@Anglican because economic freedom is positive freedom too

in no holy text is it not blasphemous to make a material criticism of the church.

Why should it come before social freedoms? Political ones? Why does economic freedom amtter?

No.

It is a freedom to do whatever you can afford.

You moron.

positive is subjective

It is a negative freedom.

No, this is an objective way of looking at it.

Well you make it so

Negative doesn't refer to bed here.

*bad

economic freedom is a positive influence either way

It means that you are free to do what you can afford/do by your own power

while positive freedom is the freedom to something greater.

economic freedom breeds what we call the "Civic Religion" which has led to today's current predicament.

Hope, happiness.

literally doesn't matter

both sides strive for idealism

pick one over the other

Freedom to faith and patriotism is a positive freedom.

While freedom to fuck a cow is a negative freedom.

who made up these definitions?

It is simple; postive freedoms are those of quality and of real importance. Negatives are not. They are primal.

it isn't necessary at all

it's self explanatory

Sorry, do I have to say every single time their definations?

what?

you should

I mean

it isn't his job to educate himself

I don't understand how this got into a discussion of positive and negative freedoms

silly to define such things

if you make a claim, you support it, if it needs definition, one should define it. it's not the task of your opponent to do this.

it is entirely subjective

It doesn't mean bad or good.

value is objective

Okay, come on buddy. Let us talk.

shouldn't have negative or positive on it then

Starting with negative freedoms; it is the freedoms which libertarians/anarchists generally want when they aren't on the left.

It is a freedom to do what you want to do if you have the ability.