Suggesting that the constitution is a set of positive liberties puts our country on a slippery slope toward a fight between rationalists and passionists that, while it's clear the far right wants us to be on this, is really not in the best interest of the citizens of our country. Negative liberties imply that humans are inherently flawed and are not perfect rationalizers. Positive liberties suggest that humans are perfect rationalizers and will thrive on self-mastery and self-realization. We have seen enough through history that some people are more capable at rationality than others, and if we deny negative liberties, then we put our country in the hand of passionists - the less capable rationalists. I for one, don't want that to happen. History tells a bad story when such happens.
The point of this note: positive and negative liberties are enshrined in the amendments to our Constitution and explicitly stated in all Amendments having to with the freedom of individuals; and, it is important whether you believe the Constitution is a set of negative liberties or positive liberties
Examples:
Amendment 24 - Poll Tax Barred. Ratified 1/23/1964. History
- The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Positive: This clearly sates a right of the citizen to vote regardless of whether they fail to pay a poll tax or other tax. Negative: It also states the US cannot deny a person such a right.
OR,
Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years. Ratified 7/1/1971. History
- The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Positive: Citizens 18 and older have the right to vote. Negative: Government cannot block that right based on age.
Does it really make a difference whether the Constitution has negative or positive liberties? Of course it does. Does it matter if you believe our Constitution is only a set of negative or positive liberties? You bet your a** it does.
Instead of the 26th Amendment reading just "every person 18 and older has the right to vote", it says government cannot deny such persons' right to vote. There is a right and the government shall not interfere. This is a check on the power of the government. If the Constitution only had positive rights the government could basically do whatever it wants because under law, it is not required to do less.
The fundamental disagreement over whether Obama sees negative or positive liberties in the constitution is largely fabricated to support the far right's distortion agenda of promoting Obama as a socialist or even communist. It is good that Obama sees our Constitution as a set of negative rights - this means he sees limits to our government. What is important is that the negative liberties prevent the government from denying us our rights. (I can't believe I'm having to do this, but I feel like I'm defending the Constitution.)
Suggesting that the constitution is a set of positive liberties puts our country on a slippery slope toward a fight between rationalists and passionists that, while it's clear the far right wants us to be on this, is really not in the best interest of the citizens of our country. Negative liberties imply that humans are inherently flawed and are not perfect rationalizers. Positive liberties suggest that humans are perfect rationalizers and will thrive on self-mastery and self-realization and can self-regulate. We have seen enough through history (especially in the last 1-8 years!) that some people are more capable at rationality than others, and if we deny negative liberties, then we put our country in the hand of passionists - the less capable rationalists. I for one, don't want that to happen. History tells a bad story when such happens.
For more information, read: http://plato.stanford.edu/...