Difference between revisions of "What Is Liberty?"

* [[David Schmidtz]] and [[Jason Brennan]], in ''[[A Brief History of Liberty]]'', write "Here we categorize forms of liberty as much as our present purpose requires.  We don't assume that there is any essence awaiiting our discovery; neither do we assume otherwise."  They gloss over [[Gerald MacCallum]]'s [[Freedom as a Triadic Relation]] in a footnote, despite the fact the he unifies liberty with a model and dismisses the positive and negative distinctions the authors prefer.  There is no mention of [[Hohfeld’s typology of rights]], and thus they conflate power, rights and liberty.

* [[David Schmidtz]] and [[Jason Brennan]], in ''[[A Brief History of Liberty]]'', write "Here we categorize forms of liberty as much as our present purpose requires.  We don't assume that there is any essence awaiiting our discovery; neither do we assume otherwise."  They gloss over [[Gerald MacCallum]]'s [[Freedom as a Triadic Relation]] in a footnote, despite the fact the he unifies liberty with a model and dismisses the positive and negative distinctions the authors prefer.  There is no mention of [[Hohfeld’s typology of rights]], and thus they conflate power, rights and liberty.

* [[John Hospers]] in [http://public.callutheran.edu/%7Echenxi/phil315_101.pdf What Libertarianism Is] provides two contradictory sentences.  "Each man has the right to liberty: to conduct his life in accordance with the alternatives open to him without coercive action by others."  You might notice that he does not define liberty: he declares the one vague liberty that he wants. And of course it is foolish, because every right is coercive, including the rights to life, liberty, and property that he wants, and thus contradicts his demand for liberty.  He also writes "The right to liberty: there should be no laws compromising in any way freedom of speech, of the press, and of peaceable assembly." A more specific liberty that he wants.  But no definition of liberty.

* [[John Hospers]] in [http://public.callutheran.edu/%7Echenxi/phil315_101.pdf What Libertarianism Is] provides two contradictory sentences.  "Each man has the right to liberty: to conduct his life in accordance with the alternatives open to him without coercive action by others."  You might notice that he does not define liberty: he declares the one vague liberty that he wants. And of course it is foolish, because every right is coercive, including the rights to life, liberty, and property that he wants, and thus contradicts his demand for liberty.  He also writes "The right to liberty: there should be no laws compromising in any way freedom of speech, of the press, and of peaceable assembly." A more specific liberty that he wants.  But no definition of liberty.

This absence of satisfactory definitions of liberty or freedom is typical of libertarian literature.  The most libertarians seem to do is to arbitrarily declare that negative liberty is the only true liberty: but that does not explain other people's conceptions.   

This absence of satisfactory definitions of liberty or freedom is typical of libertarian literature.  The most libertarians seem to do is to arbitrarily declare that negative liberty is the only true liberty: but that does not explain other people's conceptions.