Part 2

Part 3

Hate to be a hater but I hate John Stewart's interviews.

I also hate about half of the segments from the Daily Show for how they "Jimmy Fallon" almost everything they do and when they're not doing that they feign shock at how zany their own show is. So maybe I should just stop watching it.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

*blocked

This video has been flagged as having an embed that is Region Blocked to not function in certain geographical locations - declared blocked by doogle.

Answers a lot of fundamental questions people have about Libertarianism.

Like that Ron Paul is a befuddled dork?

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Boise_Lib.

>> ^budzos:

Hate to be a hater but I hate John Stewart's interviews.
I also hate about half of the segments from the Daily Show for how they "Jimmy Fallon" almost everything they do and when they're not doing that they feign shock at how zany their own show is. So maybe I should just stop watching it.


Yeah...do please Fuck Off.

I've never liked Jon's interviews but his show is still top notch.

I like Ron Paul, but I thought that his responses to some of Stewart's reasonable questions were a bit soft. I have serious doubts about the market's ability to regulate itself, and I'd love to hear a much longer and fully-thought out response from Paul with regards to Stewart's question about whether or not he can provide any specific historic examples of when an unregulated market did manage to keep itself in line.

Bringing a bunch of bureaucrats in to do the regulating isn't a perfect solution; for one thing, who watches the watchers and prevents or limits collusion between the two sides, as Paul mentioned. But on the other hand the recent history of low federal regulation has just resulted in corporations getting bigger and bigger, with less and less of the critical regulating force in capitalism -- competition.

*doublepromote

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, September 27th, 2011 6:08pm PDT - doublepromote requested by blankfist.

Jerk is still a jerk.

Just because I dislike much of what Ron Paul stands for and his policies, doesn't mean I don't "understand freedom". Typical Republican response, and SO fucking similar to "your either with us, or you're with the terrorists". Is he taking lines from Dick Cheney now?

The more I listen to him, and the more I study economics and macroeconomics, the more I realize that either Dr.Paul is a liar or is stupid. I'm not sure which, but he is so grossly wrong about so many things it makes me cringe to think of how much I used to support his beloved "message". (I actually sent him money and voted for him in the primaries as well.. fuck!)

He does what the GOP does every day, point to a failure somewhere and exclaim "well, if you did it my way it wouldn't be so fucked up!" which is nothing but pure horseshit.

Stewart was right. Where has this idea ever worked? The answer is NO FUCKING WHERE.

And you know what? We have this happiness index that is very, very clear. Societies that have strict government regulation over corporations and the environment, have the most prosperous economic conditions (except for creating do-nothing millionaires like Ron Paul), the healthiest citizens, the highest levels of employment, the best education, the best health care and basically the happiest people on the planet. Oh, and unlike Ron Paul, these countries aren't filled with religious nutbags.

>> ^MilkmanDan:

I like Ron Paul, but I thought that his responses to some of Stewart's reasonable questions were a bit soft. I have serious doubts about the market's ability to regulate itself, and I'd love to hear a much longer and fully-thought out response from Paul with regards to Stewart's question about whether or not he can provide any specific historic examples of when an unregulated market did manage to keep itself in line.
Bringing a bunch of bureaucrats in to do the regulating isn't a perfect solution; for one thing, who watches the watchers and prevents or limits collusion between the two sides, as Paul mentioned. But on the other hand the recent history of low federal regulation has just resulted in corporations getting bigger and bigger, with less and less of the critical regulating force in capitalism -- competition.


Competition is not allowed partly because the government steps in and helps the truly wealthy (Or their political allies) smash the little guy. This is in the name of regulation.

We have lost competition also because everyone wants to save a buck or two. This cannot be undone even with massive regulations. Nobody would shop at a mom and pop store where a grocery bill is 50-100 dollars more for the same amount of goods. And so the mom and pop store dies. Then, the competition-free supermarket is free to raise their rates.

This is our fault. I doubt we could fix it--but neither can bureaucrats.

>> ^volumptuous:

Jerk is still a jerk.
Just because I dislike much of what Ron Paul stands for and his policies, doesn't mean I don't "understand freedom". Typical Republican response, and SO fucking similar to "your either with us, or with the terrorists".
Asshole.


Most people do not understand what freedom is all about. If they did, they would abhor it. Freedom is the distance between members of society. It is a cold and heartless tool. Freedom is my ability to watch you smashed by a car and laugh, to take pictures and post them on my Facebook account. It is the ability of a corporation to pull the plug on your mother. It is your freedom to never use that corporation again...

Freedom, RP is right, 99% don't understand freedom. Especially those who love it.

^Freedom means different things to different people. While unfettered markets might provide liberty for the very rich, it comes at the expense of the liberty of others. People liberty > Money liberty

I heretofore pronounce that no right-wing person knows anything about freedom or liberty. Only the left understands these concepts.

Lol...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/29/2430644/nc-gov-perdues-remark-strikes.html

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/94940/peter-orszag-democracy

Now - this is just the tip of the iceberg of course. Leftists and neolibs everywhere are very comfortable with the idea of limiting freedoms, reducing choice, and otherwise stomping on personal liberty in the name of thier so-called 'progressive' beliefs. Netrunner - imma callin' you out on this one. You've got it 100% backwards. The people who don't know jack-squat about freedom or liberty are LEFTISTS. They hate freedom. They hate liberty. They want everyone to live under their benevolent heel with freedoms appropriately doled out by themselves. I'm saying it loud and I'm saying it proud. No true neolib understands a thing about freedom. They only want freedom as THEY define it - which means people are free to obey leftist dogma but arrested, insulted, or killed if they dare to believe anything else. Hyperbole? Nope. The worst massacres and genocides in all history were by leftist regimes. Deal with it.

Well done, sir. >> ^NetRunner:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^Freedom means different things to different people.
I applaud your generosity, but I'm sorta done with the whole "reasonable people can disagree" bit on the meaning of freedom and liberty.
I heretofore pronounce that no right-wing person knows anything about freedom or liberty. Only the left understands these concepts. The right doesn't have a different but equally valid view, they're just wrong. Right-wingers who feel that freedom means something even slightly different from the left-wing view is simply in denial about reality.
If the right wants a word to describe their incorrect views on freedom and liberty, they may use the word "freeberty" to describe their inherently false and mistaken views of what freedom and liberty are.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I heretofore pronounce that no right-wing person knows anything about freedom or liberty. Only the left understands these concepts.
Lol...
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/29/2430644/nc-gov-perdues-r
emark-strikes.html
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/94940/peter-orszag-democ
racy
Now - this is just the tip of the iceberg of course. Leftists and neolibs everywhere are very comfortable with the idea of limiting freedoms, reducing choice, and otherwise stomping on personal liberty in the name of thier so-called 'progressive' beliefs. Netrunner - imma callin' you out on this one. You've got it 100% backwards. The people who don't know jack-squat about freedom or liberty are LEFTISTS. They hate freedom. They hate liberty. They want everyone to live under their benevolent heel with freedoms appropriately doled out by themselves. I'm saying it loud and I'm saying it proud. No true neolib understands a thing about freedom. They only want freedom as THEY define it - which means people are free to obey leftist dogma but arrested, insulted, or killed if they dare to believe anything else. Hyperbole? Nope. The worst massacres and genocides in all history were by leftist regimes. Deal with it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy


I expect you to write a 500 word - abstract on each of these concepts. There need to be at least 2 academic sources used per paper. Hmm.

Come to think of it, you should first write an abstract on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Scholarly_peer_review just to make sure you understand what is expected of you.

I'll do it faster than that.

Sarcasm:
(1) Something easy to use, but difficult to discern in written text.

Given the overall tone of Videosift, I had no real reason to doubt that NR was serious, if hyperbolic.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I'll do it faster than that.
Sarcasm:
(1) Something easy to use, but difficult to discern in written text.
Given the overall tone of Videosift, I had no real reason to doubt that NR was serious, if hyperbolic.


You know, if you actually listened to what liberals actually say, rather than hanging onto some caricature of liberals that you pick up from drowning your brain in right-wing media, it would've been obvious I was kidding.

You see the left's position on "freedom" is not dogmatic, and we generally feel that reasonable people can disagree about what the best way to maximize freedom and liberty is.

This is contrasted by assholes like you insisting that "freedom" is intrinsically tied to your particular political ideology, and anyone who doesn't subscribe to your dogma is against freedom.

That mode of thinking is entirely antithetical to liberals, and if I saw a liberal saying what I said in all seriousness, I'd call them out myself.

Coming here lets you see real liberals free and in the wild. Rather than noticing that the reality doesn't line up with the petty caricatures you've heard elsewhere and re-evaluating your opinion of them, you double down on the caricatures and scream about how we must really be something other than what we appear to be.

And by the way, that is why I generally don't bother responding to you. You're not interested in having a dialogue and expanding your horizons, you just want to go around attacking people for thinking differently than you.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I'll do it faster than that.
Sarcasm:
(1) Something easy to use, but difficult to discern in written text.
Given the overall tone of Videosift, I had no real reason to doubt that NR was serious, if hyperbolic.


The text-box is blurry, meaning "Sarcasm." The more you know *star*

@DerHasisttot, is it that you don't think freedom is a cold and heartless tool, or that it is something else? And if so, what is it? What is it when there is to much? Or it's in the wrong place?

I think the "word" we are looking for is closer to "equality" or something like "fair" or "decent", something like that...

@Lawdeedaw I want a response too!

What's your answer to a hypothetical liberal, who in all seriousness makes this argument about freeberty vs. real, authentic liberal liberty? (You know liberal is actually the adjective form of liberty, don't you?)

If, as you say, "there is an actual conceptual meaning to ideas such as liberty and freedom", then who's the final arbiter of what that conceptual meaning is?

Is it me? You? Wikipedia? Is it The Encyclopedia of Philosophy? Or is it source like Conservapedia, Mises.org, and Reason.tv who take one particular view and deny the validity of any other way of thinking? (You know libertarian actually means "similar to liberty, but not the genuine article", right?)

Whose definition is authoritative? The people who include all points of view, and not try to declare winners and losers, or the people who say they're right, and everyone else is wrong simply because they say so?

WARNING for the sarcasm-impaired: Parentheticals are purely meant as sarcasm.

Lol! Sorry friend, staying off the sift more and more these days so only have time for a quickie or two.

I just want to point out to @dystopianfuturetoday, before I get to my point, that the common defense of those defending a position, "words mean different things to different people;" is, IMO, a weak argument. Those attacking tend to use words definitively, ironically (Conservatives say Obama "hates" America, some say he "loves" America... And both are probably right in a fashion.)

I say that if a word is so broad as to be utterly, entirely, completely useless, then why even have those words? The sun is "hot", oh yeah? To who, or what? And what are the comparisons? Is the sun really hot or is that subjective?

While technically it is correct to say the sun may not be hot, it is a silly argument to make and really makes the word "hot" so subjective that it's pointless to note anything hot. And certainties? OMG, there can never be any certainties with this line of open-ended wording (Except, oddly enough, the certainty that itself is the only certainty...)

I am not the definitive judicator of words and their meaning---but I am a damn good judge. You can be one too. Just take a word and, without the rhetoric or emotions added, think on it.

Sarcasm >>>>> (Freedom must be good. It is choice. But, as noted by a great philosopher, in a world of a million choices, you tend to make less choices because the choices enslave you to an extent...so it's not about choice, that is the rhetorical, American-ized version of freedom...) Urm, how about Sarcasm>>>> (Freedom is great, good and promotes prosperity.) How so? That is subjective as hell and cannot be quantified in any way shape or form.... Or >>>>> (Freedom is found in a democracy...) When a million people have a say, your say is very unimportant...

Just weed through the words and find their core if you can (Some don't have one.) And of course, the words change with society too, so the answer never stays stagnant forever.

Otherwise, if we cannot say this is correct, then I will just start typing anything about anyone and say, Sarcasm>>>>>>>"Hey, words mean different things to different people. dystopianfuturetoday is like Hitler means something completely different to me than you--it is not an insult at all but a compliment!"

>> ^NetRunner:

@Lawdeedaw I want a response too!
What's your answer to a hypothetical liberal, who in all seriousness makes this argument about freeberty vs. real, authentic liberal liberty? (You know liberal is actually the adjective form of liberty, don't you?)
If, as you say, "there is an actual conceptual meaning to ideas such as liberty and freedom", then who's the final arbiter of what that conceptual meaning is?
Is it me? You? Wikipedia? Is it The Encyclopedia of Philosophy? Or is it source like Conservapedia, Mises.org, and Reason.tv who take one particular view and deny the validity of any other way of thinking? (You know libertarian actually means "similar to liberty, but not the genuine article", right?)
Whose definition is authoritative? The people who include all points of view, and not try to declare winners and losers, or the people who say they're right, and everyone else is wrong simply because they say so?
WARNING for the sarcasm-impaired: Parentheticals are purely meant as sarcasm.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I am not the definitive judicator of words and their meaning---but I am a damn good judge. You can be one too. Just take a word and, without the rhetoric or emotions added, think on it.

I agree. We're telling you we have meditated on the meaning of freedom, and have come to conclusions that differ from yours.

Winding back to the original comment here, this doesn't mean we "don't understand" freedom, it's that we have a different understanding of it.

Ron Paul is not making some argument against the concept of positive liberty, or responding to the observation that property rights place external constraints on people and therefore their liberty. He's just calling people who raise those questions ignorant.

Which is why we think he's a close minded jerk.

For a better understanding of the various differing and contradictory concepts of liberty, check out this Wikipedia article on liberty. Some concepts of liberty are actuated through government (through laws, constitutions, civil rights, regulations, etc). Some concepts of liberty can only exist in the absence of government. There are both conservative and liberal concepts of liberty; both economic and social concepts of liberty; both anarchic and state based concepts of liberty.

Some believe that holding property is a liberty. Some believe that holding property limits liberty. Who is right? Both. If you own the property that surrounds my favorite tree, you have complete liberty to read a book underneath it and I do not.

It's all subjective. It's all based on individual perspective.

It's interesting that the self appointed conservative-libertarian champions of 'individuality' do not tolerate individuals that disagree with their group think on this matter, not to mention highly hypocritical.

You don't have to agree with all of these differing concepts of liberty, but it would be healthy for you to understand that your concept of liberty is subjective, far from absolute and far from universal.


(btw, my VS notification emails are routed to an email address I rarely check, so if I don't respond, hit me up on my homepage)

Federal Gov = evil ... Local Government = magically impervious to fault. If we had a cosmopolitan global government I am sure he'd be advocating for national government.

Ron Paul totally lost me in this interview. So many leaps in logic that his whole philosophy is incoherent. Shame really. Only honest guy in the whole lot.

>> ^Kofi:

Federal Gov = evil ... Local Government = magically impervious to fault. If we had a cosmopolitan global government I am sure he'd be advocating for national government.
Ron Paul totally lost me in this interview. So many leaps in logic that his whole philosophy is incoherent. Shame really. Only honest guy in the whole lot.


Isn't honesty enough? I mean if/when we vote for the liar, aren't we *promoting the actual lies? And when we vote for the liars, isn't it true that we aren't voting for a platform, since the platform is an illusion?

That's why I vote the way I do, I promote truth over incompetence.

RP = Close minded. Definitely But that is American. Rare is he who lives in the States and is open-minded (See Tea Party, and intellectuals...)

As far as positive liberty, it seems just a state of mind more so than the actual concept of liberty. I find it odd that added words (For lack of better words) have to be used to augment the entire definition.

Ex, "stolen" property versus "gifted" property. Those first words change everything, right? Except property is still property. It still has a definition without relying on adjectives.

Negative liberty is the vastly closer-to-freedom expression. That's not to say positive "liberty" is a bad thing--but like I said, it is more state-of-mind than actual freedom (I guess you could argue that freedom of thought is the only freedom that matters. Or that freedom to agree as a society is still freedom...)

Of course, I could be reading the whole thing wrong...in which case, ah, it happens--we are human after all.

@dystopianfuturetoday

The tree you speak of wouldn't be available for you to read by in a positive liberty manner nor would it be available in a negative liberty manner. One would be me, a member of society owning the tree, telling you to go away and enforcing my property claim. The other would be the law, created and enforced by society, telling you to get away from my tree. Either way--get the fuck away from my tree!

Also, when you add economic liberty, and social liberty, and blah blah blah, you change the entire symbols of how we process the words. I was speaking directly on liberty. When you say economic liberty, then we get into slavery territory here in the states because I cannot just succeed with hard work and intellect. Money makes money and keeps others from making money.

I hope that makes sense. Sure does to me

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
I am not the definitive judicator of words and their meaning---but I am a damn good judge. You can be one too. Just take a word and, without the rhetoric or emotions added, think on it.
I agree. We're telling you we have meditated on the meaning of freedom, and have come to conclusions that differ from yours.
Winding back to the original comment here, this doesn't mean we "don't understand" freedom, it's that we have a different understanding of it.
Ron Paul is not making some argument against the concept of positive liberty, or responding to the observation that property rights place external constraints on people and therefore their liberty. He's just calling people who raise those questions ignorant.
Which is why we think he's a close minded jerk.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

As far as positive liberty, it seems just a state of mind more so than the actual concept of liberty.
...
Negative liberty is the vastly closer-to-freedom expression. That's not to say positive "liberty" is a bad thing--but like I said, it is more state-of-mind than actual freedom (I guess you could argue that freedom of thought is the only freedom that matters. Or that freedom to agree as a society is still freedom...)
Of course, I could be reading the whole thing wrong...in which case, ah, it happens--we are human after all.

I think you're reading it wrong.

Let's set property aside for a minute. My favorite positive vs. negative liberty example comes from the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Specifically Title VII, which both Rand and Ron Paul said they oppose as being a limit on (negative) liberty.

Title VII basically bans discrimination in privately owned public spaces, like stores, restaurants, theatres, etc. It gives all people the positive liberty of being able to participate in the economy, no matter their race, gender, or creed. They can shop in any shop, apply for any job, and purchase services freely. They've been empowered to fulfill their own potential.

From the negative liberty (and absolutist property) point of view, this is a decrease in liberty -- it involves the state placing a constraint on people's ability to do as they wish with their property. They can no longer put a "Whites Only" sign in the window, and they cannot enforce that policy with violence anymore because an external constraint has been placed on them that limits their "freedom" to do so.

Thing is, "property" is also an external constraint inconsistent with negative liberty. If I want to drive a car, but have no money to buy, rent, or lease one, it's illegal for me to do so, even if there's thousands of idle ones available for me to use in the parking lot. That's an external constraint being imposed on me too.

The only real way to consider property compatible with liberty is by fiat (as libertarians/objectivists do), or to think of it as a sort of positive liberty. You are empowered to acquire objects, and become their master. You are empowered to bequeath that right to whomever you choose. You are entitled to fair compensation if someone damages or steals your property. You are entitled to fair compensation for your labor. And so on.

That's why I get so frustrated with people who have the gall to tell me that I don't understand liberty. Usually they're saying that because they haven't ever been exposed to the other side of the philosophical debate.

Ah yes---own property, as opposed to it owning you. I don't believe one can own property, but I believe it can be claimed by someone.

And as goes the example of positive liberty, of course they can impose it with violence. They can also craft multiple ways around the whole argument by policies that hold down black individuals in other ways (Which they have done so a thousand different ways.) So instead of being out in the open, they are now cloak-and-dagger, which still is better than the old days I suppose.

A good example of negative liberty is found in the movie industry. American History X probably slashed into racism these days more (Since our young have the attention span of gnats and wouldn't listen to a long speech) than anything else (Warning, that was a very unverifiable statement.) Positive liberty would disdain such a video, one that is full of violence and racism and it's universal motivation is greed--to acquire property from the movie's sale. Of course, since it has a good "message" it would not be prohibited, of course...

But no, I read it right then.


>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
As far as positive liberty, it seems just a state of mind more so than the actual concept of liberty.
...
Negative liberty is the vastly closer-to-freedom expression. That's not to say positive "liberty" is a bad thing--but like I said, it is more state-of-mind than actual freedom (I guess you could argue that freedom of thought is the only freedom that matters. Or that freedom to agree as a society is still freedom...)
Of course, I could be reading the whole thing wrong...in which case, ah, it happens--we are human after all.
I think you're reading it wrong.
Let's set property aside for a minute. My favorite positive vs. negative liberty example comes from the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Specifically Title VII, which both Rand and Ron Paul said they oppose as being a limit on (negative) liberty.
Title VII basically bans discrimination in privately owned public spaces, like stores, restaurants, theatres, etc. It gives all people the positive liberty of being able to participate in the economy, no matter their race, gender, or creed. They can shop in any shop, apply for any job, and purchase services freely. They've been empowered to fulfill their own potential.
From the negative liberty (and absolutist property) point of view, this is a decrease in liberty -- it involves the state placing a constraint on people's ability to do as they wish with their property. They can no longer put a "Whites Only" sign in the window, and they cannot enforce that policy with violence anymore because an external constraint has been placed on them that limits their "freedom" to do so.
Thing is, "property" is also an external constraint inconsistent with negative liberty. If I want to drive a car, but have no money to buy, rent, or lease one, it's illegal for me to do so, even if there's thousands of idle ones available for me to use in the parking lot. That's an external constraint being imposed on me too.
The only real way to consider property compatible with liberty is by fiat (as libertarians/objectivists do), or to think of it as a sort of positive liberty. You are empowered to acquire objects, and become their master. You are empowered to bequeath that right to whomever you choose. You are entitled to fair compensation if someone damages or steals your property. You are entitled to fair compensation for your labor. And so on.
That's why I get so frustrated with people who have the gall to tell me that I don't understand liberty. Usually they're saying that because they haven't ever been exposed to the other side of the philosophical debate.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

A good example of negative liberty is found in the movie industry. American History X probably slashed into racism these days more (Since our young have the attention span of gnats and wouldn't listen to a long speech) than anything else (Warning, that was a very unverifiable statement.) Positive liberty would disdain such a video, one that is full of violence and racism and it's universal motivation is greed--to acquire property from the movie's sale. Of course, since it has a good "message" it would not be prohibited, of course...
But no, I read it right then.

You obviously don't understand liberty.

For one, American History X is ultimately a powerful story about tolerance, redemption, and forgiveness, and an illustration of the ugliness and pointlessness of racism. But for the sake of argument, let's assume it's actually promoting racism, as you say.

For starters, "positive liberty" doesn't say anything about the video. It's not an ideology, or a dogma.

I think you're trying to make a swipe at liberalism by saying it'd be okay with banning such a film, but the truth is we believe in free speech, and wouldn't want it banned, even if it was some sort of racist screed.

But what is free speech? Is it a positive or negative liberty?

In our legal system, it's barely considered a right. It's viewed as a negative liberty, sorta. The government can't constrain your speech, but private organizations may. Legally, you may spout whatever racist speech you like, but if your employer wants to fire you for doing so they can, and media companies can refuse to publish racist content if they like.

Some conservatives get confused about this (because they don't understand liberty), and think free speech is a positive liberty. They think that they should be legally protected from being fired for saying racist things, or that media companies should be legally compelled to publish whatever sort of racist screed they want to publish. Sometimes they even take this to a ridiculous extreme, and think free speech entitles them to a right to not be criticized for what they say.

See the difference yet?

Liberals generally are comfortable with both types of liberty being "real". Conservatives often assert that property, plus some narrow subset of negative liberty (freedom from constraint by government) is the very definition of liberty. Never mind that the net result of that is a very strict set of coercive limits being placed on people's ability to do as they please...

Wow wow wow, never once did I say American History X promoted anything remotely related to racism. I said the opposite. "Slashed into" doesn't mean "promoted." Slashed into means "hurt" racism... In fact, "slashed into" is about as far from promoting as possible.

Well that was the biggest fail from you I have seen...and I am only half kidding

Next, I meant you would detest the movie but not the free speech. You know, since the movie was made for one purpose only---capitalistic greed. Of course I am assuming the motives of the people who made the film, perhaps wrongly, but I doubt the makers had the best of intentions without the dollars.

And, on the other note, conservatives are happy with both liberties--but only when both types of liberties are slanted in their favor (For example, see your own part where you mentioned free speech.) Liberals tend to favor both liberties less in that self-serving manner, but most still do manipulate them somewhat.

Hrm, your last point, that the alleged coercive aspect of freedoms impeding freedom is interesting.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
A good example of negative liberty is found in the movie industry. American History X probably slashed into racism these days more (Since our young have the attention span of gnats and wouldn't listen to a long speech) than anything else (Warning, that was a very unverifiable statement.) Positive liberty would disdain such a video, one that is full of violence and racism and it's universal motivation is greed--to acquire property from the movie's sale. Of course, since it has a good "message" it would not be prohibited, of course...
But no, I read it right then.
You obviously don't understand liberty.
For one, American History X is ultimately a powerful story about tolerance, redemption, and forgiveness, and an illustration of the ugliness and pointlessness of racism. But for the sake of argument, let's assume it's actually promoting racism, as you say.
For starters, "positive liberty" doesn't say anything about the video. It's not an ideology, or a dogma.
I think you're trying to make a swipe at liberalism by saying it'd be okay with banning such a film, but the truth is we believe in free speech, and wouldn't want it banned, even if it was some sort of racist screed.
But what is free speech? Is it a positive or negative liberty?
In our legal system, it's barely considered a right. It's viewed as a negative liberty, sorta. The government can't constrain your speech, but private organizations may. Legally, you may spout whatever racist speech you like, but if your employer wants to fire you for doing so they can, and media companies can refuse to publish racist content if they like.
Some conservatives get confused about this (because they don't understand liberty), and think free speech is a positive liberty. They think that they should be legally protected from being fired for saying racist things, or that media companies should be legally compelled to publish whatever sort of racist screed they want to publish. Sometimes they even take this to a ridiculous extreme, and think free speech entitles them to a right to not be criticized for what they say.
See the difference yet?
Liberals generally are comfortable with both types of liberty being "real". Conservatives often assert that property, plus some narrow subset of negative liberty (freedom from constraint by government) is the very definition of liberty. Never mind that the net result of that is a very strict set of coercive limits being placed on people's ability to do as they please...

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Wow wow wow, never once did I say American History X promoted anything remotely related to racism. I said the opposite. "Slashed into" doesn't mean "promoted." Slashed into means "hurt" racism... In fact, "slashed into" is about as far from promoting as possible.
Well that was the biggest fail from you I have seen...and I am only half kidding

I'm always puzzled when people respond to a misunderstanding this way. When someone misunderstands me, I generally consider that a failure on my part to make myself understood.

For some reason, some people who debate me seem to think failing to make themselves understood means they've scored some sort of victory over me.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Next, I meant you would detest the movie but not the free speech. You know, since the movie was made for one purpose only---capitalistic greed. Of course I am assuming the motives of the people who made the film, perhaps wrongly, but I doubt the makers had the best of intentions without the dollars.

Okay, for one, discussions about liberty are about what people should morally and legally be permitted or empowered to do, not their personal preferences. Also, to repeat myself, "positive liberty" isn't an ideology -- saying "positive liberty means you would detest the movie" makes as much sense as saying "red means you would detest the apple".

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
And, on the other note, conservatives are happy with both liberties--but only when both types of liberties are slanted in their favor (For example, see your own part where you mentioned free speech.)

True, but that's because they're hypocrites, not because they're happy with both kinds of liberty.

If I explain positive liberty to a conservative, they usually react the way you did at first, and reject it out of hand. Accepting positive liberty means that supporting liberty sometimes means requires more government intervention, not less. Right-wing people want to pretend that's always antithetical to liberty. It's not.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Liberals tend to favor both liberties less in that self-serving manner, but most still do manipulate them somewhat.

Heh, always with the equivalency. Why would liberals bother with willfully trying to misrepresent it? We don't go around asserting that our policy platform is the One True Freedom, and all who oppose us are against freedom, the way the right does.

We understand that you need to look at the whole picture, and not just whether the government is limiting people's behavior or not.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Hrm, your last point, that the alleged coercive aspect of freedoms impeding freedom is interesting.

As DFT is fond of saying, liberty for the cat is tyranny for the mouse.

It takes some thought, consideration, and debate to come up with what sorts of laws actually maximize liberty. That's what liberals believe, and we really, really, really, wish the right would participate in the debate as free thinking individuals, rather than just laying down ideological dogma and refusing to budge.

@NetRunner

"I'm always puzzled when people respond to a misunderstanding this way. When someone misunderstands me, I generally consider that a failure on my part to make myself understood.

For some reason, some people who debate me seem to think failing to make themselves understood means they've scored some sort of victory over me."

^Assine bullshit. I was pretty damn clear about my POV. When I fail to convey my message, I look back and admit it every single time--unless the person I am debating is an obvious troll. But when I am clear I don't need to feel like I made the mistake.

What chaps my ass is that you considered me so damned inept as to totally fuck up the whole premise of a simple-to-understand movie (American History X.) In fact, I would have had to get the whole concept backwards entirely--a truly magnificent feat of stupidity!

And the worst part? You did it unintentionally, which only makes things worse, because if you had done it on purpose at least I could have considered you just trolling. But accidentally? You honestly believed me that retarded, that monolithically brain damaged. Perhaps I am wrong, but have I ever interpreted your comments in such a manner? That even apparent concepts are lost on you?

You may think it overreacting but that isn't your choice to make. It's mine.

I am no longer mad--and I do understand where you were coming from, but know where I was coming from too.