Talk:Negative liberty
|
|
I think the main example should be rewritten so that it is not about sex. The example gains no extra clarity by being titilating and eliminating the sexual reference will make the article more accessible to younger Wikipedia users.
Also, I don't understand the following sentence and hope that someone can clarify it:
"However, most liberals only consider negative liberty as the main rule that can be mildly and cautiously violated to provide some important means, positive liberty, particularly to those most in need."
Also, is this talking about classical liberals or modern liberals (that is, people on the political left)?
...Jacob1207 03:31, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Couldn't answer your question about the meaning of "liberal", but with regard to the sex, I think any good example of the debate over negative liberty is going to focus on some aspect of "personal morality", ie sex, drugs, etc, because these issues are the ones where laws have actually been challenged on the grounds that the "crime" is harmless. But perhaps drugs would be a better choice? I can't think of any other obvious examples... Evercat 03:36, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)