
A comparison of positive and negative freedom in society.
August 2, 2003
Another Defination of Freedom: A broad defination that considers the role of the liberal state in protecting freedom.
Are We Autonomous or Heteronomous?: Comparing the two notions to understand freedom.
Considering Freedom: This essay considers the different between liberal and conservative freedoms.
Exploring the Defination of Freedom: Yet another more extensive look at what freedom likely is, and what it is not.
Marxist Freedom: Looking at oppression through power of the insitution.
President Bush's Freedom: Why our President's notions of freedom are wrong.
What Does Freedom Mean Today?: Four different types of activities that representing freedom in modern society.
Words of Freedom: Thoughts on the limitations of freedom and life.
Freedom is often defined in the eye of the beholder. Political Philosophers talk about postive and negative freedoms, with negative freedoms being those which are the lack of governmental interference and positive freedoms being those which are created by governmental interference. Negative and positive freedoms vary from location to location. They even differ for sociological groups and people of different occupations.
An poor intercity African American mother, a dairy farmer from the Tugg Hill Plateau, and a suburbanite from Colonie probably would give different answers. Laws very from place to place. It is illegal too shoot a deer on Lark Street during hunting season, as rules are different in the city. Your not allowed to discharge of firearms with in 500 feet of a building. Freedom in the city must be different then the country.
Negative liberties are those that seem to get all the attention lately. Probably because they are the most important, and the most at risk as society continues it long trend to urbanization. Free speech, the right to abortion, the right to privacy, and similar freedoms always seem to dominant the political debate. Maybe because they are lighting rods for controversy, and are shared by all Americans, especially those living in urban areas. Freedom might exist beyond such notions.
Justice Holmes was right saying that the right to privacy is an age old right, askin to the right to be left alone. In a post-9/11 can we ever offer true privacy? It seems as though we can no longer afford to give that right to anybody. For most of us, we live too close to our neighbors not to be in their business or affected by their actions.
The people of the Town of Broome, New York, live under some kind of zoning regulation. Everybody in that town is subject to local regulations, and state regulations, and I'm sure they are enforced for many violations that are grossly obvious. The Town of Broome has no regulation relating to the length of your grass, unlike many suburbs and cities. A yard with long grass is permitable, if you like it that way. Trailers and stuff are certainly permited. Lots of junk, and it looks like a town in deep poverty. If that's how the people there choose to live in their community, then they should live their lives like that. Negative freedoms are lacking in our society, but that's largely the fault of urbanization and our modern technocratic state.
In areas devoid of negative liberties there are a lot of positive liberies. Compare suburban Albany to Broome. People in urban areas are given all kinds of social programs and activities that allow them to do more then they would otherwise be able to do. Poverty is the norm in Broome as witnessed by the houses and farms, but prosperity lives in the suburbs. Suburban Albany gives you the freedom to have a good job and good life, but you give up the right to privacy when you move to the city. Junk piles are prohibited in city limits.
Probably more severe is the lack of opportunity for people in this area. Albany is something almost 50 miles from Broome Center. Gilboa-Conesville CSD makes some other bad schools look like a good place. Big stores are a long ways away.
So where does one compromise? Suburbanites would rather toss out much of their negative liberty, for a comfortable, secure area, dominated by opportunity. They'd skip the fun of living in a rugged area, and go a place that's more settled down.
Even those areas dominated by the negative freedoms that once were a result of the ruraliness of an area, are disappearing. Increasingly, suburbs are growing, and at an even faster rate are suburban rules. Local ordinances on things like zoning and open burning, seem to be the benefit of all, but they seem to have the limit freedom.
Rural Western Knox, on a back road, ugly vinyl sided, new Colonial Houses are starting to spring up, probably the first set towards a more regulated society with greater opportunity. After all, Albany is only a 30 mile commute, so what's the big deal? And it will continue, and they'll lobby government for new regulation.