Negative liberty is, in my opinion, is
better than positive liberty. Unlike strict positive liberty,
negative liberty sees people as sentient beings who should have
control over their own lives.
The thing about negative liberty that
i don't agree with is the belief that, though people are sentient and
can think for themselves, and though they are restricted from taking
away the rights of others to do what they want, there is no way to
stop problems from happening. If someone decides to rob a bank or
kill someone else, negative liberty will only punish them if they do
it, at most making it seem like a better idea not to commit the
crime. That only works, however, if the Maslow's pyramid of need is
what dictates human life for all. The Maslow's pyramid, however, is
an animal trait pyramid that is best suited for a
communistic/positive-liberty world where people act as they do by
animal instincts. The problem is that many people do things that go
against the pyramid of needs when they decide that the base party of
the pyramid is not as important as the top of it. They decide to
become martyrs for any cause they come up with (i am not attacking
religion, i am religious and respect martyrs). Someone may kill
someone else out of passion or see that their own life is meaningless
unless they take ultra-high-stake risks such as robbing a bank or
stealing art. People will do what they want regardless of the
consequences if there is a gain to be had. It is why people race each
other on the roads or bike down mountains. It is not that they are
non-consciously doing the act, but instead the uncertainty of the
outcome leads them to doing the act with hopes of getting the prize.
Humans, when the base of the Maslow's pyramid is ensured, will
disregard its value and seek to help the top only. Another example is
laziness.
People in a negative liberty world
could only survive if they had no conscienceness, like that of the
positive liberty world, but were smart enough to comprehend the
Maslow's pyramid of needs. The negative liberty world, in effect,
would not be anything near the perfection that the libertarians dream
but would be one where people have no security or life.
There is a solution, though, that does
not take away the efficiency of the ideal positive or negative
liberty world but solves the problems of both. It is the Fascist
world. The fascist world is one in which the problems of the negative
liberty world are solved because of the fascist understanding of
human conscienceness. The REAL fascist see people as sentient but
also as reckless when the bases of their Maslow's pyramids are
protected. The fascist see that the satisfying of the top of the
pyramid can be done in a good way or a bad way (bad way compromises
the bottom of the individual's or their comrades). The fascist want
to keep people from compromising the bottom of their pyramid as much
as possible. The fascist want to prevent those events from occurring
which would take away the bottom of your pyramid, or your pears'
pyramid, from your actions. Fascism is, in essence, the best form of
liberty. People are going to hate me for this.
