# If modern liberalism puts more emphasis on "positive liberties," what are the best arguments for it? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 28, 2017, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-modern-liberalism-puts-more-emphasis-on-positive-liberties-what-are-the-best-arguments-for-it/790086 "2017-06-28T21:09:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![PlaceboTarget](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/placebotarget/32/1073_2.png) [@PlaceboTarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlaceboTarget)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-modern-liberalism-puts-more-emphasis-on-positive-liberties-what-are-the-best-arguments-for-it/790086/21 "2017-06-29T19:16:00Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > This is why socialism is a massive failure and always will be. Nobody ever asks that question. As Margaret Thatcher so famously (and correctly) said: Socialism is “a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.” The OP mentions nothing about this. The so-called “positive liberties” in the OP are related to the notion of good governance, where the government is supposed to serve the needs of each member of the community. An example may be what the Danish government has been doing for decades: providing free health care and education, and urging unions and businesses to regularly negotiate the minimum wage. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-modern-liberalism-puts-more-emphasis-on-positive-liberties-what-are-the-best-arguments-for-it/790086/22 "2017-06-29T19:40:06Z")
The best argument for “positive liberties” is that the “negative liberties” sound an awful lot like the “freedom” of the strong to dominate the weak. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > If Bill saw it as a net benefit to pay for Bob’s medical care, he would probably just do it, without the government or their guns needing to intervene. I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that the Bobs of the world see the benefit much more directly than the Bills of the world. I self-identify with Bill. Yeah, a lot of other Trump supporters probably felt the same way until they found out they’re losing their health care. If you could choose how and when you got sick or injured, your statement would make sense. However, since you don’t know when you will be a “Bob” or when you’ll be a “Bill”, it makes sense to socialize certain services so that they are available if and when you need them. It’s kind of like saying “I don’t want to pay for Main Street because I only drive down Elm”. Maybe you don’t use Main Street directly. But chances are you still reap the benefits of its existence. Part of living in a civilized society is that you have to pay taxes that fund the various infrastructure that doesn’t make economic sense that privatize. ---
**Author:** ![igor\_frankensteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/839c29/32.png) [@igor\_frankensteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/igor_frankensteen)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-modern-liberalism-puts-more-emphasis-on-positive-liberties-what-are-the-best-arguments-for-it/790086/23 "2017-06-29T20:22:58Z")
If your goal is to promote those causes, I would strongly suggest that you NOT go with calling those things “positive liberties.” The valid definition of “positive liberty” I found, is **the possession of the capacity to act upon one’s free will.** It would be a semantic trick, though to interpret “capacity” to refer to actual physical resources, such as money. I believe the fairly obvious intention of the concept, is to refer to things such as the structure of government, which allows a citizen to guide their own lives as much as possible. I.E. the right to vote. Trying to “adjust” the definition of a concept such as “positive liberty” in order to manipulate opinions in one’s favor, is rarely a good idea. It tends to have more negative than positive results. People who were already opposed to the idea, will resent it all the more because of the obvious propaganda trick, and even the people who support the idea, and seem to cheer on the propaganda, wont respect the people using it. There are much more accurate and practical ways to argue intelligently for those particular goals. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-modern-liberalism-puts-more-emphasis-on-positive-liberties-what-are-the-best-arguments-for-it/790086/24 "2017-06-29T20:29:02Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > … assume the path to success is to figure out ways to elevate society as a whole, and they’ll rise along with it. This sounds a lot like how I’d describe free-market capitalism. Dave Ramsey says something like ‘when you serve others in the marketplace, they give you certificates of appreciation with presidents’ faces on them’. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-modern-liberalism-puts-more-emphasis-on-positive-liberties-what-are-the-best-arguments-for-it/790086/25 "2017-06-29T20:33:15Z")
You also get them when you sell a blind man a rat’s asshole as a wedding ring. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-modern-liberalism-puts-more-emphasis-on-positive-liberties-what-are-the-best-arguments-for-it/790086/26 "2017-06-29T21:28:08Z")
Negative liberties or more precisely negative rights are the only liberties that exist. Positive liberties derived from statists taking the seductive and popular term “liberty” and applying it to whatever the hell suits them. Let’s take it back to “Life, Liberty, Property”. So-called positive liberties are actually property taken from others. In any case it is more precise to talk about negative rights and positive rights. Positive rights do not exist. A right can only be a right if it can be logically exercised by every person simultaneously and with the same effect. I can’t have a positive right to the fruits of your labor because it would be in conflict with your actual rights. Yeah, it’s all about language. Time after time statists have adopted the language of liberty to do evil. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-modern-liberalism-puts-more-emphasis-on-positive-liberties-what-are-the-best-arguments-for-it/790086/27 "2017-06-29T22:20:07Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > This sounds a lot like how I’d describe free-market capitalism. Dave Ramsey says something like ‘when you serve others in the marketplace, they give you certificates of appreciation with presidents’ faces on them’. There’s nothing at all about the free market that elevates _all_ of society; as is most obviously demonstrated by the fact that if you can’t pay, you can’t play. The mechanism of the market discards actors who are neither flush with cash or able to find a way to make themselves marketable. The liberal perspective is that these discarded actors act as a drain on society - and conservatives agree! The difference largely boils down to how to deal with the problem. Liberals dislike the “let them die, hopefully quickly” solution and thus we try to think of various programs that help them become part of the system again. And this help is what most of us _don’t_ call positive freedoms, because, again, that’s a very dodgy, weasel-word sounding term that attempt to paint the situation as something it’s not. Freedoms are good. Helping people is good. They are not the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Salvor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Salvor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salvor)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2017, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-modern-liberalism-puts-more-emphasis-on-positive-liberties-what-are-the-best-arguments-for-it/790086/28 "2017-06-30T00:31:14Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Whenever I see someone talking about “modern liberalism” I immediately assume that whatever they mean will bear no relation to what the next person thinks it means. Personally I have no idea what it’s supposed to mean - I’ve yet to find two liberals (a group into which I loosely place myself) who agree on an entire platform of ideals or policies even if there is some approximate overlap. Thus “modern liberalism” tends to become a strawman even if the discussion is carried out with the best of intentions. > > I also don’t find discussing “positive liberties” useful. I don’t want universal education and healthcare because they’re “positive liberties” or “human rights” or some such abstract concept. I want them because I believe they are the most efficient way to provide such services to the widest number of people in order to obtain the greatest societal and economic benefit with the least amount of detriment to individuals. A society producing healthy and well-educated people is one which will have a thriving and valuable workforce, which will benefit both the workers and the companies they work for. > > I can similarly see the benefit in a UBI but will admit that I have not fully considered the pros and cons of one enough to commit to a position on it. I do, however, think it’s pointless and counterproductive to worry about whether or not it constitutes a form of “freedom”. Consider the outcomes (intended and unintended) instead. I think part of this impulse on my part to… commandeer the word freedom stems from my repeated encounters with the right online. I engage them quite a bit, and it is often the case that conservative and libertarian types will start to ignore the arguments about the benefits of policy x or y and cloak themselves in this concept of freedom, and not having government take from them and reducing their freedom to do what they wish with their money to pay for something else. They wind themselves up in this cocoon of cosmic victimhood where every liberal policy under the sun is seen as a direct assault against their own personal freedom. And this was an attempt to deny them that, to show that in some way, only caring about the negative aspects of freedom does not truly promote freedom in a more holistic sense. In moments of frustration in talking to a brick wall of libertarianism, and parroting of them being for more FREEDOM, I tell them to get the fuck out and leave. For civilization itself requires some surrender of perfect freedom in all things as a trade to construct an even better deal for the entire society as a hole. That if all they truly care about is total freedom, or close to it, the only way to achieve such ends is to live alone, or close to it. But this is something I’m sure sways no one. It’s just me spitting on what I consider a ridiculous standard and aversion to the most delicate of constraints on the freedom of men to achieve some grander vision for society. ---
**Author:** ![Salvor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Salvor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salvor)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2017, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-modern-liberalism-puts-more-emphasis-on-positive-liberties-what-are-the-best-arguments-for-it/790086/29 "2017-06-30T00:55:21Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > … > > \*\*It occurs to me that one of the major differences between liberal conservatives is that conservatives see themselves as individuals scrambling for position, and liberals see themselves as members of a society working together. \*\* Thus the focus on “freedom” for conservatives; they want to have room to maneuver and establish their dominance as they try to carve out a position for themselves. Liberals, on the other hand, assume the path to success is to figure out ways to elevate society as a whole, and they’ll rise along with it. “Freedom” doesn’t mesh well with that, because society is not a thing to distance yourself from. One of the great ironies of life is the completely inverted impression conservatives have regarding finite pies. They used to talk about a rising tide lifting all boats, and harp on inequality not being a thing to worry about because just because someone else is doing better, does not imply you are doing worse. This was best encapsulated via one of the best spokespeople conservatives ever had, Margaret Thatcher: The problem now of course is that a rising tide has NOT lifted all boats, wages for large chunks of Americans have stagnated, while healthcare costs rise. Liberals at least pretend to give a shit about wanting to address this, conservatives take a blind eye to it, or pretend that what they did in Kansas of cutting taxes on business and wealthier people will spur growth (it spurred deficits and lower growth than its neighbors). But it’s worse than that, conservatives are ALL about finite pies and Zero Sum Games. If we let the brown immigrants in, they will take our jobs. There is only so much room on a life raft, have to cut off the flow. There is some truth to this regarding certain labor markets being hit by influxes of cheap immigrant labor, but the point still stands, this is a ZERO SUM GAME mentality. Looking at budgetary issues, conservatives are QUICK to point out EVERY time a liberal has some policy idea, how we are going to pay for it. Perfectly reasonable thing to do, but the hyper focus on that alone over and above the potential payoffs for the policy in question (which they rarely seem to care about) highlights more zero sum game thinking. By paying for healthcare, we take away from peoples earnings through taxes. FINITE PIES abound in the conservative mind. They are far worse than liberals EVER were, and it makes sense. When they scanned brains, they found that conservatives had larger right amygdalas, the FEAR area of the reptilian brain, while liberals have larger anterior cingulate gyrus that deals with taking in new information for decision making [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/kI-un8rHP14/maxresdefault.jpg "Liberal vs. Conservative: A Neuroscientific Analysis with Gail Saltz | Big Think") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI-un8rHP14) So it makes sense that conservatives would be more frightful creatures to external threats, that is how they are BUILT, while liberals tend to be more open to new ideas based on new information, more willing to test them out. For example, even if we find that after repeated studies of Seattles minimum wage hike that it failed to produce the desired result, I as a liberal consider that a good thing to have tried, so we have data to base future decisions on. A conservative would have been less likely to make a change in the first place, they are the anchors on civilization, the chains dragging along the ocean floor. ---
**Author:** ![Salvor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Salvor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salvor)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2017, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-modern-liberalism-puts-more-emphasis-on-positive-liberties-what-are-the-best-arguments-for-it/790086/30 "2017-06-30T01:06:04Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > The best argument for “positive liberties” is that the “negative liberties” sound an awful lot like the “freedom” of the strong to dominate the weak. > > Yeah, a lot of other Trump supporters probably felt the same way until they found out they’re losing their health care. > > If you could choose how and when you got sick or injured, your statement would make sense. However, since you don’t know when you will be a “Bob” or when you’ll be a “Bill”, it makes sense to socialize certain services so that they are available if and when you need them. It’s kind of like saying “I don’t want to pay for Main Street because I only drive down Elm”. Maybe you don’t use Main Street directly. But chances are you still reap the benefits of its existence. Part of living in a civilized society is that you have to pay taxes that fund the various infrastructure that doesn’t make economic sense that privatize. The street example is a good one. Here is a video example of a libertarian type running face first into a wall on healthcare. Harping on "choice", which is a nice stand in for freedom to choose more broadly. This is why I started this thread, listen to how these jokers talk! It’s difficult to crack through their thick, cement laden skulls. Choice? On what basis does someone choose health insurance? If someone is young and healthy and poor, should they spend money on healthcare? Do they know whether someone bad will happen? If something bad does happen to someone, do they know how bad it will be? Or how minor it will be? IF not, on what basis of personal knowledge does a person choose a coverage level to evaluate potential health risks when they have NO EFFING CLUE IF they will get sick, or how badly they will get sick, of how expensive the treatment will be ??? LARGE chunks of the kind of information a person would need to make an informed guess of what coverage to buy is not available to them !!! And we have a fucking solution, single payer, universal pool, catches everyone and costs less… but as Hurricane Galt up above there said, he’s more inclined to pay for himself alone, let every individual roll the dice as the preferred model! ugh, the rot of conservatism is so deep, it needs to be obliterated. ---
**Author:** ![Salvor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Salvor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salvor)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2017, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-modern-liberalism-puts-more-emphasis-on-positive-liberties-what-are-the-best-arguments-for-it/790086/31 "2017-06-30T01:09:55Z")
> [@igor\_frankensteen](#): > > If your goal is to promote those causes, I would strongly suggest that you NOT go with calling those things “positive liberties.” The valid definition of “positive liberty” I found, is **the possession of the capacity to act upon one’s free will.** It would be a semantic trick, though to interpret “capacity” to refer to actual physical resources, such as money. I believe the fairly obvious intention of the concept, is to refer to things such as the structure of government, which allows a citizen to guide their own lives as much as possible. I.E. the right to vote. > > Trying to “adjust” the definition of a concept such as “positive liberty” in order to manipulate opinions in one’s favor, is rarely a good idea. It tends to have more negative than positive results. People who were already opposed to the idea, will resent it all the more because of the obvious propaganda trick, and even the people who support the idea, and seem to cheer on the propaganda, wont respect the people using it. > > There are much more accurate and practical ways to argue intelligently for those particular goals. At this point I’m basically convinced calling something a positive liberty is not a good strategy, it’s not as bad as calling every policy I dislike “SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST” like idiot conservatives do, but it’s needlessly confusing and counterproductive. You all win. But the battle is not over. The right and effective rhetoric must be found. ---
**Author:** ![RupieDupie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/43a26b/32.png) [@RupieDupie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RupieDupie)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2017, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-modern-liberalism-puts-more-emphasis-on-positive-liberties-what-are-the-best-arguments-for-it/790086/32 "2017-06-30T01:28:46Z")
Well suppose that rather than wholly focussing on the bottom the focus was also directed to the top. Allowing people to potentially have one trillion or more dollars is very cancerous, as it demonstrates rapid growth without check. If there were a homeostatic mechanism that kept people within a minimum and maximum income the system would be healthier (IMO). But these ideas (Smith’s Invisible hand, Socialism, Love thy neighbour etc), tend to break down due to the inability of the “checking” ability of the system. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2017, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-modern-liberalism-puts-more-emphasis-on-positive-liberties-what-are-the-best-arguments-for-it/790086/33 "2017-06-30T03:25:17Z")
Those aren’t liberties, they are social welfare entitlements. And I see liberals talk about them all the time. It doesn’t mean the majority of hard-working Americans are okay with paying more in taxes to provide such “liberties.” ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2017, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-modern-liberalism-puts-more-emphasis-on-positive-liberties-what-are-the-best-arguments-for-it/790086/34 "2017-06-30T03:29:49Z")
> [@RupieDupie](#): > > Well suppose that rather than wholly focussing on the bottom the focus was also directed to the top. Allowing people to potentially have one trillion or more dollars is very cancerous, as it demonstrates rapid growth without check. If there were a homeostatic mechanism that kept people within a minimum and maximum income the system would be healthier (IMO). But these ideas (Smith’s Invisible hand, Socialism, Love thy neighbour etc), tend to break down due to the inability of the “checking” ability of the system. The answers are right in your last sentence. Invisible Hand (free market capitalism) = accumulation of wealth Socialism (wealth redistribution) = leveling mechanism Is your complaint that a market-based economy won’t, in and of itself, provide wealth equality? I would argue that’s a feature, not a bug. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2017, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-modern-liberalism-puts-more-emphasis-on-positive-liberties-what-are-the-best-arguments-for-it/790086/35 "2017-06-30T03:39:05Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > The really, really big problem with the concept of “positive liberty” is that it doesn’t have any inherent upper bound. This is not a problem that “negative liberty” has - if you’re promising to not establish a state religion, then you simply don’t establish a state religion and you’re done. This does not apply to positive liberties - the amount of money required for people to feel completely unlimited by it is way, WAY more than the national average income - because the average person still feels constrained by money problems. That to me is the biggest suspicion I have toward “positive” liberties. They’re essentially a promise and a guarantee of active action on the part of the government… without limit, exception or adjustment due to circumstances. It’s essentially a forward-looking binding promise that may or may not be reasonable at some point in the future… which is the objection I have to it. Negative liberties aren’t nearly so… obligating in a future sense. Being prohibitions, they’re not binding the government to DO anything; merely to NOT do something. In some sense, it’s easier to think of rights in the positive sense- people have the right to free speech for example. But the implication of writing that in a positive sense means that the government is obligated to provide/enable that right, while writing it as “Congress shall make no law \… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” merely prohibits the government from that, but doesn’t confer any guarantee that someone can exercise that right. That’s the problem I have with it; it’s one thing to say that the govt. can’t prohibit free speech, but another thing entirely saying that the government guarantees free speech. ---
**Author:** ![RupieDupie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/43a26b/32.png) [@RupieDupie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RupieDupie)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2017, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-modern-liberalism-puts-more-emphasis-on-positive-liberties-what-are-the-best-arguments-for-it/790086/36 "2017-06-30T03:53:55Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > The answers are right in your last sentence. > > Invisible Hand (free market capitalism) = accumulation of wealth > > Socialism (wealth redistribution) = leveling mechanism > > Is your complaint that a market-based economy won’t, in and of itself, provide wealth equality? I would argue that’s a feature, not a bug. Yes I agree, it is a feature, and they are answers/ideas but not solutions, this is evidenced as when they are applied to the “system” they do not come to the fore, as evidenced in Capitalism, Communism and Christianity. I feel we could come up with a great number of ideas on wealth distribution with a variety of mechanisms in place to make the system… ideal (based on our preferences), but the application of any or all of these will lead to a similar result - which we have now. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2017, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-modern-liberalism-puts-more-emphasis-on-positive-liberties-what-are-the-best-arguments-for-it/790086/37 "2017-06-30T08:21:26Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > If Bill saw it as a net benefit to pay for Bob’s medical care, he would probably just do it, without the government or their guns needing to intervene. I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that the Bobs of the world see the benefit much more directly than the Bills of the world. I self-identify with Bill. Which is why it shouldn’t be dependent on Bill’s perception of Bob’s utility, but that of society as a whole. And how that perception swings, tells you how sick (US) or healthy (Scandinavia) your society is, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2017, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-modern-liberalism-puts-more-emphasis-on-positive-liberties-what-are-the-best-arguments-for-it/790086/38 "2017-06-30T09:27:17Z")
Medium sized sparsely populated places in N Europe are hardly places whose experiences can be translated to a continent spanning Superpower. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2017, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-modern-liberalism-puts-more-emphasis-on-positive-liberties-what-are-the-best-arguments-for-it/790086/39 "2017-06-30T09:43:19Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > Those aren’t liberties, they are social welfare entitlements. > > And I see liberals talk about them all the time. It doesn’t mean the majority of hard-working Americans are okay with paying more in taxes to provide such “liberties.” Just a reminder that there is a significant overlap between “liberals” and “hard-working Americans”. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2017, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-modern-liberalism-puts-more-emphasis-on-positive-liberties-what-are-the-best-arguments-for-it/790086/40 "2017-06-30T10:33:33Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Medium sized What’s that got to do with anything? > [@](#): > > sparsely populated places I don’t think that phrase means what you intend… > [@](#): > > in N Europe are hardly places whose experiences can be translated to a continent spanning Superpower. True. I’d expect \*much better \*of the society of a superpower with the resources of a whole span of continent at its command… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-modern-liberalism-puts-more-emphasis-on-positive-liberties-what-are-the-best-arguments-for-it/790086.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-modern-liberalism-puts-more-emphasis-on-positive-liberties-what-are-the-best-arguments-for-it/790086.md?page=3)