think, so take it up with them. 🤷🏻
I don’t think they were thinking about in terms of freedom from hate but more like creating social structures in place to enforce people’s freedom in the face of something like hate vs eliminating any social structures that would not allow someone to hate whichever thing and whoever they want to.
Yep, hundreds of years out of date
Times change, as do philosophies