196

A while back on R*ddit I had this discussion with a "libertarian" where they unironically defended the idea that local communities should be able to dictate people's clothes. For leftists "freedom" means expanding and protecting the rights of the people, while for them it literally just means "freedom to oppress others".

In his deposition, Owen Shroyer (Idiot who works for Alex Jones, calls himself "the cuck destroyer", and also admitted under oath in same depo that he is a puppet) stated that he believes the first ammendment gives him the right to say whatever he wants "without consequences."

This shows a lack of understanding (or deliberate will to understand) that no action is without consequence. It could be a good consequence, or a bad one, but by simply taking an action you affect the world, large or small. They just want to be able to do what they want no matter what it does to others and suffer no backlash whatsoever, which screams rules for thee not for me.

For certain values of I

Or the freedom to choose whether to have expensive Healthcare or bankrupt yourself whenever you have a health emergency.

It's obviously not the freedom from health expenses.

Just the same person that a few years ago would have been convinced by phrenology.

well, all the examples in the image are "freedom to", and are leftist viewpoints, so I'm not sure about that that statement.

I mean, for me, it means both. I'm a big believer in FDR's concept of four freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

I've heard it the exact opposite. Freedom to is positive freedom which tends to be a more social leftist or social liberal trait. Negative freedom (freedom from) is typically a more modern right wing or libertarian trait. But also you could have libertarian leftists or anarchists that lean more towards negative liberty, as well as fiscal conservatives that lean more towards positive liberty on social issues, so it's not fully a left/right thing.

Basically the difference is enabling people via common social framework that gives people options and social mobility vs complete non-interference by government or any other entity even if it limits options and social mobility for anyone but yourself due to their life circumstances.

Here's a quote from the Wikipedia article on positive liberty that backs up this interpretation of the to/from distinction. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty):

"Erich Fromm sees the distinction between the two types of freedom emerging alongside humanity's evolution away from the instinctual activity that characterizes lower animal forms. This aspect of freedom, he argues, "is here used not in its positive sense of freedom to but in its negative sense of 'freedom from', namely freedom from instinctual determination of his actions."

I don't know that I agree with that premise but it's an example of the to/from dichotomy being used in relation to positive/negative freedom just so you know I'm not making anything up.

When I was taught it it was not pure left/right. Rather a method to differentiate levels of Libertarianism form other branches of liberalism focused on social justice (rising tide and all that). Any idea where you read it? Poli sci wonk phrasing being included into more popular literature is always fun to see.

Eh, their ruling class creates divisions to distract them from their constant exploitation.

I read something once that made a lot of sense

You, good Sir, are a liar and a braggart! 🧐😤

Or that it specifically protects you from the government, not private entities that don't want to hear their conspiratorial, hateful, protofascist bullshit lol.