GE Morton wrote: ↑January 14th, 2022, 7:54 pm
"Misuses" the term "freedom?" No term preceded by an adjective which modifies, focuses, or constrains its scope is "misused." That's what adjectives are for.
"Political freedom (also known as political autonomy or political agency) is a central concept in history and political thought and one of the most important features of democratic societies. Political freedom was described as freedom from oppression or coercion, the absence of disabling conditions for an individual and the fulfillment of enabling conditions, or the absence of life conditions of compulsion, e.g. economic compulsion, in a society."
But feel free to write to all the thousands of writers, editors, publishers who have written or published on that topic over the last 3 centuries and advise them that they have been misusing that term.
More fatuous verbal quibbles, and still no substantive rebuttal of political freedom as defined.
Good grief! Your Wiki article supports my dream about Lenin and Trotsky. According to Wiki, "political freedom" can mean:
1) "freedom from poverty, starvation, treatable disease, and oppression."
2) " utilitarian trade-offs, such as sacrificing the right to the product of one's labor or freedom of association for less racial discrimination or more subsidies for housing. Social anarchists describe the negative liberty-centric view endorsed by capitalism as "selfish freedom".
3) "Robin Hahnel takes issue with Friedman's concept of economic freedom, asserting that there will be infringements on the freedom of others whenever anyone exercises their own economic freedom.
He argues that such infringements produce conflicts that are resolved through property rights systems, and therefore it is essential to decide what is a better or a worse property rights system, yet Friedman simply takes for granted the existing property rights and does not question them." Sound familiar?
4) "Gerald C. MacCallum Jr. spoke of a compromise between positive and negative freedoms."
5) "Anarcho-capitalists see negative rights as a consistent system. Ayn Rand described it as "a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context". To such libertarians, positive liberty is contradictory since so-called rights must be traded off against each other, debasing legitimate rights which by definition trump other moral considerations. Any alleged right which calls for an end result (e.g. housing, education, medical services and so on) produced by people is in effect a purported right to enslave others." Perhaps GE can provide the citation, since he seems familiar with this principle.
So no agreement about either the definition or the principles of "political freedom" exists. Numbers one and five are contracdictory. Based on your notion that adjectives can change the meaning of words, I imagine that a Confederate supporter of States' Rights could claim "political freedom" entails the right to own slaves. I suppose it would be reasonable to argue that since the U.S. has BY FAR the highest rate of incarceration in the world, we have the least "political freedom".
Words mean things. Adjectives can limit the meanings, but they alter the meanings only for the disingenuous. It's amazing how some people use words to create a vague emotional resonance without actually thinking about what the words mean. My current pet peeve is the Mercedes Benz ad tag line: "Mercedes Benz.... The Best, or Nothing." Every Benz TV commercial ends with this solemn incantation. Do Benz executives really suggest that if people around the world can't afford steak or lobster they should starve to death? Are they really telling their customers that if they can't buy the $200K Mercedes, they shouldn't even bother buying the $70k version? Is Mercedes Benz run by a cabal of idiots? "Political Freedom" (like the tag line) sounds, well, liberating. But since nobody agrees on what it means, or how to achieve it, it becomes meaningless dogeral.