positive
liberty ‘Positive *liberty’ is supposed to be
when you are able to do whatever you (ought to) want to do, rather than merely not
being actively prevented from doing something (which is ‘negative liberty’).
The main problem with ‘positive liberty’ is that it appears to be a tendentious
attempt to belittle the *liberal or *libertarian conception of liberty. For ‘positive
liberty’ looks much more like ability or, valuable/approved, opportunity (in
many cases it is a *privilege at the *tax victims’ expense, who
thereby become underprivileged). It is conceptually confusing to try to dress
these up as the kind of ‘liberty’ that really matters, rather than to argue for
their importance independently and admit that liberty might need to be
constrained in order to promote them. It smacks of *politically-correct
speak.
A Dictionary of Libertarianism
Having access to opportunities or resources does not mean that welfare must thereby be achieved: both can be neglected or wasted. Moreover, state expropriation and transfer of resources will tend to undermine economic behaviour, subsidise uneconomic behaviour, and generally disrupt economic calculation. Result: fewer opportunities and resources for all.
It doesn’t seem to be PC to be concerned with human welfare as such. There are consequentialist libertarians who are very un-PC.
Positive liberty was recently defined for me as access to opportunities/resources. It seems like opportunity often (always?) collapses into access to resources. In any event, positive liberty looks a lot like welfare as some people conceive it.
As you attempt to reconcile liberty/welfare — or in your case ‘negative’ liberty and welfare — how does your concern with welfare avoid charges of PC?