> > Wait a minute. I thought "positive freedoms" were those you could
>> exercise because you're well-nourished, well-housed, and well-
>> educated, and so have a lot more of a chance actually to do something
> than you would in the libertarian paradise where you're just left alone.
>One person's positive liberty is another's paternalism; slippery
>slopes apply with a vengeance.
Yes. The provision of food, housing, and education always also commands, to be responsible, be normal, parent and behave in acceptable ways. And paternalistic is the right word, as Harvey is most nostalgic for the welfare state (positive liberty) without seeming to be aware of its normalizing regulations (paternalism) -- <http://www.metamute.org/en/The-Battle-of-all-Mothers>, for example -- that is, when, as in the passage I quote, he's not endorsing them..
There's also a sense in which food, housing, and education are also negative: *from* hunger, want, and ignorance. But they aren't freedom *to* anything. Except work.