Talk:Real freedom

Real freedom is not a political concept
What is the political instruction that follows from the fact that someone is not free to travel to Mars? The concept of 'real freedom' sounds like a description or measure of freedom and not an instruction to government. Mrdthree 16:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The mars example is frivolous, sure. But I don't see why something has to be an instruction to government in order to be a political concept. Van Parijs argues that real freedom is the proper sense of the political value, freedom; therefore, if we value freedom, we should value real freedom; therefore we should ensure a minimal decent level of real freedom for all, by instituting a universal basic income. Is it worth adding something to this effect to the article, do you think? Cheers, --Sam Clark 16:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A further thought: the article on political freedom already refers to two other concepts of freedom, in the section 'Philosophy of political freedom'. Are positive and negative freedom not political concepts, according to your argument? Cheers, --Sam Clark 16:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont think he means real freedom to replace positive and negative liberty I think he is merely defining real freedom as an index of positions intermediate between the two. Positive freedom has its origins (as I understand it) in French stuff, negative in england. but the Napoleonic code had a mixture of positive and negative liberties, so its hardly unique to suggest mixing positive nad negative liberties. Do you have some citation I could look at? Mrdthree 20:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In a way it makes more sense as an economic principle than a political one. It seems to ask whether the goal, action or end that some person desires legal (negative liberty) and then asks what the cost of obtaining the goal is, a question that has political implications, but not any implications that seem distinct from questions of positive liberty? Mrdthree 20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Having read chapter 3 it is clear to me that real freedom is not political freedom. It is an overset of political freedom. It involves calculation of the opportunity set of a person based not simply on institutional permissions but on the basis of the laws of reality and personal talent. Mrdthree 03:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're talking as though 'political freedom' had an agreed, unambiguous definition (apparently something to do with generating 'institutional permissions'). It doesn't: like most political concepts, it's essentially contested. So are 'positive freedom' and 'negative freedom', which are broad-brush categories covering a whole range of different notions. So is the idea of a specifically political concept (as opposed to a philosophical one, for instance). Real freedom is - as a fact of usage in political philosophy and elsewhere - a recognised idea of freedom, and that's why I think it's worth describing in WP. Cheers, --Sam Clark 10:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Further: I've re-edited the first paragraph to reflect my view that 'political freedom' isn't limited to issues of institutional constraint, and added a sentence showing how real freedom is intermediate between negative and positive extremes in concepts of freedom. I now wonder whether the political freedom page should be edited to make the point that 'positive' and 'negative' freedoms are families, not single unambiguous concepts. Cheers, --Sam Clark 10:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to me there are two contributions that real freedom incorporates. First real freedom measures the size of the option space of an individual by accounting for what is legal, what is possible, and what is economical. Second, there is Parijs proposal that it is the role of government to optimize the amount of real freedom possible for every individual with the constraint that all individuals are guaranteed a minimum amount of real freedom. Maybe in those terms it deserves to be considered political. Maybe it is a good issue to raise.. excuse my fussing... Mrdthree 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Whats a purified self? Mrdthree 23:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Our mutual fussing is improving the page, so carry right on. 'Purified self': some positive ideas of freedom claim that for me to be free, my best self, purified of ideology or confusion, must be in charge. But on reflection, just mentioning the idea without explanation isn't very helpful. I'll change. --Sam Clark 08:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

he/she
The excessive use of his/her and he/she makes this article jarring. Suggest we just use His and He. 86.31.77.75 21:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Or even better just use the words they/their/them- which I have done.

what is the policy on this? to use "they" should not the nouns be plural? i.e. individuals, moral agents etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.28.151 (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutral
Why is it any page that introduces a concept does so in a bias without any neutral opinions or contrary opinions? People take Wikipedia for fact this leads people to believe those political aspirations are indeed fact it should be presented in a balanced way or not at all stop editing me when I balance articles please! JJwillard (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)