Positive Liberty

Positive Liberty
Should the Government Promote Positive Liberty? The idea of liberty, or freedom, varies between different theorists. One theorist, Isaiah Berlin,
focused on the difference between two different ways of thinking about political liberty (Cherniss & Hardy, 2010). Berlin called these two
different concepts negative and positive liberty. According to Berlin, negative freedom can be defined as 'freedom from', that is, freedom from
constraint or interference of others. In contrast, positive freedom can be defined in two ways: 'freedom to', that is the ability to pursue and achieve
willed goals; and also as autonomy or self–rule, as opposed to the dependence on others (Cherniss & Hardy, 2010). Keeping the idea of positive
liberty at...show more content...
And are we to presume that if the law doesn't explicitly say we can do something, we are not allowed to do it? (Keong, 2007). Another concern
expressed by Keong (2007) is the idea that positive liberty means we expect the state to hand us certain things on a silver platter. Positive liberty has
been used as a platform to push through ideas such as the principle that everyone is entitled to a minimum income or standard of living, though not
everyone is comfortable with the "moral hazard this might evoke" (Keong, 2007). Key questions asked with this in mind include; 'if you are guaranteed
something, will you be willing to contribute back to society for it? Or, will you sit around and collect your entitlements? (Keong, 2007; Haworth,
1991). After going through what positive liberty is, examples of positive liberty and the debates surrounding positive liberty, the main question running
through my head is whether the government should promote positive liberty? While I do acknowledge what Keong says about people expecting the
state to hand entitlements over, I think that the government should promote positive liberty to maintain order within society. An image that runs
through my head at the thought of the government not promoting positive liberty is one of anarchy. People can do whatever they like with no
consequence which to me, breeds chaos all around. At least with positive liberty, people can do what
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

The Definition of Liberty
In New York there is a 250–ton green statue dressed in a robe, holding a torch and tablet with broken chains at the feet. In 1886, the statue was given
to the United States as a gift to symbolize liberty. The statue is the Statue of Liberty. She is dressed in a robe to symbolize the Roman goddess of
freedom, Libertas. She holds a torch and a tablet to symbolize evoking the law. Many individuals visit the Statue of Liberty, hoping to understand what
liberty means. Liberty has many interpretations and it is not confined to one meaning. To truly understand the meaning of liberty, an individual must
understand the different types of liberties that are available to Americans. Visiting the Statue of Liberty will not fully define the concept of what
liberty truly means; an individual must understand the definition, the characteristics, the types, and what liberty is not. First, an individual needs to
understand the definition of liberty. Liberty is derived from the Latin word "Liber," which means free. Liberty means an individual is able to to live
in a society that is free of oppressive restrictions on how to live ones life, behave, or ones political views. An individual commonly expresses liberty as:
freedom, independence, autonomy, emancipation, and liberation. Next an individual must understand the characteristics of liberty. There are two
characteristics of liberty, negative liberties and positive liberties. Negative liberties are liberties that do not have possess

The Statue of Liberty Essay
The Statue of Liberty stands in the New York Harbor and has greeted many immigrants into Ellis Island. At the time, Lady Liberty was letting them
know that their journey to find freedom, democracy, and a better way of life, was officially over. The Statue of Liberty is very important to many
Americans because of what it represents. (Statue of Liberty National Monument)(Immigration) In 1865, Edvouvard de Laboulaye, of France, thought
of the idea to build the Statue of Liberty while he was on a visit to New York. He commissioned Frederick–Auguste Bartholdi to design the statue.
Barthholdi needed someone with experience with building the outer skeletons of statues, so he asked for the assistance of Alexandre Gustave Eiffel.
While designing...show more content...
(The Statue of Liberty) Before they could even start to build the statue, France and America had to make a compromise. France would build the
statue and America would build the pedestal. In order to make this happen both countries had to do a lot of fundraising. France did various types
of entertainment, public fees, and a lottery. America did theatrical events, art exhibits, and auctions. Even while doing all those fundraisers',
neither country was making enough money. So Joseph Pulitzer took a stand. He used his very popular newspaper and critized the rich and middle
class in an article. He blamed the middle class for depending on the rich, and the rich for not helping financially. His idea worked like a charm.
Fundraisers' after that were going better than ever. Once both sides had reached the amount of money needed to build, they got started building
right away!(Statue of Liberty History) When building Lady Liberty the sculptors were suppose to keep the year 1876 in mind to have it completed,
but since funds were slow early out the Statue of Liberty was going to be a gift that was a decade late. It was completed in France July of 1884. In
order to get the statue to America they had to disassemble it into 350 individual pieces and load those pieces on 214 crates. Unlike the statue the hand
and torch were sent in one whole piece. The statue was

Liberty Bell
The Liberty Bell, located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is an American bell of great historic significance. The Liberty Bell is perhaps one of the most
prominent symbols associated with the American Revolution and the American Revolutionary War. It is one of the most familiar symbols of
independence, abolition of slavery, nationhood and freedom within the United States, and has been used as an international icon of liberty. [1]
Its most famous ringing, on July 8, 1776, summoned citizens of Philadelphia for the reading of the Declaration of Independence. Previously, it had been
rung to announce the opening of the First Continental Congress in 1774 and after the Battle of Lexington and Concord in 1775.
The Liberty Bell was known as the...show more content...
Inscribed are the names of John Pass and John Stow, together with city and date, along the inscription "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all
the inhabitants thereofВ—Lev. XXV, v. x. By order of the Assembly of the Province of Pensylvania for the State House in Philad." (The spelling
"Pensylvania" was an accepted variant at the time.)
[edit] 19th–century history, repair and crack
During the 19th century, the bell tolled at the death of Alexander Hamilton (1804), Lafayette's return to Philadelphia (1824), the deaths of Adams and
Jefferson (1826), Washington's 100th birthday celebration (1832) and the deaths of Lafayette (1834), John Marshall (1835) and William Henry
Harrison (1841). [4]
In 1839, William Lloyd Garrison's anti–slavery publication The Liberator reprinted a Boston abolitionist pamphlet containing a poem about the Bell,
entitled, "The Liberty Bell," which represents the first known usage (in print) of the name, "Liberty Bell." [4]
It is not certain when the second crack appeared (the first after the recastings), but the bell was repaired in February 1846. The method of repair,
known as stop drilling, required drilling along the hairline crack so that the sides of the fracture would not reverberate.
On February 22, 1846, the bell was tolled for several hours in the tower of Independence Hall in honor of George Washington's birthday.[5] When the
bell was rung,

Liberty in the History of America Essay
America is commonly called the "Land of the Free", but the abundance of liberties, and liberties for all, has not always been the case. The Puritans
were some of the first to settle in the New World, but they were self–interested and did not come with the purpose of creating a free state for all. As
time progressed, so did their believes, and by the time Tocqueville arrived from France, liberty was an important aspect of American life. So
important that people would fight and die for it. Tocqueville, while impressed at the amount liberty and freedoms that citizens had, believed that
America had a long way to go before it could call itself a truly free country. Fast forward over a hundred years later, and John Rawls lived in a time
were the...show more content...
Their legitimacy did not come from the people that they ruled over, but from God, and Rulers were "appointed by God" to serve "his will". This
divine sovereignty gave them to create and enforce the laws and standards that they liked in the name of God, when often they were truly acting with
self–interest. Popular sovereignty on the other hand is considered rule by the people. Through participation, people create and sustain the
government. The Puritans did not believe in rule by the people because people are inherently flawed and erroneous. In reality, it was the Puritans
using the claim of divine sovereignty to push their own religious and authoritarian agenda. Most Puritan thinkers did not believe in the idea of
liberty. Nathanial Ward was a strict authoritarian, and in his essay, Simple Cobbler of Aggawam, he states that he does not believe in natural rights
and liberties. The only liberties one had were the ones given by God, so it can be assumed that he did not believe in freedom of expression, freedom
of religion or popular sovereignty (Baker and Thomas 56). The role of the state was not to protect natural liberties, but rather, only those God given
liberties. Ward strongly condoned toleration for many reasons. First, toleration of religions other than Puritanism would

Civil Liberties and Civil Rights Essay
Civil Liberties (And how they differ from civil rights) "If the fires of freedom and civil liberties burn low in other lands, they must be made
brighter in our own. If in other lands the press and books and literature of all kinds are censored, we must redouble our efforts here to keep them
free. If in other lands the eternal truths of the past are threatened by intolerance, we must provide a safe place for their perpetuation." Franklin
Delano Roosevelt, 1938 (Isaacs 66) Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to be free from unreasonable searches of your home, the right
to a fair trial, the right to marry, and the right to vote are all examples of Civil Liberties that every American is guaranteed under the Bill of...show more
content...
Civil liberties are basic freedoms granted to individuals in the Bill of Rights. Individual freedom can survive only under a system of law by which
both the supreme and the governed are bound. Such a system of fundamental laws, Civil rights are constitutional guarantees, which mean they are
granted to individuals with the body of the Constitution in the form of amendments. Many civil rights were granted after the Constitution was
written, but civil liberties were included in the Constitution since their adoption in the Bill of Rights in 1791. One of the main reasons that the
Puritans sailed to America to was to escape religious persecution. They were actually being physically beaten because of their religious beliefs.
America began with a government based on religious beliefs. It developed into a government, which condemned those who did not believe in the
Puritan beliefs. For example, one had to believe in the Puritan religion and attend church to vote and become a member of the Puritan society. This
practice further developed into a situation in which you were beaten or killed if you did not believe in the Puritan religion, the exact reasons they had
originally fled from England. It took a group of men to deduce what liberties were guaranteed and which were not, to avoid mistakes made by puritans
and others in history. Men like Thomas Jefferson, who argued that the sole purpose of government was to protect our individual rights. The

One of the most important parts of the Declaration of Independence is its preamble, and, more specifically, certain phrases contained within the
preamble. Thomas Jefferson does an excellent job of explaining why the colonies are doing the things they are doing, and is very clear in stating what
he and his associates think are the "unalienable rights" of the American people. Among these are "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Probably
one of the most famous lines in American history, I have chosen to focus on this phrase and what those three things might have meant to Thomas
Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers as they prepared this document, as well as what they mean to us today. First, Jefferson states that every man
...show more content...
Some of the abuses he describes are shutting off trade with other parts of the world, quartering troops within the colonies, and forcing colonists to
be tried in England. Jefferson and others saw these as a violation the people's right to choose. It was his dream that men should be able to appoint
their own government and vote on all decisions that would affect them. Finally, Jefferson states that everybody is entitled to the pursuit of
happiness. It is important to note that the colonists took care in not just saying that every man has the right to happiness, but more specifically the
pursuit of it. To Jefferson, this meant that when our government is doing its job right, we as a people are and should be able to find our own
happiness in life. Today, it means the same thing. It is up to us to chase after whatever it is we desire and make it a reality. The only thing holding
us back from doing so should be whatever we as individuals lack, but never our government. These three terms, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness, embody what it means to be an American. Thomas Jefferson wrote them as a call to his fellow people to rise up and fight for what they
believed in. The phrase continues to ring true today and inspire us as citizens to do the very same

The Importance Of Individual Liberties
Our government comprises individual liberties on a day–to–day basis. In our Bill of Rights, we, as the citizens on the United States, are guaranteed
certain liberties, such as the freedom to speech and et cetora. However, although these liberties are granted to the people, the reality of it is that these
liberties do not always balance between the people and the society. Likewise, without the existence of these individual liberties, our society would not
function as it would today. As of lately, many individuals have seen the truth of how these individual liberties do not ensure the name of security or
general welfare, both internally and externally. One on–going topic in the current time surrounds the current presidential candidate, Donald Trump.
While it is within the Bill of Rights that you have a freedom of speech, Donald Trump has used this in order to criticize others for their own race. This
is seen true when he made a speech that covered immigration and how he said that people of Mexican decent are rapists, killers, and other negative
adjectives. Even so, these are unjust slurs that have no statistical evidence. On another level of unjust, Donald Trump wants those of Muslim culture to
...show more content...
Rice was only twelve–years old before he was shot by police officials after they thought he had an actual gun. In our Second Amendment, it states
that we have the right to bear arms. Thus, this comes down to the question of why should people have licenses to carry a gun when this is one of
our rights? The aftermath turned out to be that Rice did not have a real gun, rather, it was a fake gun. With that being said, Rice was unarmed but
only to be shot because of a "human" error. The police officer did not have to take this "life or death" approach, and this situation could have been
handled in a more proper manner. Fake or not, Rice still had the right to carry the gun even though today's time calls for a

John Stuart Mill's Essay On Liberty
John Stuart Mill's Essay On Liberty
The main theme of on liberty was the individual. Everything else, society, education,government and so forth had their basis in the individuals rights to
his own liberty. No one, no member of society, government, even God, if he appeared before an individual, could inforce his will upon him. That is not
to say that you couldnt change someones mind through discussions, but instead, that no one had a right to force his views upon another. Your happiness
is yours(individual) to enjoy without any infringements. Conversations between individuals or groups of individuals is essential in developing the
notion of liberty. Mill claims that you should feel free to convey your views openly...show more content...
Man is after all, a rational being and has the capabilities to reason things through. Education serves more as a guide then as a factual basis for each
individual. No two individuals can have the exact same experiences in life.
Therefore, it is up to the individuals themselves to conclude what they perceive to be their own ideas of happiness. An individual who follows
traditions and customs soleley because they are inherrent in society, is nothing more than an animal.
The very fact that you can reason said mill, means that you have the option of disregarding all customs and traditions if you feel they are not beneficial
towards your happiness.
That is not to say that you shouldnt follow customs and traditions, merely that you ought not to, for the sake of being just another brick in the wall.
The progressive nature of humans leads to the ultimate conclusion that there is no need for a governing force outside society consisting of individuals
that have their own interests at heart. There should not be a government, a monarch, a ruler that is outside society. Instead, it should be attached to the
people, having their best interests at heart. Rulers are not needed to protect the people from themselves. In fact, they should be in all regards,
responsible to the people and subjected to being removed by the people, beacause it is the people who ultimately

DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY SAFEGUARDS
A Best Interest Assessment
The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 states that "an act done, or decision made, under this Act, for or on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must
be done, or made, in his best interests'. The Deprivation of liberty safeguards are a legal framework introduced into the mental capacity act 2005 (MCA)
by the mental health act 2007 (MHA). This legislation protects the rights of people in care homes or hospitals, where the care is imputable to the
state, who lack capacity or have a mental dysfunction to make decisions regarding their care and treatment (Jones, 2008 p 383). DOLS ensures
against arbitrary deprivation of liberty (dol) which was identified in the Bournewood Case ( HL v UK 45508/99 (2004) ECHR 471). The
judgement in this case determined that in order to adhere to the ECtHR, lawful detention needed to meet Article 5 (1) that requires a 'procedure
prescribed by law' and Article 5 (4) which requires a means to apply to a court to see if deprivation of liberty was unlawful (dols code of practice
2008). As such, the DOLs are designed to protect the rights of people who fall within the scope of the act.
The aim of this assignment is to evidence a critical analysis and evaluation of professional development having attended structured learning events on
the Deprivation Of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) and the best interest assessment process. To demonstrate the required learning outcomes, I would like to
use the case

Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit Of Human Rights
Being human is something people wonder about all the time. It's quite a philosophical question, if you think about it. When we refer to different points
in history, we think of John Locke, Malcolm X, and how humans can create something advanced. These are just some of the things that make humans
human. But the meaning of being human goes even deeper than that. For starters, John Locke is a very important figure in history. He created the idea
that humans have three natural rights. The rights were life, liberty, and property. But eventually, property turned into the pursuit ofhappiness, which in
fact, makes a lot more sense. Property isn't something every human can have. The pursuit of happiness, however, is something that everyone can have.
Everyone has the ability to aspire to be, to dream, to want. Especially have the ability to want to be like someone or do something with their life. If you
think about it, monkeys can want certain things, in a certain place, at a certain time. Only humans can want in the future and think ahead about what
they'll want to do with their lives, and that's...show more content...
Malcolm spent much of his short life advocating for human rights for everyone. He was largely famous for his speeches, books, and his overall
thoughts on human rights. Malcolm's main philosophy was that although the civil movement was trying to be non–violent, blacks should do whatever
they could against the whites if they became violent. This should be a key into what he would think about the matter of what makes humans human.
People have rights and they should be respected. If the rights are not taken seriously or someone threatens them, then they should do whatever they can
to defend their rights. This goes back to another point, which is that we only have the rights that we can actually defend. If you cannot defend your
rights, you don't have them at

Essay on Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death
Institution Affiliation "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" by Patrick Henry Althia Giles 201240 Fall 2012 HIUS 221–D54 LUO Ms. Catherine
Hardee November 12, 2012 "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" by Patrick Henry Henry's Speech Was a Call to Action. What Did He Want His
Fellow Virginians To Do? What Were His Justifications For The Proposed Action? How Did Henry Address The Concerns Of Those Who Did Not
Agree With Him? At the Second Virginia Convention held on 23rd March, 1775 in St. John's Church, Richmond Virginia, Patrick Henry stood and
addressed his fellow delegates regarding the defense and arming of Virginia State.[1] While some delegated supported the reconciliation with...show
more content...
Through the use of the image of slavery, Henry managed to paint a clear picture of how the situation was, therefore, making it easier for him to
emphasize the need for America's independence. Also, Henry uses a change in the volume of his voice in his video speech to appeal to the
emotions of his fellow delegates. Henry begins his speech in a normal tone of voice, but throughout the video, his voice gradually gets louder with
time, and in the end, he shouts his concluding line, "give me liberty, or give me death!"[4] This gradual volume change in Henry's voice enabled
him to appeal to the feelings of his audience effectively, and eventually emphasize on his message of fighting for liberty. At the beginning of Henry's
speech, he was aware of the fact that not every delegate supported his idea of fighting British rule; some wanted America to make peace and
reconciliation with Britain. He politely acknowledged "different men often see the same subject in different lights"[5] and that his aim was to express
his sentiments unreservedly regarding the debate on whether Americans should fight for their freedom or remain enslaved by the British rule. Henry
hoped his fellow delegates would not see his sentiments as disrespectful. He also told his audience that they had a responsibility towards America and
God to seek the truth and that if he held back his opinions for fear of offending others; he would be

Essay American History: Liberty and Equality
Though this nation claims to have been founded on the ideals of liberalism, a political ideology that promotes liberty and equality, in practice many
laws implemented by our Founding Fathers are ridden with racism and elitism. In effect, the American Revolution was nothing but a shift in power
from one group of rich white men to another. Fortunately, great strides have been made to expand franchise; between the ratification of the fifteenth
amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Du jur, all legal citizens over the age of 18, that do not have felonies, have the right to vote, regardless
of age, class, gender, race or sexual preference. With the increase of attention to the national debate regarding voter identification laws, the de...show
more content...
The "American Experiment" put the power of the government in the hands of a small group of men that were elected to represent their constituencies,
for the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire. Though it was a sign of progress by the standards of the late eighteenth century, laws established
in this government limited accessibility to voting to the common man. Mechanisms were put in place to protect from the tyranny of the majority yet, in
effect; it protected the rule of the minority that held much of wealth. Article I of the Constitution clearly dictates that state Senators are to be appointed
by the state legislator with the intention of protecting the rights of those who built the country, property owning white males. Institutions such as the
electoral college were also originally intended to safeguard the presidency from being taken over by the least economically advantaged, the poor.
Those deemed beneath property holding men were treated as such; in a political system claiming to be "for the people, by the people." It was not until
sixty years after the ratification of the United States' Constitution, 1850, that franchise was expanded from property holding white men to all white
men. Politically motivated systems and laws hindering American citizens from voting have been prevalent throughout the history of the nation and
voter identification laws, however unbiased they may be worded, have

Liberty And Liberty Essay
Liberty is defined as "the quality or state of being free."[Merriam–Webster Dictionary] The idea of being free has been important to many people
throughout the years, even to the extent that wars would be waged over how liberty should be handled. Nevertheless, over the course of hundreds of
years, no country has been considered as synonymous with liberty as America has. Not only was America founded by seceding itself from England, but
America's national anthem refers to itself as "the home of the free." Also, one of the most populous states in America, New York, annually attracts
tourists to its Statue of Liberty. Although America's freedom from England is how the majority of people view the relationship between liberty and
America, the...show more content...
In his letter to the Romans, Paul writes, "But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God..." [Romans 6:22] How can
someone be set free from the bondage of sin and yet bind themselves again? Does Paul not write to the Galatians, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty
by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage"? [Galatians 5:1] We have done nothing to deserve the
grace God has given, so because we can never fully repay God, we must become slaves to Him. Although being a slave to God sounds limiting, this
is what gives believers liberty, for Paul continues in his letter to the Romans, "...you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting
life."[Romans 6:22] The "yoke of bondage" Paul refers to is the yoke that comes from the bondage of sin, for Paul's continues in his letter to the
Galatians, "Do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another." [Galatians 3:22] By becoming a disciple of Jesus,
God has made all believers new. [2 Corinthians 5:17] Thus, by dying to sinful desires, believers receive freedom by becoming God's slaves. Without
the Pilgrims' belief concerning liberty, America would have started off much differently. William Bradford records the pilgrims' reason for leaving their
homeland England. He writes that the church began to force all Christians "to yield to one ceremony after another, and

The Statue Of Liberty Essay
There are few objects that can be compared to the significance of the figure known as the Statue of Liberty. It is one of the greatest works of its time
and still stands today as a meaningful entity of independence to the world. The statue is a great tribute to the concept of global freedom that had its
roots in America. It was created to display the worldwide objective of peace and tranquility. The fact that another model of this icon stands today in a
world capital shows the effect that this figure has inscribed upon the world. In addition, it represents the ideas that the United States was built upon and
those that the people have lived by to this very day. Its most paramount features in its role through American history are its...show more content...
The statue would have died if not for the valiant efforts of Joseph Pulitzer, who through his magazine, the World, helped raise the much needed
funds for the pedestal. Though the French had graciously granted us the statue free of charge, the Americans still had to pay for the pedestal upon
which the statue was to rest. He stated that the statue was to be a symbol of unity, freedom, and the ideals that so many of them had fought for to
acquire their very own independence. Pulitzer?s campaign of criticism was just what the statue needed. His actions helped to raise funds from the
rich and the middle class. In a couple of years, the US had enough money to form the pedestal. Back in France, Bartholdi had problems of his own.
The structure of the statue located in the interior was a very formidable task due to its intricate makeup. To circumvent this problem, a man named
Alexandre Eiffel, well known due to his composition of the architecture for the Eiffel Tower in Paris, was hired as the structural engineer. He was
able to make the skeletal framework and the iron pylons for the statue and construction continued. The statue was completed in 1884, surpassing the
deadline by a reasonable number of years. The statue was dismantled and labeled to prevent confusion when it reached New York. It was separated
into almost 300 pieces and put in over 200 crates. The French ship Isere

Liberty, Value, and the Liberal Perspective
ABSTRACT: This paper discusses the nature of liberty from the point of view of value. Liberty is the highest value for liberals. The root of this liberal
view is their particular conception of self. Rawls says 'the self is prior to the ends which are affirmed by it.' This is also the Kantian view of the self:
the self is prior to its socially given roles and relationships. Therefore, no end is exempt from possible revision by the self. There is nothing wrong with
this basic idea. In fact, all theories agree on free choice of life plan or self–determination. But they disagree about what package of rights and resources
best enables people to pursue their own conceptions of the good. However,...show more content...
For instance, the value of the moral principle or rule "One ought not to harm others" has a value not in itself, but in leaving the values for others not
harmed or reduced. Thus it serves as a constraint. The principle of equality or any principle of equitable distribution, say "distribution according to
contribution," is a criterion or pattern for distribution. It also dose not have a value in itself, but serves as a criterion or pattern for the distribution of
income, which is the good that has a value.
In living a life, or being a particular person and doing all kinds of things, a human being pursues the values of various objects, material or
non–material, concrete or abstract. The pursuit of any value is under a certain circumstance with various conditions. In order to protect the agent from
unjustified interference from the environment and at the same time to prevent the agent's doing or being something from harming others or society,
we establish not only a principle of liberty to support the agent, but also some moral principles to constrain her or him or to serve as a criterion or
pattern, in the case where her or his doing or being affects the justice to other people.
Thus, I call the value of those social goods that support, constrain, or serve as a criterion or pattern "associative value," which is not measurable in
itself, even subjectively, but has to be measured in terms of the value of the good pursued by the agent.
Liberty, as a

Liberty Definition Essay
As people head down to all the shops in New York, an Italian family gazes upon the statue of liberty. The children hold their mother's hand, and the
father kneels on one knee holding his hat in one hand saying, "Thank you." Another man stands in the middle of the road, dressed as Lady Liberty
working for pocket change. One can tell that he does not know the definition of liberty, but liberty belongs to the people. Liberty is the one word
that changes millions of lives. Liberty is the word for freedom. Liberty has a purpose, and that purpose is to let anybody to live their own lives.
Thomas Jefferson has the saying, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This quote gives a provided example of how liberty is one of the key
meanings in...show more content...
In the 1800s, women were not aloud to vote. The women did not have liberty. The women are not in control of whatgender they turn out to be. This
event also follows the category of race. Race is just a word in some people's perspective. In the 1700s, black people would not get to live a life. They
could not control how they were born, and they had to work as a slave throughout their whole life. Most of the slaves had the job to a garden
gnome. They were kept as property, and this event took away the liberty of black people. In World War II, there was a man by the name Adolf Hitler
who killed every Jewish person in sight. This time period took away the liberty of a certain religion. Liberty should not be taken away on people's
external appearance.
Liberty should be for everyone. If liberty was taken away from the people, probably only being able to step in one spot. In the introduction, an
explanation used was about "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If people did not have liberty, than Thomas Jefferson's quote would have no
meaning to people. In some other countries, people do not have liberty. This is taken away for many countries. This example could provide
communism. Communism is the act of all people living the same lives. This takes away liberty of all people living out their own lives. Liberty should
be free to

Negative and Positive Liberty Essay
Negative and positive liberty are best understood as distinct values within Berlin's own scheme of value pluralism. While an increase in either is
desirable, ceteris paribus, attempting to maximize any single idea of liberty without regard to any other values necessarily entails absurd and clearly
undesirable conclusions; any sensible idea of jointly maximizing freedom in general, therefore, must acknowledge the tradeoffs inherent in increasing
one aspect of freedom or another. The tension here is akin to the familiar tradeoff between equity and efficiency concerns in economics; negative and
positive freedom are not diametrically opposed, but the two ideals may not be individually maximized at the same time. Berlin defines an...show more
content...
Any meaningful acknowledgement of the merits of negative liberty requires that some minimal area of control be left to private, individual actors. On
the other hand, Berlin claims that negative freedom is not, in any logically prior sense, "connected with democracy or self–government" (177). While
acknowledging that self–government may happen to best preserve negative liberty in practice when compared to alternative regimes, Berlin notes
that there exists no a priori reason to believe this should necessarily be the case. In other words, even if we explicitly grant that society's goal should
be to maximize negative liberty, the optimality of democracy is not guaranteed by any sound line of reasoning. Thus, selection of the most befitting
governance structure is subject to scrutiny as an empirical issue. By contrast, "the 'positive' sense of the word 'liberty' derives from the [individual's]
wish ... to be his own master" (178). Exponents of positive liberty focus on internal factors rather than external actors by painting the self as
essentially divided, typically into a higher and lower self. The higher of these selves, distinguished perhaps by rationality or length of outlook,
represents in some sense the true realization of an individual's potential, nature, or entity. This being is marked by possessing full self–consciousness,
bearing full responsibility for one's choices, and not being a slave to one's nature or "unbridled

Freedom, Liberty, and Independence
During the Jacksonian era, Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay, along with countless other Americans, held strong in their beliefs and the pursuit of their
individual rights of freedom, liberty, and independence. The Jacksonian period was a time in American history that has been personified as a time of
extreme change and upheaval in the areas of economic growth, political interests, and expansion. It was the tremendous shifts in these areas that
threatened to surpass and exceed the very principles of freedom, liberty, and independence that the American Revolution had been fought over, and in
which the United States of America had been founded. The purpose of this essay, based upon the book by Harry L. Watson, Andrew Jackson vs. Henry
Clay:...show more content...
Jackson also elaborated on the reasons as to why all able men, not just those that fell under his command, should feel the overwhelming urge to stand up
and fight. The motives to fight included the acquirement of the right to trade freely and without danger on the open seas, the restoration of the nation's
honor, and most importantly, fight to prevent future indignities placed upon the hard working citizens of America at the hands of the British. (d–1)
Andrew Jackson was a formidable opponent to the continued existence of the Bank of the United States. The motion to extend a new charter to the
Bank of the United States became a topic of great concern for President Jackson during the election year of 1832. The bill was sent to Jackson, to
either sign his approval, or veto. The president vetoed the bill, therefore, depriving the Bank of the United States a new charter and its continued
existence after 1836. In Jackson's veto message to the United States Senate, he declared that the Bank of the United States was a menace to the
institution of equal rights. Jackson stated in his communication with the Senate, that the risk presented by the Bank of the United States was that it
enabled vast and large sums of money to be handled by only a few stockholders, who out of greed or possibly temptation, would be more inclined to
see to their own needs and whims than see

Positive Liberty

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Featured

Featured (20)

Positive Liberty