Carl T. Bogus

[scottw]

is a professor of law at Roger Williams University in Bristol, R.I.

and wrote recently regarding his undertaking to read much of the classic "iconic" conservative literature...found this very interesting

A Liberal Reads the Great Conservative Works - Carl T. Bogus - National Review Online

money quote:

"Conservatives value above all else what Berlin called the negative vision of liberty, namely, freedom from coercion. Liberals are more willing to balance that against the positive vision of liberty — that is, having a reasonable opportunity to realize one’s potential. The negative vision focuses conservatives on restricting the government’s ability to interfere in people’s lives. The positive vision leads liberals to believe that government has a role in guaranteeing baseline minimums in education, medical care, and healthy communities."

if I could ask the professor one, ok...more than one question I supposed I ask him if he felt that the massive programs of "baseline minimums" that liberals are devoted to are actually allowing those receiving government handouts in one form or another to "reach one's potential" or are they more often creating an expanding culture of dependence on the "positive vision" which clearly leads liberals to believe that govenment has a role in guaranteeing all sorts of subsidies and services? and what of the massive debt being accrued to fund this "positive vision", if the debt to fund the "positive vision" results in economic collapse, can those dependent on the "positive vision" still expect a reasonable ability to "reach one's potential" from the liberal and how does the liberal plan to continue to pay for the maintenance of this "baseline minimum"? Can one even enjoy the "positive vision of liberty" without government assistance or intrusion and guarantees of "stuff"

this also falls right in line with Obama's claim and belief that the Constitution is a document of "negative liberties" and is missing something...which is said to be the series of statements of things that the government must or should do for you

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

is a professor of law at Roger Williams University in Bristol, R.I.

and wrote recently regarding his undertaking to read much of the classic "iconic" conservative literature...found this very interesting

A Liberal Reads the Great Conservative Works - Carl T. Bogus - National Review Online

money quote:

"Conservatives value above all else what Berlin called the negative vision of liberty, namely, freedom from coercion. Liberals are more willing to balance that against the positive vision of liberty — that is, having a reasonable opportunity to realize one’s potential. The negative vision focuses conservatives on restricting the government’s ability to interfere in people’s lives. The positive vision leads liberals to believe that government has a role in guaranteeing baseline minimums in education, medical care, and healthy communities."

if I could ask the professor one, ok...more than one question I supposed I ask him if he felt that the massive programs of "baseline minimums" that liberals are devoted to are actually allowing those receiving government handouts in one form or another to "reach one's potential" or are they more often creating an expanding culture of dependence on the "positive vision" which clearly leads liberals to believe that govenment has a role in guaranteeing all sorts of subsidies and services? and what of the massive debt being accrued to fund this "positive vision", if the debt to fund the "positive vision" results in economic collapse, can those dependent on the "positive vision" still expect a reasonable ability to "reach one's potential" from the liberal and how does the liberal plan to continue to pay for the maintenance of this "baseline minimum"? Can one even enjoy the "positive vision of liberty" without government assistance or intrusion and guarantees of "stuff"

this also falls right in line with Obama's claim and belief that the Constitution is a document of "negative liberties" and is missing something...which is said to be the series of statements of things that the government must or should do for you

An advantage of negative liberties (limits on government coercion) expressed in the Constitution is the near limitless unnamed freedoms remaining to the individual. A disadvantage of expressed positive liberties (what the goverfnment must do for you) is the implied narrowing of freedoms to what the government allows. It is that twisted use of speech that fascists employ and that Orwell warned against wherein freedom becomes slavery--using positive, beneficent sounding words to actually achieve their opposite. Freedom is, essentially, an individual exercise and responsibility. In society, the individual limits freedom to the degree required for that society to function in accordance to its "constitution." Freedom is not granted by governments or their societal foundation, it is restricted. To call any governmental or societal grant of a liberty "positive" is to admit that government's power over the individual.

This reminds me of FDR's four freedoms speech in which he spoke of the freedom of speech and worship, and the frreedom FROM want and fear-- that governments should provide those. Actually, our Constitution does not grant those freedoms (speech and worship), it specifically denies the government from making laws that prohibit them. It is freedom FROM want and fear that is disturbing to actual freedom. If government must provide for the "freedom" from want, it must be given the power to provide. That power must be forfeited by the individual and granted to the government.

[scottw]

"what separates us at the most fundamental level may be our different conceptions of liberty"

Liberty is a concept in political philosophy that identifies the condition in which human beings are able to govern themselves, to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions.
which of these do liberal pet programs promote?


the professor has, probably unwittingly, made it clear that conservatives believe, as a primary ideaology, in the "negative vision of liberty" (if that is how he and his cohorts would like to characterize it) which are those guarantees which are actually enumerated in our founding documents...

liberals(progressives) however, as a primary ideaology (and whatever the ideaology, it is subordinate to "policy" judgements) quite the opposite.... as admitted by the professor

"it is because a central tenet of liberalism is that ideology should be eschewed in favor of the supposedly enlightened, pragmatic approach of making ad hoc judgments about issues"

they may "echew"(es·chew: to abstain or keep away from; shun; avoid; sacrafice; renounce; abandon; abstain) from the founding principles..the "negative vision of liberty" if the "supposedly enlightened", pragmatic approach of making ad hoc judgments about issues.. is preferred or deemed necessary by the liberal

in other words... rules, laws, principles and ideaology..the CONSTITUTION may be cast aside at any time to accomodate the liberal "enlightened" whim....

the "positive view of liberty" does not exist except in the liberal mind...they make it up as they go along and are not bound by any specific written principles or ideals at any given time or on any given issue...purely policy driven, these may change with circumstances and the superior intellect and enlightened judgement of the liberal pragmatic will always light the way..????

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

the "positive view of liberty" does not exist except in the liberal mind...they make it up as they go along and are not bound by any specific written principles or ideals at any given time or on any given issue...purely policy driven, these may change with circumstances and the superior intellect and enlightened judgement of the liberal pragmatic will always light the way..????

May I add, policy also driven by emotion rather than comprehending reality.

[detbuch]

canceled entry

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

iCarl T. Bogus - National Review Online

money quote:

"Conservatives value above all else what Berlin called the negative vision of liberty, namely, freedom from coercion. Liberals are more willing to balance that against the positive vision of liberty — that is, having a reasonable opportunity to realize one’s potential. The negative vision focuses conservatives on restricting the government’s ability to interfere in people’s lives. The positive vision leads liberals to believe that government has a role in guaranteeing baseline minimums in education, medical care, and healthy communities."

This is pure doublespeak--making the positive negative and the negative positive. A "negative vision of liberty" would see liberty as a negative force to be reigned in. A "positive vision of liberty" would see it as something not to be constrained. They see the "positive vision of liberty" as a "balance" to the so-called negative vision, by providing "baseline minimums." As we so painfully see, and as Scott has pointed out, this "positive vision" is not free. And Government mandates that must be payed for by some and obeyed by others are not liberties. It is not liberty to be forced to attend government sponsored or approved schools or forced to participate in government mandated health plans. And what would a "neutral vision of liberty" be--that is, what IS liberty? Isn't it what Berlin and Bogus refer to as the "negative vision"--freedom from coercion? And wasn't this the Founder's vision of liberty? And wasn't the Founder's vision an unalienable right endowed by a creator, not by government. This liberty was granted by "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This "negative vision" was the only "positive vision of liberty" spoken of by the Founders. They did not have negative or positive visions of liberty, they merely saw it as freedom from coercion, and they saw that government was not the source of liberty, but could only act to abridge it.
The Founder's "positive vision" endowed individuals with the Berlin and Bogus "negative vision of liberty"--freedom from coercion. And they provided this with a Constitution that negatively constrained the liberty of Government from abridging the liberty of the people except to the degree that the people consented.

this also falls right in line with Obama's claim and belief that the Constitution is a document of "negative liberties" and is missing something...which is said to be the series of statements of things that the government must or should do for you

It is this bogus concept of "negative and positive liberties" that has driven progressives for the past 100 years to change the Constitution through "interpretation" rather than amendment--the same dependence on linguistic tricks rather than Constitutional methods to change how we govern. The so-called interpretation has been a willful, deliberate rewriting of the Constitution with full knowledge that what has been done is not what was intended. The progressive view is that the Constitution as written is anachronistic, unsuitable for modern times, but can be saved as a "living" document that can be changed with modern views to modern problems, nevermind that it is a system of governance, not a codex of laws written during different circumstances. The system of delegating powers to branches and levels of government, and of protecting individuals from unconsented power is not time dependent. Until human nature changes, until we become some other being, this system is timeless.