Refuting Vaush on the 'Positive' Freedom Grift

The concept of Positive Freedom vs Negative freedom is not as amazing as it seems.

======LINKS======
All My Links:

If you want to leave me a tip / support my content:

Follow me on Twitter for channel updates and general bantz:

My Discord:

Odysee Backup:

Rumble Backup:
=================

Game: Castlevania Harmony of Dissonance

========================================

Sources:

[arc]

"Libertarian socialist" among other oxymorons.

[thoalis]

Uses bread example, actual Breadtuber.

[genericnamehere]

We have a few local food banks run by local church groups and voluteers, as i volunteer my time, effort, materials and some money at my local church. We're constantly under scrutiny by local authourities

[Gogosqwezethegreatest]

Glorious MentisWave back with another great video! Keep it up, my brother!

[Zetact_]

How about the "Oh but we aren't coercing anyone to do anything, the arbitrary class we call 'wealthy' will be funding it with tax dollars" line?
I think it's kinda like saying, "I'm not enslaving these people, I'm just taking care of the management of their finances while they labor for me."

[pieynot]

In Vaush's response, he calls you a Nootzee at around 21:44, very predictable😂

[_APG_]

The hivemind nest has been jostled, they're mad now! I can feel them buzzing around unsheathing their downdoots! Everyone, get down!!!

[grimnir]

In short, Negative Freedom is the Anglo-Saxon concept, that "Rights" are determined by what the law says you CANNOT Do and bills of rights are just offical declarations of what cannot be cross. Positive Freedom is the French concept, where rights are basically allowances given to you by the state. To make the concept easier to understand, in English speaking countries notice how Laws always determine what is ILLEGAL, not what is Legal.

[IESVSCHRISTVSDOMINVSNOSTEREST]

The martyr of negative liberty:
The man who would rather starve to death than steal, and as a result starves to death. In his wake he leaves a single skinny corpse.

The martyr of positive liberty:
The r 4 p 1 s t bandit. Whenever he desires food, he takes food from someone who has it. Whenever he desires material status, he takes new sneakers from someone who has them. Whenever he desires gratification, he takes it from someone who he can take it from. As a result, he gets shot by the first guy he wronged with quicker reflexes. In his wake he leaves destitute hard workers, dead heroes, and defiled young women, not to mention a million bad memories spread out throughout his entire society.

[hugesinker]

*"Is a man thrown to a lawless desert without food, water, or clothing free?"*
Depends how he got there.
If someone grabbed him unawares off the street, threw him in the back of a van, drove him into the middle of that desert, then threw him out and drove away, then I would argue that he's been effectively kidnapped and that it is a form of confinement by agents acting against him. It is aggression against his (negative) liberty. Therefore he is NOT free. In fact, in that situation, he wouldn't even be free if the kidnappers had also given him plenty of food, water, and cloths in an attempt to satisfy some basic "positive liberty" standard before driving off.

On the other hand, if he had soberly asked a group of friends to do that to him for whatever reason, such that he effectively put himself in the situation, then he IS free. Freedom does not mean freedom from consequences of individual poor decisions.

You bring up a more interesting third option-- What if the reason for the situation is that it's the dawn of civilization and it is nature that has "thrown" him there. Then I would again say that he IS free, and "positive" liberty doesn't even make sense here. It is real (negative) liberty that empowers you to learn, build, and grow. A funny thing about "positive liberty" as a concept is that it is ad hoc and dependent upon the median affluence of surrounding society. As soon as you try to adopt a hard standard for "positive liberty", you end up declaring that previous struggling generations going back to the dawn of our species were not free. That added baggage thereby kind of renders the concept of freedom incoherent.

[ThePoliticalCheckmate-hmky]

The problem with the desert analogy is simple you are going to be dead in the desert even if a group people were going to dictate how you live in a desert without any food or water.

[mr.normalguy]

This concept of "positive/negative freedom" can also be applied to the concept of "positive/negative morality"

Here: Negative morality = I can't do whatever I want (not at the detriment of someone else). And;
Positive morality = I can do whatever I want (even at the detriment of someone else).

[Zergking]

God, Economic INcels always piss me off. Thinking they're entitled to my work and money.

[Astolfo]

To paraphrase US founding father Benjamin Franklin, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

[weirdlemonthing]

This channel is a gem in an ocean of dogma

[whitehawk]

The problem with the desert analogy is that it represents exile from society. Going back to prehistory, we were never alone. We lived in familial groups.

[aazendude]

The only alternative currency to persuasion is force. People who talk heavily about divvying out money and means only wish to do so, because it buys them power. To call someone unhoused or unfed is to imply that it is within someone else's power to be giving out houses or food. These people talk of these things so often in the hopes that when the ignorant masses ask "who is going to decide who gets what?" that they will be the first ones that come to mind. The new aristocracy.

[nickkorkodylas]

This shit is getting so frequent we should start having refuting vaush kindergarten courses.

[mozax]

If you want equal rights, equal treatment, free food, free Healthcare and free housing, than the prison gates are open.

[agaifi]

2:55 "but he has no ability to-"
Vaush refuted himself, being able to do something is not the same as being free to do something