Positive or Negative Rights

Also posted on Hoplotarian and SteemIt

Is what we want always a lack of something?

I've been looking for the word that succinctly and accurately represents what we are looking for in the "liberty movement." Of late, "libertarian" has fit the bill, because "liberal" has been tainted by back-biting power-hungry abusers.

"Freedom" leads back to "freeneck." Unfortunately, a "freeneck" is a guy lacking a yoke.

"Liberty" instantly - for me - brings to mind "at liberty," as in a sailor that has been allowed to have a day off from his contracted servitude. There is a good, basic foundation for "liberty," especially after the United States revolutionary civil war, but it is still tainted by being let loose from something.

What's the right word? Maybe it needs to be invented - or discovered. Or maybe it will never really exist.

This all leads back to the left's fundamental criticism of the "freedom movement" - that liberty is all about "negative rights." So is what we want just negative.

Even if you journey down the path to no government, the word for it is negative - "anarchy," which means "no ruler." Continuing down this rabbit hole, which doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing, we can come up with a word that is foundational and positive.

Let's break down "anarchy:" "an" = "without" + "archy" = "ruler." So what would be positive? "Self" + "ruler." "Autarchy." Oops! We did go down a rabbit hole. We ended up with an "absolute ruler," which is the absolute opposite of what I was getting at.

"Eaftos" is another form of "self" in Greek. "Know thyself" translated into "gnothi sauton" in Greek. "Sautonarchy" could be it, but it is hard to say. Shortened to "sautarchy" would leave us with "salty ruler" or "shoot ruler," if one confuses the Scottish and French words.

So what about Latin, because "anarchy really is about the same in Latin and Greek. We gets word for "self" like "sui," "sese," "ipse." "Suiarchy" is being used in a very-small scale on the Web. It might be the one. And it might be too close to "suicide." There are alternatives, or are there?

Nope. I don't think there are another way. "Sui" = "self" + "cide" = "murder." "Suiarchy:" "sui" = "self" + "archy" = "ruler."

Job done. Now we have a word that does not draw its strength from being negative, though it shares a stem that is used in a negative word. That's just the way it is.

Freedom versus Liberty

I've described myself as a libertarian, classical liberal, even an anarcho-capitalist. All those terms seem defined by their context. Even taking anarcho-capitalist to its core, its larger category of anarchist leaves one defined by a context and not what is inherent to the person.  Anarchy literally means "without a ruler." (Wikipedia.org)

The concept of liberty is lacking. It sounds like you are being allowed to do something. Freedom seems more universal, less defined by a person's environment - more inherent. I've been frustrated by a lack of analysis or dialogue until I found this:

One might ask how [the] tyrannical society [of the indenture-servitude and slavery based mid-Atlantic] could have produced some of the greatest champions of republicanism, such as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and James Madison. The answer is that Tidewater's gentry embraced classical republicanism, meaning a republic modeled after those of ancient Greece and Rome. They emulated the learned, slave-holding elite of ancient Athens, basing their enlightened political philosophies around the ancient Latin concept of libertas, or liberty. This was a fundamentally different notion from the Germanic concept of Freiheit, or freedom, which informed the political thought of Yankeedom [New England] and the Midlands. Understanding the distinction is essential to comprehending the fundamental disagreements that still plague relations between Tidewater [mid-Atlantic], the Deep South, and New Spain on one hand and Yankeedom and the Midlands on the other.

American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North American by Colin Woodard

And of course, once my mind was more open to the conflict, I ran across this: "Freedom vs. Liberty" by Joseph R. Stromberg on LewRockwell.com. This article goes into the etymology of the two terms. And Stromberg comes to a similar conclusion that I did, that "'freedom' seems a bit more world-bound or concrete than 'liberty.'"
 
Being on the freedom end of the political spectrum leaves one, as a matter of convenience, defined a libertarian or anarchist, or possibly a sovereign individualist. Is there a label or philosophy that is more concrete? Freedomer? Freedom lover? Well, the philosophy is freedom. That's simple. But what do you call the adherent? Freeman? Freewoman? Freeone? Freeneck? Freedomer?