When Did Classic Liberalism Die?

Liberalism goes back long before the hippies. I don't think there ever was any form of liberalism that could be classified as, "classical".

Virtually the entire world is more politically Liberal than the United States.

While your noble intentions may have been to ensure that everyone had a good time and an adequate supply of beer, the family car inevitably winds up in the ditch and the best we can hope for is that everyone manages to crawl away without serious injury.

Please give real life examples...

In as far as I can tell Liberalism has been an unmitigated good for America.

Also many classic "liberal" ideas are now the conservative talking point like free markets and "spreading democracy." Seeking out peace over a war to spread democracy is classically conservative as is keeping and maintaining the status quo whatever that may be.

Well said, Jazz.

The American left appears to have lost confidence that liberalism works--that is, that people left free to work hard (or not), organize into lobbying groups, evaluate political debate, sign contracts, shop among competing products and so on can produce acceptable outcomes. Or is it that when it comes to outcomes, the left's acceptance skills have deteriorated?

When the Liberals starting getting real power, and acting like this:

Justice Department concludes black voters need Democratic Party

I'm floored by that article, AR. A majority black city being denied changing elections to non-partisan ones?? Wow wow wow!

I don't see classic liberalism as dying, rather it is lurching towards it's eventual conclusion - when the safety net becomes too widespread it's not a safety net any more, it's society. As implied in your article unopposed conservatism also leads to an undesirable conclusion, which is why we need moderation, checks and balances.

I don't see classic liberalism as dying, rather it is lurching towards it's eventual conclusion - when the safety net becomes too widespread it's not a safety net any more, it's society.

I agree. I have and continue to be a Salvation Army volunteer. I thoroughly enjoy (and find it spiritually enriching) giving back and "paying it forward". So I firmly believe in a real safety net. I think the safety net should be strengthened due to the amount of jobs we're losing monthly in the USA, but I do not want a safety net to be the way we do things.

Who cares if it a majority black city or not. That is a red herring, in my mind.

The point is a majority of VOTERS in that city (not some council or other bureaucratic entity) VOTED for the change to non-partisan elections. Now, some non-elected Federal officials, by decree, simply overturned a valid vote. They did not go to court to have any form of legal ruling; they just decided the voters (AKA as The People) were wrong and they were right.

I understand AR. I used the "majority black city" to underscore the irony of it all. But your point on how the voters were overruled by "the Feds" is taken fully.

T-steel -

I guess our problem is that as we are both white males, we are not empathic enough to see the need for this action!

:)

I don't think there ever was any form of liberalism that could be classified as, "classical".

Actually, classical liberalism refers to a political ideology that stressed individual liberty, free markets, and limited government. It was similar to modern-day libertarianism, though of a decidedly minarchist (as opposed to anarchist) strain. It had its roots in the Enlightenment during the 18th century and was (more-or-less) the ideology of Thomas Jefferson and later the Democratic-Republican Party for much of the 19th century.

Of course, no one called it "classical liberalism" at the time. People simply called it liberalism. We refer to 19th century liberalism as "classical liberalism" to differentiate it from modern-day American liberalism, which would more correctly be referred to as progressivism or democratic socialism.

Would someone here be kind enough to teach me how to "hide" a link behind a word or phrase?

Thank you.

I actually wrote a three page essay on this topic back in June 2006 and emailed it to thirty of the most popular liberal/progressive blogs. I uploaded a copy of the essay as well as some of the responses I received over at my blog.

In that essay, I touched upon the ever-changing definition of the word "liberalism" from its "classical" form in the late 19th century to its modern day form here in the United States. I also talked about the rise of progressivism in the late 19th/early 20th century as a new ideology on the left which eventually eclipsed classical liberalism to become the ideology of the left.

It's funny how here in the United States (and to a certain degree in Canada and the U.K.) we associate liberalism with the left, whereas in many non-Anglo-speaking countries, the term "liberalism" is actually associated with the center-right or an ideology we might describe as a mild version of modern day libertarianism.

Would someone here be kind enough to teach me how to "hide" a link behind a word or phrase?

Sure.

Let's say we want to link to The Moderate Voice.

Type: {a href="http://themoderatevoice.com"}The Moderate Voice{/a}
However, instead of { }, type < >

The meaning began to change ("classic liberalism" now is called "libertarianism") in the late 19th century; the best known example of the early change was the rise of the Progressives (capital P).

Note that this happened in parallel with the rise of socialism and misuse of what had been learned and what was seen as possible (even then, that is) from what was witnessed of the scientific and industrial revolutions. (This led to what Hayek called the "fatal conceit" that most if not all, theoretically, of the economy and society could not only be intelligently directed and controlled, but wisely planned, too.)

Note that this is coincident with the urbanization as well as industrialization and "corporatization" of the economy and society (the latter word implying coalescence and consolidation, not referring to business corporations in the strictly literal business sense), not with the creation and rise of the modern welfare state and replacement of a federal republic with a de facto (though not de jure) unitary nation-state in the 1930s. (It had been flirted with before, but not deeply entrenched and established, as in the 1930s.)

There was a second change that affects us more, the radicalization of (modern) liberalism in the late 1960s, but this was not the only or even the main change.

Nic: The classic definition of "liberalism" indeed remains outside the USA, though unsurprisingly as an object of wrath by lefties elsewhere -- that's why you encounter the excoriation of "neo-liberal economics."

Sure.

First, you put the URL link in the comment box, for instance:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/10/19/next-...

Then you add the HTML code at the front and back of the URL. In the front you put [a href=", but use < instead of [

At the end of the URL, you put ]" "[/a] (again, actual code uses < < > instead of ] [ ]). Now, in between the " " you put the words you want to have appear. In this case I want "Suing the Sun for Unseasonably Cool Weather"

So, when I put it all together, it will read like this:

[a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/10/19/next-move-suing-the-sun-for-unseasonably-cool-weather/]"Suing the Sun for Unseasonably Cool Weather[/a]

When we replace the all the [ ] brackets with < >, we get this:

Suing the Sun for Unseasonably Cool Weather

Thanks, nic.

Austin Roth -- the next step for ObamaCo, beyond firmly "managing" press conferences and appealing to losers' emotions by attacking Fox (a great distraction from what it and the liberal media actually is doing, incidentally) would be to demand blatant or overt Democratic partisanship (formal, rather than merely informal, which is plausibly deniable to the gullible) in the media. Pre-prepared statements as well as personnel and programming decisions would no doubt follow.

@@differentiate it from modern-day American liberalism, which would more correctly be referred to as progressivism or democratic socialism.@@

nic, check out the definition of New Deal Statism and see if that actually isn't a more apt description of the current lefties.

Thanks AR.

[a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/10/19/next-move-suing-the-sun-for-unseasonably-cool-weather/]"Suing the Sun for Unseasonably Cool Weather[/a]

should read:

[a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/10/19/next-move-suing-the-sun-for-unseasonably-cool-weather/"]Suing the Sun for Unseasonably Cool Weather[/a]

And yes, that very minor change in the center of where the > goes in relation to the " makes ALL the difference!

:)

Curious if it's something WordPress (or you) are doing to create the Apture popup so I'll try the wiki for Traditionalist conservatism in hopes it's a new WordPress function. This is a test and yes, off topic... sorry. :>)

EDIT - OK, How did you add the Apture popup nicrivera?.. please!

EDIT - OK, How did you add the Apture popup nicrivera?.. please!

I have no idea. This is a feature that has only been showing up in my links to wikipedia for the last few days. It must be automatic, because I'm definitely not doing anything different to trigger the Apture popup.

It looks like it's working for you as well.

It is on yours too, SteveK. On another youtube I posted yesterday, too. This just started, so somehow Disqus seems to be doing it. doesn't show up right away, but after a couple minutes is does.

nicrivera, I found and installed the Apture add on for firefox and on returning to TMV it seems to be working now but this Apture link doesn't... go figure :>)

UPDATE: Maybe T-Steel will let us in on his cleverness.

It seems only certain sites and types of links work in apture.
They say YouTube is one that works... let's try: Unchained Melody

Thanks nicriverra... Thanks AustinRoth.

So the Democratic party, through their solidly controlled liberal media arm will become like Fox News?

The real Fox news, or the delusional version lefties have conceived in their blind hatred?

Yea it is kinda like the blind hatred that righties have for Pravda and both are totally legit.

One of the primary differences between classical liberalism and modern day liberalism is that while the former was concerned with championing negative freedoms (a person should be left free to live his life and pursue his interests without interference by other persons), the latter have grown more concerned with championing positive freedoms (a person is entitled to the resources necessary to live an ideal life). The problem with positive freedoms is that they are often used by the government as an excuse to restrict negative freedoms--particularly in the way of curtailing property rights.

For example, consider freedom of speech as an example of a negative freedom. In order for me to exercise this right, I need not ask nor receive anything from the rest of you save one thing--that you have enough tolerance for this freedom that you do not initiate force (or ask the government to do so on behalf) to prevent me from speaking my opinion. Notice also, that I need not ask nor receive anything from the government.

Now consider the right to health care as an example of a positive freedom. Under such a concept of rights, my right to receive health care would be as absolute as my right to free speech. Because this right is absolute, I would be entitled to receive health care even if I cannot pay for health care services. This means that if I am unable to purchase health care, my absolute right to health care demands that one of two things happens. Either A) the health care provider must provide health care to me free of cost, or B) other people must pay for my health care on my behalf. In either case, in order for my absolute right to health care to be met, other people are going to be forced to provide me with this service in way or another--whether it means forcing the health care provide to provide a service without being compensated for his labor or forcing other people (i.e. taxpayers) to relinquish a portion of their wealth to pay for my service.

This isn't a question of whether positive freedoms are good or bad. I'm simply pointing out that negative freedoms can be granted without any coercion necessary while positive freedoms can only be granted if there is a third party (i.e. the government) to coerce people into sacrificing some degree of their liberties in order to grant another person a positive liberty.

During the 18th and 19th centuries, it was pretty well understood that the freedoms that liberals championed were negative liberties. This began to change during the late 19th century with the rise of progressivism in the United States and socialism in Europe. In virtually all of Europe (excluding the United Kingdom) the term "liberalism" retained (for the most part) its "classical liberal" connotation, and people who adopted the more leftist interpretation of rights (positive freedoms) came up with a different name for their ideology (i.e. democratic socialism). Meanwhile, here in the U.S., politicians ushered in sweeping legislation (i.e. the New Deal) that championed positive freedoms and did so under the guise of liberalism.

This is why so many of America's most famous early twentieth century liberals (i.e. H. L. Menken, Albert Jay Nock) suddenly found themselves relegated to the Right during the 1930's despite the fact that it wasn't their political philosophy that had changed; rather it the interpretation of the term "liberalism" itself that had changed, in part due to Franklin D. Roosevelt mislabeling his policies as "liberal."

If anyone has any doubts just to how much the definition of the term "liberalism" has changed, go visit a foreign country (other than Canada or the United Kingdom) and try using the word "liberal" to the people in that country, and you'll soon find out that the term does not mean what you think it means.

"negative freedoms can be granted without any coercion necessary "

These -- rights that are liberties -- have even been argued that they should be inherent, that they need not be "granted" to individuals (but that government, authority, should be constrained, and the burden of proof for justification of authority and the use of force lies with those seeking it or its use, respectively, and that power must be granted to government, ideally granted explicitly with the consent of the governed in a democratic society that is also free).

" Meanwhile, here in the U.S., politicians ushered in sweeping legislation (i.e. the New Deal) that championed positive freedoms and did so under the guise of liberalism."

The word and US concept of "liberalism" had changed by then.

This also should remind the reader of the related "Four Freedoms" list of Roosevelt's, as well as move the reader to speculate on what Roosevelt might have sought after World War II had ended.

Both the 1930s and the 1960s (Great Society and related nearly-without-limits ambitious liberalism and its goals of the time) actually are eclipsed by the two changed that characterized liberalism, the 19th century original change (as we moved to modernity) and the late (post-modern) radicalization of the Left in the later 1960s. In fact, the replacement of constitutional federalism by a unitary nation with the federal government acting as a national government instead, concentrating and consolidating power in Washington (the New Deal and World War II being the biggest changes in this light) actually also are eclipsed when we look at timing and the actual change of the meaning of "liberalism" in this country (from libertarianism to collectivism, authoritarianism, interventionism, and democratic socialism, even "statism" though the last term actually better holds in Europe and hasn't yet meant as much the same here, because the USA is not at a European level of historical and cultural collectivism and high level of importance and submission to government).

We saw excesses that caused us to reject what was excessive and wrong in large part by 1980 in this country, with modern liberalism in the USA, just as we faced a similar-timed set of shocks about other things (not only the radicalization of liberalism that has left it repellent to various degrees to many, but things like the oil boycott and energy shortage, inflation above and beyond its association strictly with liberal policy making, pollution, crowding, growth problems in the Sunbelt, et cetera.).

I'm simply pointing out that negative freedoms can be granted without any coercion necessary while positive freedoms can only be granted if there is a third party (i.e. the government) to coerce people into sacrificing some degree of their liberties in order to grant another person a positive liberty.

That isn't entirely true. When people are using their 'negative' freedoms in ways that are harmful or unpopular, you absolutely need government coersion (the police and the legal system) to protect that freedom. Gun rights aren't always enough. Unless, of course, you hired your own private militia like they do in third world countries with much less state influence.

Thanks for the insight. You are a regular cornucopia of information.

I have personally understood liberalism as in contrast to existing body politic. Such as those advocating change within the Soviet Union to a more democratic form of government, being the liberals. Where as the status quo resisting liberalization being conservative. As well the contrast between King George and our forefathers, our forefathers being liberal and George being the status quo, resistant to change, and, thus conservative. A “conservative viewpoint” does not denote freedom whereas a “liberal viewpoint” does.
Politically speaking, “conservative” pretty much means resistance to change thereby describing those propping up, holding up or otherwise supporting an existing power base and those within it.

I think it a mistake for those describe Communism as liberal and a Representative Democracy as Conservative because those advocating a representative Democracy within an existing Communist government structure would certainly be considered “Liberals” and those resistant to the change would certainly be considered “Conservative”.

Stalin was a Liberal before the Communist revolution and a Conservative after the revolution would be my point.

I think this is where we went a bit crazy. Positive rights built a huge middle class making the US a middle class nation. Now we want to get rid of positive rights but grow our middle class. I do not see any possible way of that happening, either you have positive rights and a large middle class or no positive rights with a tiny upper class small middle class and large lower class.

"Stalin was a Liberal before the Communist revolution and a Conservative after the revolution would be my point."

The idea here is that the Left is opposition but the Right is government and convention or orthodoxy.

Left and Right are inverted, in the case of the Soviet Union (where the Communist Establishment was seen as the Right or conservative while opponents in the USSR and in the Soviet Bloc such as the Solidarity movement were seen as the Left or as liberals). This is a theme explicated in "Liberalism Revisited" (written by a conservative who was so much so he was also a monarchist).

That man actually wrote specifically on "liberalism" and what it means now, which is most pertinent:


http://www.mmisi.org/ir/33_01/leddihn.pdf

. . .

We see something of an echo here in the West since the late 1960s in that it is the Left that has been reactionary and suppressive of dissension or opposition to conformity (the meaning of "political correctness," which is naturally enforced, not merely a conjectural matter only).

There's a completely unrelated "blend" of traditional Left and Right in the practice in the USA primarily of fascism being sought as the preferred authoritarian construction over outright nationalization or Communism as the model for so much in the modern welfare state and related substantial presence of government (especially the federal government in the USA).

"Now we want to get rid of positive rights but grow our middle class. "


The second does not require the first.

Note that some (farther left) would say that the goal could be achieved by redistribution.

Also, people stuck in the 50s and 60s are unrealistic. Even then there was overreach; and what was sought then obviously can't be expected now, not in the real world. Continuously lowering the age of retirement, to name one obvious example, is in fact antithetical -- people are living longer and are healthier. (The age of retirement, predicated on traditional criteria that involve disability that accompanies aging, has for years belonged in the seventies, which is higher than the arbitrary and long-obsolete age 65 that is associated with government retirement programs. In fact, retirement age could be the legitimate object of indexing for longevity and health, and be ever increasing, as a result, which is realistic, unlike demands or expectations of ever-downward retirement age to somewhere around the early fifties if not earlier, which is simply out of the question.)

That isn't entirely true. When people are using their 'negative' freedoms in ways that are harmful or unpopular, you absolutely need government coersion (the police and the legal system) to protect that freedom.

I'm not following you.

What would be an example of a negative freedom that is harmful?

And as for a negative freedom being unpopular, what does unpopular have to do with it? Should freedom of speech be restricted when the nature of the speech is unpopular? Should the freedom to practice one's religion be restricted if that particular religion happens to be unpopular? Should the right to a fair trial be restricted because the accused is unpopular?

In a free society, liberty isn't determined by a majority vote.

DLS,

It should go without saying that modern day conservatives are not classical liberals either. There is nothing classically liberal about the Patriot Act, the War on Drugs, the FCC, laws against certain sexual activities, trade embargoes, pre-emptive war, or having U.S. bases in more than 100 foreign countries around the world. These are all issues that modern day conservatives have championed in recent years.

The epilogue to the New Deal is how the Old Right coaltion of conservatives and libertarians fractured when libertarians learned that conservatives were for smaller government in name only. Of course, the conservative movement hardly needed the libertarians anyway. They more than made up for the loss of conservatives by picking up the socially conservative welfare/warfare state Democrats who continued their big government ways, only under a different party banner.

"The second does not require the first."
If you have good examples you may just switch me from left to right but I have yet to find a "middle class" nation without positive rights(mainly healthcare/educational), instead I only see the very rich the very poor and a sliver of a middle class in between.

I could be projecting what I think was meant. But...I think they are speaking of things like flag burning or pornography or unpopular speech. In our current system you can be arrested for those things and you can even be charged and found guilty depending on what law they use to prosecute but if you have money for a good lawyer or have a high profile case you will not only get out of it you will likely be able to sue for a hefty amount of cash. If you are not protected in the use of your negative rights they are not rights except for those that can afford to pay to ensure that they are not breached.

I think what DLS wants people to think is that "conservatives are intrinsic white hat patriots and upholders of freedom and the American way", and, that “liberals are pinko communist welfare moms of color or drunken decadent Hollyweirdos”, but in fact we all know this to be horse crap.

I think?

What would be an example of a negative freedom that is harmful?

You can USE negative freedoms to cause harm. For instance, you can use your free speech to libel people. You can use your property rights to construct a lead smelter on your property to poison and permenently harm all the people within many miles. You can use your property rights to redirect sufficient water resources to destroy downstream farms and industry. It is the POSITIVE freedoms that protect us from this kind of abuse of power.

And as for a negative freedom being unpopular, what does unpopular have to do with it?

If the abuse of a NEGATIVE freedom ticks off enough people, then you need the state to stop them from harming you. So, frankly, to protect negative freedoms, you need state coersion, also. It is naive to think otherwise. You can't assume that people will be civilized. Certainly the state in China is protecting the negative rights of business people to conduct their business as they see fit. Of course, those poor people being poisoned lack the positive rights to clean air and water.

In fact, the negative freedom of speech is protected by the state more often than you realize. I would bet that there have been plenty of cases in your life where you said things that made people angry. Some (certainly not all) of those people would have physically attacked you if it weren't for the laws on assault.

I think what DLS wants people to think is that "conservatives are intrinsic white hat patriots and upholders of freedom and the American way", and, that “liberals are pinko communist welfare moms of color or drunken decadent Hollyweirdos”, but in fact we all know this to be horse crap.

All you have to do is change "liberals are pinko communist welfare moms of color or drunken decadent Hollyweirdos" to "liberals are long haired, hippy-type, pinko fags, that I betchya even got a commie flag tacked up on the wall inside of their garage" and you have the makings of a song!

When the Liberals starting getting real power, and acting like this:

Justice Department concludes black voters need Democratic Party

This is the politicalization of the law. A law made to ensure that blacks not be allowed the right to vote is now being used to ensure that the Democratic national party gets their candidate to win. It also is an insult to the voters of that overwhelmingly democratic stronghold, essentially saying that they aren't smart enough to decide who they should vote for unless there is a "D" beside the candidate's name.

OK, since Tidbits asked an html code question, here's one of my own:

How do I get the gray rectangle behind a block quote, like Leonidas often uses?

You can USE negative freedoms to cause harm. For instance, you can use your free speech to libel people. You can use your property rights to construct a lead smelter on your property to poison and permanently harm all the people within many miles. You can use your property rights to redirect sufficient water resources to destroy downstream farms and industry. It is the POSITIVE freedoms that protect us from this kind of abuse of power.

OK. I admit that you actually bring up a good point in the case of libel. Many libertarians of the anarchist variety would argue that the act of libeling someone is not a violent act and that therefore, no one has a right to initiate force (or have someone initiate force on their behalf) in order to prevent someone from libeling them. I believe that virtually all classical liberals and minarchist libertarians would agree however that the act of libel is harmful and that no one has any inherent right to libel someone. But I would have to agree with you that libel is a tricky subject with regards to negative freedoms.

I would maintain, however, that your smelter example and your redirecting water resources example are not inconsistent with what I said before about negative rights. They fall under the idea of property rights. A person has the right to build a smelter on his own property and to manage his own water resources as he sees fit. This right, however, cannot violate another person's property right. So I would argue that negative freedoms do not give any property owner the right to poison the water or air outside their property, nor do negative freedoms to alter the course of a waterway.

If the abuse of a NEGATIVE freedom ticks off enough people, then you need the state to stop them from harming you.

If someone becomes angered by your act of negative freedom and initiates force against you, then yes, you may use force against that person for defensive purposes, or you may authorize the government to use force against them on your behalf. Indeed, this is the entire purpose of having a government in a free society: to protect individuals' lives, liberties, and properties. But this is the same regardless of whether the freedom you are exercising is popular or not, so I still don't see what being "popular" has to do with the concept of negative freedoms. Negative freedoms are inherent rights that exist independent of government. The government does not grant you those rights; it merely recognizes them. You don't need the government in order to exercise your negative freedoms.

I could go around town telling people that I hate Democrats or that I hate Republicans or that I hate children or that I hate the elderly. This would not be very "popular", but my right to do so would remain, and I would not need the government in order to exercise this right. If someone decides to initiate force against me, then yes, the government is authorized to act on my behalf. But the government is not giving me or granting me anything. It is merely protecting a right that I already possessed.

This is very different than the concept of positive freedoms, in which case, an individual is asking something of another person or asking the government to act on their behalf. If an individual believes they have a right to health care, he cannot simply demand a service from a health care provider. That individual either has to pay for it or work out some agreement with the health care provider. If that individual refuses to pay or is unable to work out some agreement with the health care provider, then that individual, in demanding their "right to healthcare" can only obtain that service through the act or threat of force--whether that person is using force (i.e. theft or coercion) himself or asking the government to do so on his behalf.

Any government imposed redistribution of resources and services is based on the concept of positive freedoms. This means that people's negative freedoms (i.e. property rights) are infringed upon in order to grant people the positive freedoms that they or society as a whole demands. Since classical liberals are not anarchists, they believe in having a government with limited powers. Unless that government is so small that if fulfils no more than the role of a night watchman, then that government is necessarily going to involve the abridgement of some negative freedoms. This is the essence of government, since the government, afterall, has a monopoly on the use of force, and every law that a government passes is backed up with the threat of the use of force.

Classical liberals and minarchist libertarians seek to keep the government as small as possible in order preserve negative freedoms and minimize the amount of state-sanctioned force. This distinguishes them from modern day liberals (and modern day conservatives) who--on a number of different issues--believe that the government should be able to initiate force against its own citizens or people in foreign countries to achieve whatever end they believe is just.

How do I get the gray rectangle behind a block quote, like Leonidas often uses?

Type: [blockquote]...[/blockquote]
except instead of [ ] and [/ ], you have to use < > and </ >

Also, for all other commenters, if you go to internet menu bar across the top of your screen, select "View" and then select "Source", an "Original Source" pop up will appear on your screen, and you can use it to learn the HTLM codes.

But the government is not giving me or granting me anything. It is merely protecting a right that I already possessed.

That is the part I find naive. The govenment does, in fact, grant that right, because without its monopoly on the use of force, that right would not exist IN PRACTICE. Any right can exist in theory, but it isn't real unless it can be demonstrated in practice. People can say anything as long as what they say doesn't offend anyone's sensibilities, even in the nastiest dictatorships or most repressive societies. However, in many societies, you would get beaten down or killed if you exercised those free expression rights in an unpopular way or in a way that offended those in power. This is true even in primative societies that don't have a state. In fact, the people in those community may feel that they are protecting that community from YOU. That your free expression will contaminate them or cause moral harm or anger violent people who will take it out on the entire community. When you don't have the coercive power of the state behind a set of laws, might equals right and the mighty love life!

You need the implicit guarentee of government/group force to protect a right or it isn't really a right. The government HAS to coerce/force people to behave, according to a certain set of standards or laws in order for NEGATIVE rights to actually exist. Your argument that one set of rights requires government coersion and the other doesn't is bogus. Both require the government actively enforce law, to force people to behave in a way that they do not want to. You have to force the mighty to give up their advantages, to lose battles they could have won with force / by abusing their power.

" I have yet to find a "middle class" nation without positive rights(mainly healthcare/educational),

Many people have private education (or home-schooling, as leftist Thom Hartmann has done with at least one child, after moving earlier from public to private education, and still being dissatisfied), and of course most people have private-sector health care, have nothing in this area given to them as a positive "right" (claim or benefit or entitlement).

"I think what DLS wants people to think "

You would be mistaken again, but that's not the first time for my antagonists and critics.

* * *

"You need the implicit guarentee of government/group force to protect a right or it isn't really a right."

That's not true. The right itself exists independently from any decision to use force to protect it.

"How do I get the gray rectangle behind a block quote, like Leonidas often uses?"

I may be mistaken, but the last time I looked, Disqus has no easily and promptly accessible page or page portion that lists what can be done and how to do it, with comments. (It's a more general topic to what extent the designers of many such technical things are detached from the real world, or socially inept, and are highly impractical or just don't conceive of designing user interfaces with the user in mind!)

So I will take that to mean that you do not have any example countries for me to look at, k.

Your argument that one set of rights requires government coersion and the other doesn't is bogus.

I disagree.

Try exercising your freedom of speech right now. Go ahead and do it.

See? Exercising your freedom of speech just now didn't require any coercion or threat of coercion on your part.

Now try exercising your right to health care, which in modern day usage implies that you have a right to obtain health care services even if you cannot pay for the services. Just imagine how you would go about exercising this right. You would either have to coerce the health care provider into providing these services, or you would have to have a third party pay for these services under the threat of coercion.

I completely agree with you that rights are theoretical. Obviously, the distinction between negative freedoms and positive freedoms means nothing to a society that does not recognize freedom.

However, assuming that one believes in the abstract concept of freedom, there is a very obvious distinction between negative freedom and positive freedom, and that is that the former does not require coercion or the threat of coercion while the latter does.

You seem preoccupied with the act of government stepping in to protect an individual's rights. I maintain that in the case of negative rights, the government does not step in to give or grant you your rights. It merely protects an existing right. I exercise my negative rights every single day of my life without coercing or threatening coercion towards anyone. It is only in the rare circumstances in which someone is intolerant enough to initiate force against me. It is only at that time--only after someone has initiated force (or threatened the use of force against me) that the government may act.

This is very different from a positive freedom in which someone somewhere must be coerced into sacrificing their negative freedom in order to grant another person's positive freedom.