Two more possible arguments for negative liberty:
Negative liberty is the more fundamental morality. I have heard a quote (particularly from Catholics, though I don't know the quote's source) that charity is more (goes beyond) justice, but is not less than justice. Thus you cannot be charitable without first being just (e.g., refraining from murder, violence, slavery, theft). In other words respecting rightful negative liberty is a prerequisite. It must be established first, and we may not violate it when proceeding on to higher morality like charity.
The second is similar:
Negative liberty is a practical prerequisite for positive liberty. Gifting means to someone is pointless if it is going to be immediately stolen from them, or if they are enslaved or murdered.
Now Starlight is trying to make the opposite argument, that negative liberty is pointless if you don't have any means. But we are really talking about the enforcement of positive liberty so what Starlight would need to argue is that negative liberty is pointless if others aren't forced to provide you with means. Which is not true. A Robinson Crusoe has negative liberty, and from a state of poverty can produce and accumulate means, thus increasing his positive liberty, without others providing it. In (negative-)free countries, there is a great deal of upward mobility, including among people starting with nothing. And a country having more negative liberty correlates with less poverty and greater upward mobility among the poor.
Negative liberty is the more fundamental morality. I have heard a quote (particularly from Catholics, though I don't know the quote's source) that charity is more (goes beyond) justice, but is not less than justice. Thus you cannot be charitable without first being just (e.g., refraining from murder, violence, slavery, theft). In other words respecting rightful negative liberty is a prerequisite. It must be established first, and we may not violate it when proceeding on to higher morality like charity.
The second is similar:
Negative liberty is a practical prerequisite for positive liberty. Gifting means to someone is pointless if it is going to be immediately stolen from them, or if they are enslaved or murdered.
Now Starlight is trying to make the opposite argument, that negative liberty is pointless if you don't have any means. But we are really talking about the enforcement of positive liberty so what Starlight would need to argue is that negative liberty is pointless if others aren't forced to provide you with means. Which is not true. A Robinson Crusoe has negative liberty, and from a state of poverty can produce and accumulate means, thus increasing his positive liberty, without others providing it. In (negative-)free countries, there is a great deal of upward mobility, including among people starting with nothing. And a country having more negative liberty correlates with less poverty and greater upward mobility among the poor.
Comment