David Coates via the News Record:
We enjoy negative freedom when we are free from rules blocking our ability to act. We enjoy positive freedom when we possess enough resources to act as we wish. Keeping that distinction in mind makes clear that...
What does this mean?
It means that individual liberty is a negative from the perspective of government influence over your individual desires, needs and wants. It means that individual liberty is a "negative" because you are enjoy liberty while government is limited in its power over you.
When one defends your individual liberty to speak, to be a journalist, to practice your religion, right to a speedy trial, right to self defense, in short, your individual rights as listed throughout the Bill of Rights, does that come across to you as a "negative"? Me neither.
But according to the author, "critics of the Obama administration invariably define freedom narrowly and negatively. "
Negatively. Consider that. Defending your choice to individually choose the plan you want, according to the author, is "negative". Defending one's individual liberty to a speedy trial, according to Coates, is "negative". Defending the individual liberty of the religious to practice their religion free from the ACA's diktat is, according to the author, "negative". Defending one's individual liberty to self defense via arms is "negative".
In short, David Coates claims that arguing in favor of individual liberty is "negative".
It means that individual liberty is a negative from the perspective of government influence over your individual desires, needs and wants. It means that individual liberty is a "negative" because you are enjoy liberty while government is limited in its power over you.
When one defends your individual liberty to speak, to be a journalist, to practice your religion, right to a speedy trial, right to self defense, in short, your individual rights as listed throughout the Bill of Rights, does that come across to you as a "negative"? Me neither.
But according to the author, "critics of the Obama administration invariably define freedom narrowly and negatively. "
Negatively. Consider that. Defending your choice to individually choose the plan you want, according to the author, is "negative". Defending one's individual liberty to a speedy trial, according to Coates, is "negative". Defending the individual liberty of the religious to practice their religion free from the ACA's diktat is, according to the author, "negative". Defending one's individual liberty to self defense via arms is "negative".
In short, David Coates claims that arguing in favor of individual liberty is "negative".
One should understand that what Coates calls "negative freedom" is more commonly called "negative liberty".
Coates could just as well have written, "We enjoy negative -liberty- when we are free from rules blocking our ability to act." In fact, he would have been more honest had he done so.
Thus, whereas Americans believe, "We enjoy -liberty- when we are free from rules blocking our ability to act," Coates could have more honestly written: "We enjoy negative -liberty- when we are free from rules blocking our ability to act."
The reality is that the American embrace of individual liberty is positive while unAmerican Democrats like David Coates who harbor disdain for American virtue based on individual liberty, otherwise known as those restraints that American virtue imposes on the few to decide for the many, view individual liberty as a negative.
Let us be free to choose happiness, let us be free to choose sadness, let us be free from those like the misseducated David Coates who claim to "enjoy positive freedom when we possess enough resources to act as we wish".
Coates could just as well have written, "We enjoy negative -liberty- when we are free from rules blocking our ability to act." In fact, he would have been more honest had he done so.
Thus, whereas Americans believe, "We enjoy -liberty- when we are free from rules blocking our ability to act," Coates could have more honestly written: "We enjoy negative -liberty- when we are free from rules blocking our ability to act."
The reality is that the American embrace of individual liberty is positive while unAmerican Democrats like David Coates who harbor disdain for American virtue based on individual liberty, otherwise known as those restraints that American virtue imposes on the few to decide for the many, view individual liberty as a negative.
Let us be free to choose happiness, let us be free to choose sadness, let us be free from those like the misseducated David Coates who claim to "enjoy positive freedom when we possess enough resources to act as we wish".
The choice is yours be American or stand with David Coates.
While negative liberty is usually attributed to individual agents, positive liberty is sometimes attributed to collectivities, or to individuals considered primarily as members of given collectivities.
and
... negative and positive liberty are not merely two distinct kinds of liberty; they can be seen as rival, incompatible interpretations of a single political ideal. Since few people claim to be against liberty, the way this term is interpreted and defined can have important political implications.
It's the last bit, "... liberty, the way this term is interpreted and defined can have important political implications", moderates find illuminating in a disheartening sense. While we all know individual liberty is a positive virtue, what becomes of liberty if academia manages to define individual liberty as a negative? Diminished liberty... which is what Coates' particular brand of unAmericanism is all about.
unAmericanism is real, and it is found here within Coates' words. And if unAmerican dolts like Coates are willing to engage in redefining individual liberty not only down, but indeed, as a negative, then I sure as hell will note his unAmerican intent ... and yes, his dark unenlightened unAmerican heart. If the years of 1900 to 2000 taught us anything, it is that what Coates so eloquently preaches inevitably devolves into hate and genocide.
Coates is not a friend of America.
It is sad to see Wake forest befriend David Coates, for as Wake Forest befriends David Coates it befriends the worst of the 20th century.
---NitWitCharmer---
No comments:
Post a Comment