Y Repwblic
Conversations with Wales' Republicans : Poblachiaethwyr - Repwbligwyr - Gweriniaethwyr

The Law as boundary between Negative & Positive Freedom

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Damcanol - Theoretical
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2582

PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:46 pm    Post subject: The Law as boundary between Negative & Positive Freedom Reply with quote

Isiah Berlin famously defined " Negative " and " Positive " Freedom thus crystalising the cultural shift towards Liberal Democracy which had been going on for over a hundred years - but Philip Petit rejected this shift and restated the Republican tradition by re-clarifying it by re-stating the Republican concept of " Liberty " being subverted by " Liberals " as being " Non-Domination." Early Neo-Classical Republicanisms in the 18c were very clearly referring to the Greco-Roman idea of " Manumission " when a slave previously dependent upon a master ( i.e. " Dominated " ) was set free in a public ceremony in which they were given a ( typically red but originally white ) conical hat and a staff dymbolising that they were now free to travel where they wished. In the Roman Empire this did not result in the freed man acquiring the political rights as a citizen which depended upon owning property but it did confer " Dignitas " i.e. legal recognition by The Law.

In the early 18c this was the main thrust of Republicanism - " Pure Republicans " objected to Democracy for the same reason that they objected to Monocracy, Hierocracy and above all in Britain to Aristocracy - because these mean that The Law is being shaped by powerful private interests which oppose Justice. In the middle of the 18c as a result of The Corsican Revolution and the celebration of Pauoli's achievements in London the grotesque injustices being perpetrated as " justice " by laws made by The Aristocracy led to the revival of the idea that the remedy for their abuse of the power which they had wrestled for themselves from The Monocracy with The Bill of Rights in 1688 was to get a similar bill of rights for ordinary people by pressing for the right to vote i.e. initially the right of manhood suffrage but almost immediately thereafter womanhood suffrage too.

Thus by the middle of the 19c " Republicanism " was being identified as " Democratic " because many Republicans had campaigned for Democracy as a means to repair The Law - but Republicans were also being identified by The Supporters of The United Kingdom i.e. The Aristocracy as " advocates of criminality " because Republicans opposed their vicious laws, defended those whose deaths were being used for Aristocratic political purposes and opposed the wars fought against America and France and British occupation of Corsica etc. A significant number of Republicans still opposed Democracy as a potentially destabilising influence upon The Law and many of these believed that The King was the person to uphold The Law against The Aristocracy and would do so with the support of The People etc ...

POST SCRIPT : IF THAT SOUNDS REALLY WEIRD TO YOU - LOOK AT " /|\ " WHICH CAN BE READ AS THE PRINCE OF WALES' FEATHERS " \|/ " UPSIDE DOWN ... THE FOXITES WERE THE RADICAL FACTION IN THE 1780s AND THEY WERE BACKED BY THE PRINCE OF WALES WHO USED THEM TO OBTAIN POWER IN OPPOSITION TO HIS FATHER'S GOVERNMENT : AS SOON AS HE GOT HIS MONEY HIS SUPPORT FOR POLITICAL REFORM WANED AND IN THE 1790s HE ABANDONED THE REPUBLICAN LEADERS WHEN THEY WERE PUT ON TRIAL ... IOLO STAYED LOYAL TO HIS FRIENDS - AND WHEREAS BEFORE THIS ( LIKE THE WELSH DROVERS ) HE USED TO WEAR THREE WHITE FEATHERS IN HIS BIG BLACK HAT TO CELEBRATE HIS SUPPORT FOR THE PRINCE OF WALES ( AND PROBABLY STUCK THREE FINGERS UP TO THE GOVERNMENT TOO ) HE TOOK THESE OUT ( AND PROBABLY STARTED STICKING HIS THREE FINGERS DOWNWARDS AS A WAY OF SYMBOLICALLY - AND COVERTLY, AS A SECRET SYMBOL - DAMNING THE PRINCE OF WALES ) ... BUT THE LINK BETWEEN THE REPUBLICANS IN WALES AND THE PRINCE OF WALES CONTINUED INTO THE 19C IN THE PERSON OF DAVID WILLIAMS WHO WAS JUST ONE OF THE WELSH PEOPLE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. ... LATER - AFTER DECADES OF BEING PERSECUTED - WHEN VICTORIA CAME TO THE THRONE IN 1838 HER LIBERAL VIEWS WERE SEEN AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE ANOTHER BID FOR POLITICAL REFORMS INCLUDING DEMOCRACY AND ONE OF THESE CAMPAIGNS WAS " THE CHARTER " BUT VICTORIA WAS NOT AS LIBERAL AS THE REPUBLICANS HAD HOPED - AND HOPELESSNESS BORN OF THE POLITICAL FRUSTRATION ENGINEERED BY THE ARISTOCRACY LED TO SEVERAL MINORITIES WITHIN CHARTISM TRYING INSURRECTION.

... By the end of the 19c The People in Britain and Ireland believed that Democracy is compatible with having The Monarchy ( technically it is not ) and that having mostly been given votes they had a Democracy ( not true : Voting and Democracy are different things ) and that Republicanism is about getting rid of The Monarchy and instituting Democracy ( not true : it is about The Rule of Law and it debates Hierocracy, Democracy, Aristocracy and Monocracy as non-political phenomena i.e. four different forms of coercion - " Ultraisms " which are methods of seeking to obtain control of The State to use it to pursue their own private interests against The Public Interest - " De Re Publica." What Republicans advocate is " The Rule of Law " or - a more posh word - " Nomocracy " i.e. that " The Power is in The Law " - contrast this with " Democracy " which is " The Power is in The People."

The Law and The State which it creates can not be allowed to be in the possession of any privileged community - not even in the possession of the legislators or judges - and that is why Republicanism is so named from Cicero's book " De Re Publica " - The Law is " The Public Thing " and it can be used by - but not possessed by - rich or poor, educated or ignorant : it is our shared description of the society which we live in - and it should not be shaped by the partisan exercise of power but instead telling us all about how to live happy successful lives in consenting relationships. Good laws are thus descriptions of how a healthy natural society actually behaves i.e. according to " The Natural Law " which according to some " Republicans " states that parking your car is a fine and happy thing to do and you will enjoy yourself doing so unless you park on a double yellow line in which case the rest of us will be very unhappy and will lynch you from the nearest lamp post ... NO : THAT IS NOT ALTRUISTIC AND THEREFORE NOT REPUBLICANISM : THAT IS HIEROCRATIC ( it is a Lie ) DEMOCRATIC ( it encourages Hatred ) ARISTOCRATIC ( it Enslaves i.e. everything in this joke involves coveting anothers' property to dispose of as we please including their Life ) MONOCRATIC ( it licences War ) - THEREFORE IT IS A COMPLETE ULTRAISM LEADING TO CHAOS : NOMOCRACY IN CONTRAST LEADS TO THE RULE OF LAW - WHICH IN REPUBLICANISM IS " THE NATURAL LAW " - " NOMOS."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was knocking the above out on my phone whilst lying ill in bed this lunchtime but I found myself dragged out to listen to somebody else's sorrows ... I made some notes on the back of envelopes for the rest of this but there is a discontinuity now in my thinking AND I sketched some diagrams which I can not post at the moment due to the problem with Photobucket which has plastered repwblic.informe.com with notices which basically demand money to return the past ten years work to me : it is a nightmare ... HOWEVER ... If you would kindly help me out here and use your imaginations and a pencil - or a pen etc - draw a rectangle as the complete set of " The People " and then draw a circle within it labeled as " The Law as The Boundary " and then label the inside of this as a set which I have variously labeled " The Political - Altruism - Social Behaviour " and the inside edge of the line representing " The Law " as " Positive Freedom " etc and label that which is outside of the circle but within the rectangle as " The Non- or Anti-Political - Ultraism - Anti-Social Behaviour " and the outside edge of the line representing " The Law " as " Negative Freedom " ... You will note that in this conception " The People " and " Society " are not the same thing : those who break The Law and coerce others in their relationships with them are breaking their relationship with " Society " and eventually place themselves wholly outside of it because of their anti-social behaviour - they are either being hunted down or jailed by The State ... but The State is not in control of The Law but dependent upon it in Nomocracy : this is the opposite of what we have in The United Kingdom where The State controls The Law because this is not a political system at all but completely controlled by rival Ultraists who are competing to select The Democrats most willing to serve their private interests instead of The Public Interest - and The Democrats themselves are Ultraists who are in pursuit of their own private interests.

I need to refresh my memories of Positive V Negative Freedom before I try again ... er ... no - as I thought : I have no personal experience of The Rule of Law - but then I am too poor to be protected by The English Law ... you do know the reason why it is called that ? ... When Bill The Bastard invaded England and turned every one of them into his personal property the Norman French were governed by their own laws but for their victims they created " The English Law " i.e. the origins of it are explicit - it was The Penal Law in England : these kinds of laws are about you do to a defeated, crushed and enslaved people ... For Example the crime of " Murder " was explicitly about an Anglo-Saxon person killing a Norman-French person - whereas it was not a crime at all for a Norman-French person to kill an Anglo-Saxon person : it was sport ! ... The original Anglo-Saxon law before they became an occupied country was apparently very sophisticated and humane : they are now approaching their thousandth year under " The Norman Yoke " and now treat it as if it were a badge of pride and a trial strength or their national heritage. Perhaps that sounds like too much - yet The People in England used to vie their " Fair play now chaps ! " with the " Chwarae teg nawr boyos ! " of The People in Wales ... I know that a lot of The People in England read what I write and I make no secret of my not being a Welsh Nationalist - albeit some kind of a patriot - and I look forward to the day when our friends across all seas and borders finally turn and bite the ankles of the Ultraists stamping on them : once The People in England get back onto all fours The United Kingdom will be in the kind of political trouble which The People in Wales are too few in number - and far too timid - to create ... C'mon you bulldogs - bite ! ... There is a rumour that The Corgis in The Royal Family have already nibbled Theresa May ... mind you : that would not be in accordance with the ethos of The Open Conspiracy ...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mdmJAhGsHIA - In Our Time - The Norman Yoke
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2582

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Berlin

Sir Isaiah Berlin OM CBE FBA (6 June 1909 – 5 November 1997) was a Russian-British social and political theorist, philosopher and historian of ideas. He was an essayist, conversationalist, raconteur, and lecturer. ... [ VERY MUCH BECAME A MEMBER OF THE BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT ] ... On his death, the obituarist of The Independent wrote: "he was a man of formidable intellectual power with a rare gift for understanding a wide range of human motives, hopes and fears, and a prodigiously energetic capacity for enjoyment – of life, of people in all their variety, of their ideas and idiosyncrasies, of literature, of music, of art". The front page of The New York Times concluded: "His was an exuberant life crowded with joys – the joy of thought, the joy of music, the joy of good friends. [...] The theme that runs throughout his work is his concern with liberty and the dignity of human beings [...]. Sir Isaiah radiated well-being."

[ THERE ARE SEVERAL MAJOR ARTICLES ON THINGS HE WAS INVOLVED IN ]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Enlightenment

... Berlin published widely about the Enlightenment and its enemies and did much to popularise the concept of a Counter-Enlightenment movement that he characterised as relativist, anti-rationalist, vitalist, and organic, and which he associated most closely with German Romanticism. ... According to Berlin, the surprising and unintended consequence of this revolt against the Enlightenment has been pluralism, which owes more to the Enlightenment's enemies than it does to its proponents, some of whom were monists, whose political, intellectual and ideological offspring have been terreur and totalitarianism. ... Cardiff University professor Graeme Garrard suggests that historian William R. Everdell was the first to situate Rousseau as the "founder of the Counter-Enlightenment" in his 1987 book, Christian Apologetics in France, 1730-1790: The Roots of Romantic Religion, and earlier in his 1971 dissertation ... This contradicts Berlin's depiction of Rousseau as a philosophe (albeit an erratic one) who shared the basic beliefs of his Enlightenment contemporaries ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hedgehog_and_the_Fox

The Hedgehog and the Fox is an essay by philosopher Isaiah Berlin, one of his most popular essays with the general public. However, Berlin said, "I never meant it very seriously. I meant it as a kind of enjoyable intellectual game, but it was taken seriously. Every classification throws light on something" ... The title is a reference to a fragment attributed to the Ancient Greek poet Archilochus: πόλλ' οἶδ' ἀλώπηξ, ἀλλ' ἐχῖνος ἓν μέγα ("a fox knows many things, but a hedgehog one important thing") ... Berlin expands upon this idea to divide writers and thinkers into two categories: hedgehogs, who view the world through the lens of a single defining idea (examples given include Plato, Lucretius, Dante Alighieri, Blaise Pascal, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Henrik Ibsen, Marcel Proust and Fernand Braudel), and foxes, who draw on a wide variety of experiences and for whom the world cannot be boiled down to a single idea (examples given include Herodotus, Aristotle, Desiderius Erasmus, William Shakespeare, Michel de Montaigne, Molière, Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Aleksandr Pushkin, Honoré de Balzac, James Joyce and Philip Warren Anderson). ... The essay also appears in a widely-representative anthology of Berlin's essays, The Proper Study of Mankind. ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_pluralism

In ethics, value pluralism (also known as ethical pluralism or moral pluralism) is the idea that there are several values which may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict with each other. In addition, value-pluralism postulates that in many cases, such incompatible values may be incommensurable, in the sense that there is no objective ordering of them in terms of importance. Value pluralism is opposed to value monism. ... Value-pluralism is a theory in metaethics, rather than a theory of normative ethics, or a set of values in itself. Oxford philosopher and historian of ideas Isaiah Berlin is credited with being the first to popularize a substantial work describing the theory of objective value-pluralism, bringing it to the attention of academia (cf. the Isaiah Berlin Virtual Library). The related idea that fundamental values can and, in some cases, do conflict with each other is prominent in the thought of Max Weber, captured in his notion of "polytheism". ... Value-pluralism differs from value-relativism in that pluralism accepts limits to differences, such as when vital human needs are violated. ...

[ BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THIS ESSAY ]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty

Two Concepts of Liberty was the inaugural lecture delivered by the liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin before the University of Oxford on 31 October 1958. ... Berlin defined negative liberty (as the term "liberty" was used by Thomas Hobbes ) as the absence of coercion or interference with agents' possible private actions, by an exterior social-body ... [ I.E. WHERE THE STATE DOES NOT INTERFERE ... KIND OF ####S UP MY ARGUMENT UNLESS YOU VIEW THIS AS BEING THOSE EVADING THE RULE OF LAW] ... Positive liberty may be understood as self-mastery, and includes one's having a role in choosing who governs the society of which one is a part ... [ I.E. IN CONSENTING RELATIONSHIPS WHERE WE MASTER OURSELVES AND THE STATE DOES NOT INTERFERE ] ... it was, Berlin argued, the liberty in choosing their government granted to citizens ... [ BUT IF IT IS " GRANTED " THEN THE STATE CONTROLS THEM INSTEAD OF THE CONTROLLING THE STATE : THEY ARE DOMINATED I.E. THEY ARE SLAVES NOT MASTERS ] ... There is thus an elective affinity, for Berlin, between positive liberty, when it is rhetorically conflated with goals imposed from the third-person that the individual is told they "should" rationally desire, and the justifications for political totalitarianism ...

... For Berlin, negative liberty represents a different, and sometimes contradictory, understanding of the concept of liberty, which needs to be carefully examined. Its later proponents ( such as Tocqueville, Constant, Montesquieu, John Locke, David Hume and John Stuart Mill, who accepted Chrysippus' understanding of self-determination ) insisted that constraint and discipline were the antithesis of liberty and so were ( and are ) less prone to confusing liberty and constraint in the manner of rationalists and the philosophical harbingers of totalitarianism. This concept of negative liberty, Berlin argued, constitutes an alternative, and sometimes even opposed, concept to positive liberty, and one often closer to the intuitive modern usage of the word. ... Berlin did not argue that the concept of positive liberty should be rejected — on the contrary, he recognised it as one human value among many, and one necessary to any free society. He argued that positive liberty was a genuine and valuable version of liberty, so long as it was identified with the autonomy of individuals, and not with the achievement of goals that individuals 'ought to' 'rationally' desire. ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2582

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isaiah_Berlin

[ QUOTATIONS FROM ISAIAH BERLIN ]

" Philosophers are adults who persist in asking childish questions." - As quoted in The Listener (1978)

" Few new truths have ever won their way against the resistance of established ideas save by being overstated." - As quoted in Communications and History : Theories of Knowledge, Media and Civilization (1988) by Paul Heyer

" To confuse our own constructions and inventions with eternal laws or divine decrees is one of the most fatal delusions of men." - Essays in Honour of E. H. Carr (1974) edited by Chimen Abramsky

" Those who have ever valued liberty for its own sake believed that to be free to choose, and not to be chosen for, is an inalienable ingredient in what makes human beings human."

" The fundamental sense of freedom is freedom from chains, from imprisonment, from enslavement by others. The rest is extension of this sense, or else metaphor."

" Everything is what it is: liberty is liberty, not equality or fairness or justice or culture, or human happiness or a quiet conscience."

" All forms of tampering with human beings, getting at them, shaping them against their will to your own pattern, all thought control and conditioning is, therefore, a denial of that in men which makes them men and their values ultimate."

" Political liberty in this sense is simply the area within which a man can act unobstructed by others."

[ I DISAGREE : THIS ABUSES THE CONCEPT OF " POLITICAL " WHICH IS ABOUT HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS - TO NOT BE IN A RELATIONSHIP AS HERE DEFINED BY EXTREME LIBERTY IS NOT TO NOT BE POLITICAL ]

[ MANY OTHER QUOTATIONS THERE ]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2582

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Pettit

Philip Noel Pettit (born 1945) is an Irish philosopher and political theorist. He is Laurence Rockefeller University Professor of Politics and Human Values at Princeton University and also Distinguished University Professor of Philosophy at the Australian National University. He was a Guggenheim Fellow. ... Pettit defends a version of republicanism in political philosophy. His book Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government provided the underlying justification for political reforms in Spain under José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Pettit detailed his relationship with Zapatero in his A Political Philosophy in Public Life: Civic Republicanism in Zapatero's Spain, co-authored with José Luis Martí. ... Pettit holds that the lessons learned when thinking about problems in one area of philosophy often constitute ready-made solutions to problems faced in completely different areas. Views he defends in philosophy of mind give rise to the solutions he offers to problems in metaphysics about the nature of free will, and to problems in the philosophy of the social sciences, and these in turn give rise to the solutions he provides to problems in moral philosophy and political philosophy. ...

[ PHILIP PETTIT IS FAMOUS FOR CRITICISING ISAIAH BERLIN'S LIBERTY AND RECONSIDERING THE ORIGINAL REPUBLICAN TRADITION'S " LIBERTY " WHICH HE LABELS " NON-DOMINATION " ]

http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/freedom-non-frustration-non.html

Freedom: Non-Frustration, Non-interference or Non-domination? (Part One)

John Danaher

[ ACCESSIBLE BUT I AM FINDING IT HARD TO LOCATE SUCCINCT QUOTATIONS ]

In his article, "The Instability of Freedom as Noninterference: The Case of Isaiah Berlin", Philip Pettit reviews three different conceptions of freedom that have featured in the literature: (i) freedom as non-frustration; (ii) freedom as non-interference; and (iii) freedom as non-domination. Ostensibly, the article is an analysis of Isaiah Berlin's account of negative freedom (which Pettit says falls into the non-interference category), but it is also a defence of the non-domination conception. This is not surprising given Pettit’s status as the preeminent defender of freedom as non-domination in the modern era. ... The argument Pettit develops in favour of non-domination over the course of the article is interesting. It looks first at the Hobbesian conception of freedom (non-frustration), and argues that it is vulnerable to a reductio-style objection. It then looks at the Berlinian conception of freedom (non-interference), and argues that it too is vulnerable to a reductio-style objection. This clears the way for the Pettitian conception of freedom (non-domination), which is the only conception that is invulnerable to these reductios. ...

http://shapiro.macmillan.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Non-domination.pdf

ON NON-DOMINATION

Ian Shapiro

My aim here is to defend a view of non-domination as providing a better basis forjustice than the going alternatives. I differentiate it from two kinds of alternatives: those whose proponents reject my claim that non-domination is the bedrock of justice and those who agree with me but understand non-domination differently than I do. The first group divides into partisans of equality, on the one hand, and of freedom, on the other. Their arguments concern me in the first half of the essay. Then I turn to conceptions of non-domination put forward by Jürgen Habermas, Michel Foucault, Michael Walzer, Quentin Skinner, and Philip Pettit. There is considerable overlap among these various views and between them and mine but there are also notable disagreements. I spell out what is at stake in the alternative formulations, indicating why my own conception, rooted in power-based resourcism, is preferable. ...

[ THIS LOOKS DENSE BUT VERY INTERESTING - I AM DENSE BUT VERY INTERESTED ]

[ 44 PAGES OF IT AND IT IS NOW 11.10 PM - SEE YOU TOMORROW ! ]


Last edited by dai on Tue Aug 15, 2017 10:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2582

PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have doubts about this idea now : the way in which I use the terms " negative " and " positive " and " non-domination " reflect the way in which I think : that Republicanism has always been about legal systems and the ways in which they are created ... " Freedom " is created by " The Rule of Law " and therefore the kind of " freedom " which most people want is just wantoness and against the law ... think in terms of being given " the freedoms of the borough " and having the right to drive sheep up the high street or sell petticoats in the market place - and with them goes duties and political rights in the community ... the law creates Non-Domination between those who have been made citizens i.e. free ... it prevents their private affairs being interfered with and it compels them to participate in public affairs ... it defines " positive " and " negative " freedoms ... and I will now try to abuse all the established writers to demonstrate that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2582

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let me try to extract the bones of his argument ...

Ian Shapiro

ON NON-DOMINATION

I Why Non-domination?

When people experience domination they often complain of injustice,
and rightly so. My aim here is to develop an account of non-domination
as the bedrock of justice that makes sense of, and builds on, this common
complaint. I doubt that any conception of justice could win many
adherents or keep them for long, even if it snared them for a while, were
it not unambiguously hostile to domination. People demand justice to
escape domination. I agree with the tradition of political philosophy,
stretching at least from Plato to John Rawls, in which justice is regarded
as the first virtue of social institutions. If I am right about the relations between justice and non-domination, this makes non-domination in an
important sense the primary political value. ... For present purposes, I will
assume that, like Robert Nozick, freedom’s partisans regard their understanding of it as the bedrock of justice. The friends of equality occupy
my attention in Part II, followed by those of freedom in Part III. Having
explained why non-domination is a preferable bedrock ideal to those
put forward in either of these camps, I turn, in Part IV, to competing conceptions of non-domination put forward by Jürgen Habermas, Michel
Foucault, Michael Walzer, Quentin Skinner, and Philip Pettit. There is
considerable overlap among these various views, and between them and
mine, but there are also notable disagreements. I spell out what is at
stake in the alternative formulations, indicating why my own conception,
rooted in power-based resourcism, is preferable. ...

[ THIS ESSAY IS EXTREMELY WELL WRITTEN : TIGHTLY CONSTRUCTED AND DIFFICULT TO CULL FROM WITHOUT DETRACTING FROM HIS ARGUMENTS - ]

[ - AND THERE ARE 44 PAGES OF THIS ... ]


Last edited by dai on Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:39 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2582

PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Prophet Isaiah Berlin said " Mein Biss Macht Frei "_Which imprisoned us all without a single pie_Negative Liberty leaves us all pennyless_Positive demands that we are not left pieless_Non-Domination asks " But who ate all the pies ? " = dai repwblic = Dai Saw = David B Lawrence : the author asserts ?

The Prophet Isaiah Berlin said " Mein Biss Macht Frei "_
Which then imprisoned us all without a single pie_
Negative Liberty leaves us all pennyless_
Positive demands that we are not left pieless_
Non-Domination asks " But who ate all the pies ? "
=
dai repwblic = Dai Saw = David B Lawrence : the author asserts his moral right - not to sue for copyright !

[ SHORTLY AFTERWARDS I SENT THIS ONE OUT - A PAIR ? ]
I am a pale ontologist - I study Wales and deep mores_I have easily excavated down past the dinosaures_Deeper than even the Ford Cortinas_To discover our nation's genie's ass_To the very earliest form of life : Clausius Fourus = dai repwblic = Dai Saw = David B Lawrence : the author asserts his moral righ

I am a pale ontologist - I study Wales and deep mores_
I have easily excavated down past the dinosaures_
Deeper than even the Ford Cortinas_
To discover our nation's genie's ass_
To the very earliest form of life : Clausius Fourus.
=
dai repwblic = Dai Saw = David B Lawrence : the author asserts his moral right - not to sue for copyright !

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolism_(arts)

... Greek σύμβολον symbolon, an object cut in half constituting a sign of recognition when the carriers were able to reassemble the two halves ... [ I UNDERSTAND SYMBOLIST POETRY TO PRESENT AN ESSENTIALLY MEANINGLESS BUT CULTURALLY EVOCATIVE IMAGERY WHICH INVITES THE READERS TO SUPPLY THEIR OWN MEANINGS ] ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Fauvism

Neo-Fauvism was a poetic style of painting from the mid-1920s proposed as a challenge to Surrealism.

The magazine Cahiers d'Art was launched in 1926 and its writers mounted a challenge to the Surrealist practice of automatism by seeing it not in terms of unconscious expression, but as another development of traditional artistry. They identified a group of artists as the exponents of this and termed them Neo-Fauves.

Although these artists were later mostly forgotten, the movement had an effect of disillusioning the Surrealist group with the technique of graphic automatism as a revolutionary means of by-passing conventional aesthetics, ideology and commercialism.

Neo-Fauvism has been seen as the last trend within painting that could be marketed as a coherent style.

https://creators.vice.com/en_us/topic/neo-fauvism

“The goal of 'Faux Fauvism' is to pinpoint the moment in cognition when pattern recognition occurs.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My diversion off into the aesthetics of Symbolism and Faux/Neo/Fauvism there puzzled even me for an hour or two but what I was groping for was the problem that I am having here : arguments about varieties of " Liberty " and " Non-Domination " present as culturally familiar ideas juxtaposed ... Not exactly the broken pieces of an object long ago smashed - like those shards of pottery used by the Ancient Greeks to record two halves of a contract ( which was a commonplace in the only just literate and numerate ancient world : the cuniform tablets of clay which are found stacked up in middle eastern archaeological excavations often have missing counterparts indicated by a broken side which acted like the indentured documents of medieval Europe, each half having an identical copy of the contract or record on it ) ... The difficulty that I have got into here is that the various accounts of " Liberty " and " Non-Domination " are not parts of a whole but independent accounts of the whole, like different snapshots of the same thing taken from a variety of angles ... Or rather for my Meta-Ideological purpose I am proposing that these Ideologies are dealing with the same object but have of course been written by different subjects - ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2582

PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am having another crack at this : I like his criticism of Rawls / Harrington -

http://shapiro.macmillan.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Non-domination.pdf

A THE ORIGINAL POSITION AND THE LOGIC OF JUSTICE

Rawls’s device of reasoning behind a veil of ignorance does not generate a commitment to equality; rather, it presumes prior acceptance of an egalitarian presumption. His claim is that, under conditions of moderate scarcity, the principle of insufficient reason that operates behind the veil of ignorance would lead any rational person to choose equality unless an unequal distribution could be shown to operate to everyone’s advantage. But the original position is an expository device, not an argument for equality – or, indeed, for any other distributive principle. Rawls himself notes that it is inspired by a conception of fairness according to which the best way to divide a cake is to require the cutter to take the last slice. [ I.E. HARRINGTON'S LAW IN OCEANA ] Assuming rational self-interest, she will divide it equally so as to maximize the size of her slice. Granting the assumptions, arguendo, this does nothing to establish the desirability of an equal division. If we knew, for instance, that one of the recipients had not eaten for three days, another had three cakes in his bag, and a third was a diabetic who would be made sick by eating cake, then any intuitive appeal of ‘the cutter takes last’ rule would quickly evaporate. The cake-cutter’s rule seems attractive only in light of a prior commitment to equality. What it offers is a way for self-interest to get people there; nothing less, nothing more. ...

... ... ...

... But why should we want to commit to an egalitarian distributive presumption? Michael Walzer pointed out over a quarter of a century ago that it is not inequality as such that people find objectionable so much as the uses people make of unequally distributed assets. In particular, it is when people use the resources in their control to dominate others that we take exception to their having those resources. It is the use of wealth to corrupt a politician or to ‘buy’ a place in college for an otherwise undeserving child that generates resentment. Walzer’s solution, to build barriers between the spheres in which different goods appropriately hold sway, confronts difficulties, as I note in Part IV.A below. But they do not detract from the force of his telling underlying intuition that it is domination rather than inequality that is objectionable. ...

... ... ...

... I think that proponents of these views are wrongheaded if they maintain that we can reason fruitfully about justice in the absence of distributive considerations or even that, in the absence of distributive considerations, we can reason fruitfully about the dimensions of justice to which the theorists in question point. Marxian exploitation is, in significant part, about the distribution of work, recognition is about the distribution of status, and domination is about the distribution of power. Moreover, as I spell out in the course of discussing Philip Pettit’s view in Part IV.E below, there are many settings in which achieving non-domination requires attention to – and sometimes redistribution of – material and other resources. Rather than conceive of non-domination as an alternative to distributive justice, we do better to think of non-domination as the essence of justice and acknowledge
that it is often intimately linked to distributive considerations. To think otherwise leads down the path of symbolic victories that, at best, obscure what justice requires and often work at cross-purposes with it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2582

PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I keep this up on my browser but I am not making much progress with it ... I keep doing this from time to time i.e. starting a subject and the floundering ... Let me try it from a different angle -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXOEkj6Jz44 - Positive Rights vs. Negative Rights - Learn Liberty

- so it looks to me as if Positive Rights are provided for or enforced by The State -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umkH1xDB28c - Positive Rights and Negative Rights

- ah-huh ... ah - here is somebody drawing the boundary and talking about The Natural Law -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8sj_WPeZew - Understanding Law and Rights

- mmm ... so he makes a distinction between Natural ( Divine Law ) Rights and Positive ( Human Law ) Rights ... so I might make sense of that in terms of being able to make an appeal to The Nomos when The State is oppressive ... so Non-Domination is an appeal for Negative Liberty i.e. for The State to not interfere in our lives e.g. The Right to Free Speech being necessary for preventing those who control The State from suppressing their critics ... so that would be in accord with the idea that Non-Domination is to do with the boundary between Negative and Positive Liberty and restrains The State -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfhQhdA-zss - Positive and Negative Liberty (Isaiah Berlin - Two Concepts of Liberty)

- Now that is a different spin on it - the spin which gave me the problem ... there are a number of different videos about Positive V Negative thingumijig -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRN2DfeCkQc - Week 3 Isaiah Berlin Two Concepts of Liberty

- yeah : I will come back to watch that later ... here is the man himself being interviewed -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAGngAc9_M - Sir Isaiah Berlin interviewed about his life by Michael Ignatieff

- MORE RELEVANT AT 06.00 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vib2rqJKS08 - Isaiah Berlin interview on Why Philosophy Matters (1976)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Damcanol - Theoretical All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


© 2007-2008 Informe.com. Get Free Forum Hosting
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
 :: 
PurplePearl_C 1.02 Theme was programmed by DEVPPL JavaScript Forum
Images were made by DEVPPL Flash Games