Thank you so much for the feedback! And yes, we do depend on the support of people that appreciate our work via patreon.com/sprouts. :)

Well said

The most mature response in the comment section.

it isnt this simple, take for example west and east germany, in west germany you had "freedom from" and in east you had "freedom to" (now, you could say this isnt exactly correct, and i agree with that, but just bear with me), poor people in west germany that didnt had good schooling/opportunities, tended to move in east germany, where they could flourish. competent people in east germany that were schooled essentially for free felt like that now that they had their set of skills, the state now held them down instead of helping them further, they tended to move in west germany and occupy well-paid jobs this resulted in west germany having more competent people and east germany poor people seeking help, and as a result, east germany was in a severe disadvantage, causing their government to decide to build a wall and prevent competent people from migrating.

Chad Liberals:🌝

But what does ' .sling the world a better place mean ' ?

Force also affects our behavior where _not_ necessary.

@@UncleKennysPlace Exactly, but what constitutes necessary force and pointless force is not completely clear. That's what democratic politics about: to try and find the most tollerable middle ground, where one hopes for the highest amount of necessary force and least amount of unnecessary, or opressory force.

​@@thrall1342 This all sounds rather parental. Is the initiation of offensive violence not primarily an ethical matter? 'Necessary' is subjective & could excuse just about anything. I argue that there is only just force vs violent crime, just force being a proportional response to a credible allegation of violations of someone's basic rights & violent crime being 'obey or else violence.'

@@johnnyshanksalot8358 I don't think I was speaking about violence at all, but about forced behavior in the context of the video. As such, excessive taxation could for a example be seen as a kind of force. Maybe even a violent one, since it is quite literally "pay or else violence" (violence = forcefully go to prison).

@@thrall1342 If something isn't voluntary then isn't it inherently accomplished using the threat of future acts of offensive violence by definition? What is or isn't 'excessive taxation' is subjective but consent is not. If we can all understand the moral concept of consent as it applies to sex then why would that moral concept suddenly vanish when you put your pants on & talk about taxes or law?

That's not liberty, 1 of the 2 involves the use of offensive violence in order to intimidate otherwise innocent people into obeying authority. Since we started off naked in a tree/cave, was us not having pants, cars or shoes somehow a 'prison' back then? Liberty is not free stuff, it's simply not being ruled by somebody else against your will through the constant threat of violence.

That's very true, it's more of a situation. I do kind of relate with Healthcare expensive for ppl that doesn't fix their diet at all. Perhaps things need to be evaluated for tax priority.

If your premise is true, who would be the person paying for everything, if they all didn't leave for libertyland?

negative and positive doesn't imply good or bad all the time: negative symptoms of schizophrenia takes sensation away from you while positive symptoms add unnecessary sensations and hallucinations. You could think of positive and negative liberty as "liberty through adding governance" and "liberty through subtracting governance" respectively

​@@echometerainNegative Inflation and Positive HIV are also examples where Negative and Positive have an inverse Good/Bad correlation. But it doesn't change that we see one as Bad while the other is Good. Replacing Negative Liberty for Weak Governance and Positive Liberty for Strong Governance tells us exactly what we aim for in here: more or less government impact on our lives, and neither is bad or good by themselves.

@@echometerain Negative and positive DO imply bad or good. As you have shown, in your example, they actually ARE NOT NECESSARILY bad or good, but they DEFINITELY DO IMPLY bad or good ... and we all know how easy it is to influence people, when those in charge decide to call 'good' what's beneficial to themselves and 'bad' what they do not personally like. 'Negative' and 'positive' are far beyond medical symptoms. They are powerful words to control others. Words easy to use and even easier to abuse.

i agree with you 100%

I think from what i see negative liberty is good for thosse that can acomplesh things by them selys wall positiv is for thos hoow cant help them selfs

The problem with middlegrounds is that they are rarely in the middle.

There's no such thing as small government. British Empire and USA as a superpower required big government.

negative and positive doesn't imply good or bad all the time, negative symptoms of schizophrenia takes sensation away from you while positive symptoms add unnecessary sensations and hallucinations. You could think of positive and negative liberty as "liberty through adding governance" and "liberty through subtracting governance" respectively

@@echometerain Negative and positive DO imply bad or good. As you have shown, in your example, they actually ARE NOT NECESSARILY bad or good, but they DEFINITELY DO IMPLY bad or good ... and we all know how easy it is to influence people, when those in charge decide to call 'good' what's beneficial to themselves and 'bad' what they do not personally like. 'Negative' and 'positive' are far beyond medical symptoms. They are powerful words to control others. Words easy to use and even easier to abuse.

​@@echometerainLiberty by adding governance is an apparent paradox, as long as the needs for justice and security are exceeded. I think this is about the difference between the two form of fairness, justice and sociality. "Just" means you pay your own expenses, "social" means other people do. Mostly there is some middle ground, e.g. insurances etc. .

​@@echometerain7

I can see that this channel doesnt "like" comments or suggestions contrary to its own stated rational. Yours is the best contradiction to this arguement. Yet, you get no love from the author.

Yes haha, is it fair to steal someones money and give it to someone else

Thank you p.

What if you did not pay for millitary. Will the millitary not defend you?

Can you elaborate that thought a bit more, preferably using the given examples ?

@@thrall1342 person A wants freedom from society and its obligations, He is independent and probably handle most of the things people pay taxes for, so if he can carry his own weight and his family plus complete strangers. person B want freedom from responsibility, she is part of society that desperately needs others assistance and willing to give her help to those in need. both sides forget that they are part of society, person A doesnt realize no matter how much he wants to be secluded he will encounter something he cant take care one day, person B doesnt realize people who work at hospitals also needs to eat and live, since tax is low government cannot support health care so they allocated it to private health care companies, also smog she doesnt like are also produced by people who needs the car to do their job and live. honestly both are idiots, and they will choose whichever society feels right for them, or complain about it while living in there instead of just moving.

Well, if you take care of yourself, you'll pay less for healthcare. Healthcare and whatever should only be for the unconditionally disadvantaged, like disabled people

insert billionaires and remove education based on critical thinking and logic and you don't have to worry about either. Both liberties become illusions for the governed to fight with each other over.

Glad you enjoyed it!

Thank you!

If you don't get it you die

@@juanpablobascur3708 That's what I said. What's the relevance ?

Then why is it that every first world country that institutes positive liberty policies happier, healthier, more educated avd overall more successful then those that don't I'll wait.

@WokeandProud lol is it really?.......

@@otxoawolf9054 Yes they are objectively unless you want to argue with basically every study on it ever the data is against you cope.

@WokeandProud in some small homogeneous countries it works initially. Unfortunately over time they end up like Venezuela or Cuba particularly when their system gets hijacked by out of control immigration. Studies show some of the picture. History shows the rest. I really wish it your point were true. I've just lived long enough to know it's not.

@@otxoawolf9054 More right-wing tripe Cuba and Venezuela only ended up the way they did because of US sanctions and interference. Meanwhile every other first world nation "homogeneous" or not (weak nazi dog whistle btw) who push social safty programs are doing splendidly moving on.

Some people give businesses the power to create rules by bribing officials. Also, Americans die because they can't afford medical attention for themselves so they don't go to the doctor. In comparison other places where the state covers some of the expanses people are more motivated to the doctor when they're I'll. You know that where there are private prisons there are more prisoners, because of business owners actually motivating officials to arrest people instead of like... Rehabilitation or arresting real criminals instead of people doing minor shit for the first time. That's negetive freedom for ya', where other don't pay for essential services and people get incarcerated or dead because it pays someone else... Food for thought, ah?

@@davesvens8697 Mao created a utopia robust, Not for him but for us, The deaths of a few, Tens of millions no one knew, With all positive liberties that cuss.

@@puddintame7794 Dude... Like, the Nazis and the Italian fascists were free market at the beginning of their rule (they changed to more left leaning approach at the beginning of the war, like everybody else), Franco changed from left leaning economy to free market.. he was fascists also. So dude..People die in dictatorships where they have free markets. Also, how many people die in America because of avoidable gun violence? "Negetive liberties " Like, o.k. I get it, but when you go too far somethimes with that approach you will fuck everything.

@@davesvens8697 Are you saying that the Nazis were free market libertarians? My take on Main Kampf is quite a bit different. Have you read it?

bingo.

Lmao I dont care, you dedicate your life to politics, you a loser

"What are you? Social Liberal or calssic Libertarian?" "Maoist."

100% agree.

That is actually, where this video is fails. The theory isn't about any specific policies, because someone's freedom to usually impacts someone's freedom from and the other way round. The theory is an explanation why seemingly ANY policy can be marketed as supporting "Freedom". The word doesn't mean anything. If politicians have nothing to say except that they want "Freedom", we should very suspicious. It usually happens when there are some interests that not named there.

I would caution, as this thinking does in my opinion make you one of the characters, thinking that they are right, when the idea of democracy is to productively combine the knowledge and limit the blind spots of as many people as possible. I believe one could make the same argument the other way around. As food for thought: You: - "If we live in a world where everyone is equal, has equal chances and the outcomes are solely determined by your actions, the first example would be right." VS: - "If we live in a world where everyone is altruistic, cares for the greater good and does not push for egoistic actions against reasonable interests of others, the second example would be right" You: - "But sadly this is a dream world that does not exist. Illness, birth defects, accidents, even when you are not responsible or did anything wrong can alter your life." VS: - "But sadly this is a dream world that does not exist. Egostism, machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy exist in the most 'advanced' of societies and in the most respected individuals. The world is not made up of angels and each of those can ruin everything if you give them too much power over others." You: - "Who looks out for the blind? Tells the deft and speaks up for the mute?" VS: - "Who limits the one seeking power for corrupt reasons by pretending to do good for others ?" You: - "Because the reality is, that there are people who require help by default and by no fault of their own, we need a world like in the 2nd example. The first one is simply not reality and sadly will never be." VS: - "Because the reality is, that there are people who would use the position of savior and power for personal gains and force everybody else and by no fault of those other people, to do what they proclaim all in the pretens to be altruistic. The second one is simply not reality and sadly, never will be." I would personally always go for a democratic mixture with division of power and federalism, so that if one system becomes corrupt, people have the chance to evade and starve it of its resources.

Another thought: The first one can build wealth by eradicating limits to freedom. The second one can only be built by being wealthy already and only so far, as it is not sabotaging the foundation of your wealth.

I simply make an observation. In my reality, people are not the same. They never have the exact same starting points and there is no guarantee that you will forever be healthy and never involved in an accident. I found that in life shit can and does happen. As a society we either help each other or let each other die. Everthing else just prolongs suffering.

@@salihnu I think you are convolving different things. You make an observation, say that the first is not possible, so the second has to be better. What you do not seem to consider is that the second might not be better. There is a middle ground between "helping" and "letting each other die" and "prolonging suffering", because not all "help" is usefull and not all "suffering" is harmful. An extreme example that still holds general knowledge: "helping" somebody who is screwing up his life pushes him deeper into self caused misery, but "hurting" him in the short run by telling him his faults might "help" him much more in the long run.

Makes no sense. You are in war because your country is not united. And all these things are steps to finally bring a country to a union. You are in war because some groups want to control the country. "and that's even unfair for the rich who did nothing wrong" thats the first time i see someone empathize with the rich. You are a weirdo man.

Hello Omer, I was wondering if by any chance you can give me more information on this or a decent source of information/news on what is happening in your country. I would really appreciate that! I am terribly sorry to hear about what's going on in your country. Nobody deserves this insanity. I am Russian/Ukranian/Polish myself. Stay strong!

@@horrificpancake2000 it's hard to get reported informations, but I've experienced it myself, 35 percent on income tax above 100 usd/month, more corruption with more funding for projects, even our grand dam, 15 percent VAT, increased tariffs, increased central bank regulations with little increase in interest rates (to allow the government to take more loans from the central bank for "development and welfare" (but actually for war funding with newer turkish and iranian technologies)) All this because of increased government intervention for "welfare and development", the victims are the rich and poor, it's just equality in oppression, not actual social justice as they claim. I mean, they have alot of fiscal spending in education and healthcare, but they are funded by taxes that discourages employment and investment. Forget about investment or employment, it's just unfair for the government to take whatever they want just because a bunch of parliamentarians want it, how is my money being unjustly taken from me be considered justice?