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.
Personally, I kinda roll Freedom of Expression into Freedom of Speech. Because any form of expression is essentially speech, even if it doesn’t use words to speak.
I would disagree. How you dress, how you present, how you act, these are all things that speak without words. I would call those speech.
Truthfully, though, if I were coining the phrase, I would have said “freedom of expression” and “freedom of thought” instead of “freedom of speech” and “freedom of worship”. Both of those are broader categories that encapsulate the concepts FDR articulated. After all, what is worship but conceptualizing the deep thoughts about where the universe came from, and finding a community of like minded folks?
Worship is however simply repeating the propaganda you were fed as a child or a vulnerable adult. Hardly deep thought involved. I’d classify it more as a mental health issue, believing in something for zero actual reason, imagining things exist that aren’t real, etc.
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.
"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.
In Europe, most want “freedom from”. As in, freedom from hate speech, freedom from Nazis, freedom from gun owning cowards, freedom from bullying, freedom from corruption
Free speech is as outdated as handguns, if you want a peaceful life and happiness
Guess that’s where all your problems are coming from 🤷
I didn’t invent that take if you think it’s strange. Ironically these interpretations of liberty originally came from European philosophers, originally Rousseau I think, so take it up with them. 🤷🏻
I don’t think they were thinking about in terms of freedom from hate but more like creating social structures that enable freedoms and try to balance out everyone’s rights, like the right to exist, in the face of something like hate vs eliminating any social structures and cutting out any middle man that would not allow someone to hate whichever thing and whoever they want to.
I’m pretty sure people everywhere want “freedom to” have a house, buy groceries and receive good healthcare, which are the most practical forms of positive freedoms in politics.
That means that everyone has access to those means. Many liberals and most conservatives do not support providing free housing, healthcare and groceries to people who don’t work. That’s why it’s a leftist take.
Ah okay. I thought you were saying that those takes aren’t political because everyone wants it. (Which is obviously not true).
As far as I understand in Marxism freedom is understood as having all the means necessary to make decisions over your own live, like education, housing and healthcare. So ‘freedom to’ would be used in the context of having freedom to choose your own path.
Freedom to have a house is in that sense sounds to me like an example of the capitalist definition of freedom from restrictions, because the freedom to have a house means freedom from land ownership laws that currently prevent most people from owning the land they live on (or claiming land for their own that isn’t in use if they’re houseless)
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.
I read something once that made a lot of sense. For the left, freedom means “freedom from”. For the right, freedom means “freedom to”.
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.
Freedom from want & fear 🔥 beautifully stated
Protect me from what I want
Freedom of worship shouldn’t really be a thing.
Replace it with Freedom of Expression. It’ll cover that and so much more.
Personally, I kinda roll Freedom of Expression into Freedom of Speech. Because any form of expression is essentially speech, even if it doesn’t use words to speak.
That’s where I’d roll religion.
But to me expression is so much more than speech, it’s how you dress, how you present, how you think, how you act, etc.
Religion is long term something we as a species should be moving away from. The other freedoms aren’t.
I would disagree. How you dress, how you present, how you act, these are all things that speak without words. I would call those speech.
Truthfully, though, if I were coining the phrase, I would have said “freedom of expression” and “freedom of thought” instead of “freedom of speech” and “freedom of worship”. Both of those are broader categories that encapsulate the concepts FDR articulated. After all, what is worship but conceptualizing the deep thoughts about where the universe came from, and finding a community of like minded folks?
Those two work for me, expression/thought.
Worship is however simply repeating the propaganda you were fed as a child or a vulnerable adult. Hardly deep thought involved. I’d classify it more as a mental health issue, believing in something for zero actual reason, imagining things exist that aren’t real, etc.
Unfortunately, you are far too right about far too many people.
That’s exactly the rationale behind the citizens united ruling
Needs some freedom FROM worship to complete the set, but otherwise spot on!
Freedom to throw 200,000 Japanese Americans into concentration camps. Fuck FDR.
Yeah, most people in history say amazing things and then turn out to be fucking monsters. Especially in American history.
But just because they’re awful fucking hypocrites doesn’t mean what they said has no value.
Fair enough.i also think it’s fair to mention what a dickbag he was every time his name comes up.
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.
Strange take.
In Europe, most want “freedom from”. As in, freedom from hate speech, freedom from Nazis, freedom from gun owning cowards, freedom from bullying, freedom from corruption
Free speech is as outdated as handguns, if you want a peaceful life and happiness
Guess that’s where all your problems are coming from 🤷
I didn’t invent that take if you think it’s strange. Ironically these interpretations of liberty originally came from European philosophers, originally Rousseau I think, so take it up with them. 🤷🏻
I don’t think they were thinking about in terms of freedom from hate but more like creating social structures that enable freedoms and try to balance out everyone’s rights, like the right to exist, in the face of something like hate vs eliminating any social structures and cutting out any middle man that would not allow someone to hate whichever thing and whoever they want to.
Yep, hundreds of years out of date
Times change, as do philosophies
deleted by creator
I’m pretty sure people everywhere want “freedom to” have a house, buy groceries and receive good healthcare, which are the most practical forms of positive freedoms in politics.
That means that everyone has access to those means. Many liberals and most conservatives do not support providing free housing, healthcare and groceries to people who don’t work. That’s why it’s a leftist take.
I don’t disagree, my point is that people in this thread have got positive and negative freedoms and rights mixed up
Ah okay. I thought you were saying that those takes aren’t political because everyone wants it. (Which is obviously not true).
As far as I understand in Marxism freedom is understood as having all the means necessary to make decisions over your own live, like education, housing and healthcare. So ‘freedom to’ would be used in the context of having freedom to choose your own path.
Freedom to have a house is in that sense sounds to me like an example of the capitalist definition of freedom from restrictions, because the freedom to have a house means freedom from land ownership laws that currently prevent most people from owning the land they live on (or claiming land for their own that isn’t in use if they’re houseless)
Free speech (& freedom of association) are super important to a lot (most?) of us.
Unfortunately some people abuse this right, making the argument that they should be free to remove others freedom.
The paradox of tolerance is a highly recommended read written by the same guy who made falsifiabilty the cornerstone of the scientific method.
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.
We all have the same ruling class.
Fair point
You, good Sir, are a liar and a braggart! 🧐😤