my theory of "positive and negitive freedom"

freedom is everywere, just a diffeent type of freedom. In places like china they have "negitive" freedom in places like the EU they have "positive" freedom

positive means to allow people to or do something
negitive means to allow people freedom from something

Examples:

Drugs
A. legalize - freedom to put whatever you want into your body - positive
B. ilegalize - freedom from addiction and self - negitive

Killing
A. allow - freedom to well um... be crazy and kill everyone you odnt like - positive
B. not allow - freedom from random crazies - negtivie

Privite Property
A. allow - freedom to own well... your own property - positive
B. not allow - freedom from owners being restictive, kicking you out for stupid reasons and so on - negitive

think of ANYTHING, and you can find a "negitive freedom".

also, according ot this theory, unlimited freedom is impossibe for obvious reasons.

Aye. I argee. It's their own views and views change over time, no matter how isolated or impoverished you are.

Case and point: "north" Korea.

Sure, there are the political gulags and camps unfortunately, but the normal people are SLOWLY waking up to the reality that they have been tought lies by Kim Jong-il's anti-everything propaganda.

There already is positive and negative freedom look it up on wiki.

no thats positive and negtive LIBERTY and theres also the thoery of postive and negtive RIGHTS this my theory of Postive and negitive FREEDOM

Watermelon wrote:

There already is positive and negative freedom look it up on wiki.

Lords, you actually TRUST wiki?! Oh man...I feel sorry for you...

cary jebus wrote:

freedom is everywere, just a diffeent type of freedom. In places like china they have "negitive" freedom in places like the EU they have "positive" freedom

Some people are free, but not i.

Quote :

Drugs
A. legalize - freedom to put whatever you want into your body - positive
B. ilegalize - freedom from addiction and self - negitive

Killing
A. allow - freedom to well um... be crazy and kill everyone you odnt like - positive
B. not allow - freedom from random crazies - negtivie

No, there is no such thing as freedom to kill. Killing involves authority, because freedom only goes so far as yourself, or autonomy, if you will. Authority is when you have control over not only yourself, but others. So i have to reject this analysis.

Quote :

Privite Property
A. allow - freedom to own well... your own property - positive
B. not allow - freedom from owners being restictive, kicking you out for stupid reasons and so on - negitive

You're thinking of personal property. Everyone should be equally entitled to personal property; no one is entitled to private property. "A." is personal, "B." is private.

Quote :

also, according ot this theory, unlimited freedom is impossibe for obvious reasons.

But unlimited freedom is 'possible'. We just won't see it in our lifetime.

yes, in anarchy you can kill like hell.

when you own a car, its your own car your own PRIVITE car, your own PRIVTE house...

how you can you have both negitive and possitive freedom at the same time, when they are the obbsite of each other?

cary jebus wrote:

yes, in anarchy you can kill like hell.

You've failed.

Quote :

when you own a car, its your own car your own PRIVITE car, your own PRIVTE house...

Private property is an ownership of land or means of production to be rented out or used to produce so as to allow the owner to gain wealth. You're still talking about personal property, but this is unimportant; this is merely an argument of semantics that doesn't pertain to the topic.

Quote :

how you can you have both negitive and possitive freedom at the same time, when they are the obbsite of each other?

I didn't say that. I rejected your theory, so i wasn't speaking within its terms. You can have complete freedom though, it's called autonomy.

NJNP how can a crimeless society be achieved without a worker's state first?

I doubt he thinks it will be crimeless.

Watermelon wrote:

I doubt he thinks it will be crimeless.

he said it isn't legal to murder so who will enforce that

He didn't say it's not legal, he said there is no such thing as the freedom to kill.

Watermelon wrote:

He didn't say it's not legal, he said there is no such thing as the freedom to kill.

well who is going to prevent killing if the material roots of crime are not removed?

Being a former anarchite, he will most likely say that the people will deal with crime in whatever way they deem necessary, and that he doesn't know how but it will be more humane than current ways of dealing with it, and that he can't tell you how exactly a post-capitalist society would work because that is authoritarian for him to be telling a future society how to operate.

Of course, I may be completely wrong but that's my best guess.

Watermelon wrote:

Being a former anarchite, he will most likely say that the people will deal with crime in whatever way they deem necessary, and that he doesn't know how but it will be more humane than current ways of dealing with it, and that he can't tell you how exactly a post-capitalist society would work because that is authoritarian for him to be telling a future society how to operate.

Of course, I may be completely wrong but that's my best guess.

won't that lead to the formation of a state...again?

Yeah, but they don't like to call it that.

i still want to hear AC's argument

How did he change his nam,e I thought that was banned now? I want to hear to he'll probably say something like "not everyone has to adhere to the marxist definition of state. saying i have to is dogmatic." He said something like that in my first argument against him.

Watermelon wrote:

How did he change his nam,e I thought that was banned now? I want to hear to he'll probably say something like "not everyone has to adhere to the marxist definition of state. saying i have to is dogmatic." He said something like that in my first argument against him.

avoiding labels

And now his name explicitly state he is an anarchite.

Watermelon wrote:

And now his name explicitly state he is an anarchite.

Yep, i've accepted that i'm an anarchist. Welcome back from your little reprieve

Quote :

"not everyone has to adhere to the marxist definition of state. saying i have to is dogmatic." He said something like that in my first argument against him.

I said that cos you were assuming everyone accepted Marx's definition. And no, it wasn't avoiding labels, i was just pointing out that not everyone holds your views.

Quote :

I doubt he thinks it will be crimeless.

Correct. There will never be a "crimeless" world in the way we are using the term. Crimes of passion will still occur, and to think otherwise is just utopian, in my opinion.

Quote :

NJNP how can a crimeless society be achieved without a worker's state first?

Okay, this is all quite off topic, so if my answer doesn't suffice, start a new thread, because i won't be responding again to questions or remarks within this thread that don't pertain to the topic at hand, namely, the theory of the OP.

Social revolution from the bottom, up is how most crime will be ousted. The same change in material conditions will occur during an anarchist revolution same as a socialist transition, but without democratic centralism which causes the state to be perpetuated.

cary jebus wrote:

freedom is everywere, just a diffeent type of freedom. In places like china they have "negitive" freedom in places like the EU they have "positive" freedom

positive means to allow people to or do something
negitive means to allow people freedom from something

Examples:

Drugs
A. legalize - freedom to put whatever you want into your body - positive
B. ilegalize - freedom from addiction and self - negitive

Killing
A. allow - freedom to well um... be crazy and kill everyone you odnt like - positive
B. not allow - freedom from random crazies - negtivie

Privite Property
A. allow - freedom to own well... your own property - positive
B. not allow - freedom from owners being restictive, kicking you out for stupid reasons and so on - negitive

think of ANYTHING, and you can find a "negitive freedom".

also, according ot this theory, unlimited freedom is impossibe for obvious reasons.

obviusly.

we can also do positive and negitive securety.

The security not to get killed-positive.
The insecurity that you could get killed at any moment-negitive.

mattabesta wrote:

cary jebus wrote:

freedom is everywere, just a diffeent type of freedom. In places like china they have "negitive" freedom in places like the EU they have "positive" freedom

positive means to allow people to or do something
negitive means to allow people freedom from something

Examples:

Drugs
A. legalize - freedom to put whatever you want into your body - positive
B. ilegalize - freedom from addiction and self - negitive

Killing
A. allow - freedom to well um... be crazy and kill everyone you odnt like - positive
B. not allow - freedom from random crazies - negtivie

Privite Property
A. allow - freedom to own well... your own property - positive
B. not allow - freedom from owners being restictive, kicking you out for stupid reasons and so on - negitive

think of ANYTHING, and you can find a "negitive freedom".

also, according ot this theory, unlimited freedom is impossibe for obvious reasons.

obviusly.

we can also do positive and negitive securety.

The security not to get killed-positive.
The insecurity that you could get killed at any moment-negitive.

Wow, you're way off topic. That's not at all what the OP was getting at. All you said was that security is positive and insecurity is negative.