98. Two way.

Diary-esq post.
INB4 cba to read that.

Some people purport to 'good friends' and indeed, some of their actions in some of the harder times match this.
Yet, it's their everyday actions that make me question their level of attachment.
Makes me think sometimes, that I'm just being humoured.

Conversations are two way processes.
They are not one person talking at another...
Nor are they waiting for each other to stop talking, just so you can 'take your turn.'

They involve reciprocation, and listening... actually listening.

When someone asks 'how your day is going,' you reciprocate by replying and asking the same.
And when you never do, what does that mean?
Or
When someone says they're listening, but when you ask, 'what did I just say,' and they can't answer, you're not listening.

Recently some folk don't do one or both of those.
Maybe they've got a lot on their mind, maybe they're tired...

Or maybe they're just humouring me.
Maybe I'm just another face in the crowd, or just another problem they have to deal with...

Either way, it feels more like I'm not worth the effort of conversation, or worth listening to.
That I don't matter.


I'm having a rough second half of 2016.

97. Twitch.Tv Guide concept

 So this is a concept I came up with (I doubt I'm the first too obviously, but I digress..).
Would it be a valuable idea to post the intended content of a stream well ahead of time, like a TV guide?

Now, I don't mean a schedule (i already have one of those).
A schedule is like the name of the show; 
Family Guy.

The intended content would be like; in this episode of family guy X does Y.


So in context it would be like this:

Schedule;
Shows are at 8pm UK.
Tuesday - #TechnicalTuesday:  An arts and crafts show, both digital and traditional.

Wednesday - #WifiWednesday: A show dedicated to games with online/ l.a.n multiplayer.

Thursday - #FreeForAllThursday: The time of the week where we get to play anything! This is where the vast majority of my full game play through's come from

Weekly Stream guide;
19/12/16 Stream Guide.

Tuesday - #TechnicalTuesday: We're continuing the Warhammer 40K Ork Warboss digital drawing from last weeks stream (check the VOD if you missed it!)

Wednesday - #WifiWednesday: One of my followers suggested we play 'Fist Full of Frags,' a small free to play source game on Steam (if you wanna join in, hit me up on discord)

Thursday - #FreeForAllThursday: We've had a couple of weeks off, so we're returning to our play through of Pokémon Uranium! Time to get revenge on the Hokagae!
It more informative, and the Twitch channel comments section is perfect for it.

It also is more helpful for folks who stumble upon your stream when you're offline; they know what you intend to stream, what kind of things are shown on this channel, and if it is worth their time popping back when you are online.
I imagine a lot of folks just look at channels they stumble on and glide right past.

The above could lead to more concurrent viewers on stream; people coming back for more because they know they'll be interested in it.. which fuels audience engagement, especially when playing games with your community.

I think it's a neat idea.

What do you think?
Do you think this idea is good or bad?
Do you think it's applicable to more than one platform (YouTube?)
Would a Weekly Show guide make you more likely to come and watch a stream?

If you have any thoughts or feedback let me know!

Until next time
-DH-

96. Upload slowed...

I posted this on my Twitch announcement page...but I thought I'd put it here... kinda just to spam it as many places as possible.

'It has been brought to my attention that we have some stuttering issues (thanks Lekiriku =])

One of the issues may have been the bitrate.

I have changed this for the next stream to see if it helps

After looking into it a little more however, I think it has something to do with my ISP.

The gist of my Twitter exchange with VirginMedia today:

@Virginmedia DL speed has improved thanks. Figured out 1 my problems though. Upload limit is terrible on all tariffs. Not good for #Twitch

@virginmedia 1 hr reduction after 1000MB is 1024Kbps (-50%), then 768Kbps (-63%) after the next 1000MB. 2 hour #twitch stream is 3gb

@virginmedia Only on VIVID is 2 hours doable, but Any more than that and you'll run into problems. And it's over double the cost #Twitch

@virginmedia And between the hours of 4pm - 11pm. Peak #twitch streaming time.

@virginmedia I get upload limits are there to discourage piracy, but it punishes #Twitch and #YouTube content creators


So there you go.
I doubt this issue will improve drastically anytime soon...
Though if we stick to the lower bitrate, and a 2hour stream time, we should be okay going forward.
But any plans for longer streams will have to be put on hold for a while.'

Yup.
-DH-

95. Speedpaint. EpicErid

If you're subscribed to me on YouTube you may have seen my latest video (If not, you should totally click here and do that now!)


In this video I drew an avatar for a good friend of mine we've mentioned here before; EpicErid!

The video is the product of 2 separate streams on my Twitch channel (which you can follow by clicking here!).

It took about 6 hours to draw and paint, but I've condensed it down to about 20 mins by upping the speed by 800 times!


Anyway, you should go check it out, and subscribe for more if you enjoy it!


Thanks!

-DH-

94. Inktober 2016 complete!

So recently I took part in, and completed Inktober 2016, which I posted regularly on my Instagram!
I thought I'd post them here too, just in case you missed them, and to talk a bit more in depth about my experience.

If you haven't heard of Inktober, you can just check out their website.

In short; 'Every October, artists all over the world take on the InkTober drawing challenge by doing one ink drawing a day the entire month. I created InkTober in 2009 as a challenge to improve my inking skills and develop positive drawing habits.'

#1 - Fast


This was the first one of the challenge.
It's Sonic, the very real hedgehog.
As you'll come to see (especially if you check out the full album) the effort lefvels and ambition were quite high to start with.

#4 - Hungry



I'm a big fan of the following things; Pokémon Fusions, Kirby/ Smash Bros and D.Va/ Overwatch.
I think Gremlin D.Va is one of the est thing to have happened to the internet, so decided to fuse her with Kirbz.

#7 - Lost



So, I've put this as Rock/ Lost for a few reasons.
When I first sketched the picture for lost, I didn't have the confidence to ink it.
So I posted this picture I did on the same day of Terlard instead.
Now, when I did the actual Rock at a later date I accidentally ruined the 'Lost' picture which infuriated me, especially since I massively rushed the rock picture, and I'm really not proud of it.
So, Terlard will kinda do (especially because I really like it).
I saved the 'lost' picture at a later date, so all was not lost.

#24 - One Dozen


So I really enjoy Pokémon!
I like this as it was my first attempt of applying a whole lot of layers of Pro Markers (Terlard only has a couple)

#30 - Wreck

So this was the original picture for lost, the one I ruined (before I ruined it)



I was quite proud of it.
It is one of the most detailed and accurate drawings of an actual picture I'd done in a while.
Hence my lack of confidence to ink it.
But once I'd ruined it, well, the fear had gone.



So this is what it became after inking... which, given the state it was in, I was fairly chipper with.



And that's it!
I learned a lot doing this challenge.
Drawing a picture every day is quite difficult.
Staying motivated, interested and inspired is a lot harder than it sounds.
I've spent years investing my time in other endevours, and it has sapped my creativity and originality.

After completing this challenge I felt great; while some of the drawing were rushed, and done just because, I really feel like my drawing has improved, especially digitally.
Not only that, but my desire to draw has returned... not at the pace of Inktober, but on a semi-regular basis.
I find myself inspired more often, and some of my ability has returned.

I recommend this challenge to anyone, at anytime.

Anyway. if you want to check out all of the pictures you can see them on this Flickr album - Inktober 2016
Alternatively, follow my Instagram; All the posts are on there, and it is where I generally post my art - Instagram
If you enjoy it, I highly recommend you join my on the 'TechnicalTuesday' show on my Twitch, where I usually do some digital artwork! - Twitch

That's it. Thanks for reading!

Until next time

-DH-

93. Schedule change!

This post is a bit of a media update.

I have an Inktober post coming in a few days. 
Inktober is a ink based drawing challenge in October, where you do a picture every day.
I posted them all on Instagram while I was doing them, and I'll be posting all the pictures I drew throughout Inktober on here so you can view them at your leisure.
I'm happy to say that I managed to 'technically' not miss a day.

The main point of this post is about my YouTube.
Up until now my weekly 'Free For All Thursday' Twitch stream videos have been uploaded twice a week (Monday & Friday).
I felt that this is a bit of a slow pace of uploads, especially when we're recording 4 to 5 a week while I stream.
So from now on I'll be uploading 3 of these videos a week.
The new release schedule for these videos will be Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
Hopefully reducing the gap between videos will help folks who want to watch them feel less distanced from each episode.
I'm also hoping it will allow me some freedom to make different videos, and some YouTube exclusive content too.

Anyway, if you haven't checked out the Pokémon Uranium episodes yet head over to my channel, or just check out the Pokémon Uranium playlist.
If you catch up, them join me live of Twitch!

That's it for now.
Peace!

-DH-

92. A belated birthday present for EpicErid

It was my good friend EpicErid's birthday the other day (if you don't know who this is, go to this blog post).
I ordered her a present, but shipping is terrible, so it has now arrived, but not in time for her birthday.

I decided to draw her a thing, and then paint it.... but I didn't think that was quite far enough.
So, I upgraded it a little.



If you remember a while back I posted about making Skyrim coasters using a tutorial on Dodger's YouTube channel.
I used the same method here, except I used my own hand drawn and painted picture.

The picture was drawn in in Derwent pencils, lined with Faber Castell fine liners and painted with Winsor and Newton Watercolour paints and Citidel Acrylic paints.
It was sealed with a Satin varnish and attached to a Slate flooring/ wall tile with ModgePodge Matt finish.
Finally some self adhesive cork was attached to the underside

What do you guys think?
Would you be interested in your own?

Hit me up with comments, criticism and any other feedback!

Peace

-DH-

91. Multimedia

As the title suggests, this post is all about Multimedia stuff.

Let's start with Twitch

I've been putting a lot more effort in to my Twitch channel lately;

A decent mic (Blue Yeti),
A decent Camera (Logitech HP 1080p),
More Ram (Now 16gb),
Better presentation (in Stream),
And better audience interaction (Discord, Steam, Revlo rewards and so on),
And the hardest part, being consistent with my schedule.

On the last part I have edited my schedule.
I will still stream 3 times a week.

Tuesday = Technical Tuesday.
Where I do more technical things.
Usually digital art, painting but sometimes Starter games and mods.

Wednesday = The Old School Video Game Show.
This is a show I usually co-host with my friend MyWallet.
We play things like Super Smash bros Melee (and mods) and a host of other old school games.

Thursday = Free For All Thursday.
A stream where I get to play anything I feel like/ sometimes the chat/ Revlo participants suggestions.

Not only have the details of my streams changed, but also the times.
I will now be starting at 8pm UK time, for a few hours each time.
This should hopefully allow more folk to join us ^_^

If you can't join me live, never fear, my VOD's are free to watch, but sometimes muted (especially the art streams due to copyrighted music).

With that in mind let's move on to...

YouTube

Now, I've been working on my Twitch consistently for a while; slowly improving as I go.
The downside is I've neglected my YouTube channel.
Well that's going to change.

I've set an upload schedule.
To start with I'll upload 3 times a week.

Monday and Friday will be when I upload video's taken from my 'Free For All Thursday' Twitch Stream.
Wednesday will be when I upload Super Smash Brothers WiiU Replays and other Smash Brothers related content.

In addition, once per month I will post a Speedpaint video taken from my 'Technical Tuesday' Twitch Stream.
This will be uploaded on a Sunday.


This schedule is in place as of now.
In fact, check out the first video in my play through of Pokémon Uranium bellow!



This is a starting point.
I intend to up the pace once I'm comfortable, with plans to create YouTube exclusive content in time.

That's about it for now.
Please check everything out.
Follow me on my Twitch
Subscribe to me on YouTube.

Watch a few videos, click a few adds and support small time Streamers and YouTubers!

Peace!

-DH-

90. Inktober 2016

Hey there!

S'been a little longer than I'd have liked in between posts and stuff (just over a week).
But I've finally been made redundant and that kinda was a bit of a speed bump...
A subject I'll come back to at another date as it deserves its own post to be honest.

Onward to the subject of today's update: Inktober.

I am taking part in Inktober this year.
If y'all are unfamiliar with the event go check out the website - Inktober

If TL:DR I'll give you the gist here;

'Every October, artists all over the world take on the InkTober drawing challenge by doing one ink drawing a day the entire month.

Inktober rules:

1) Make a drawing in ink (you can do a pencil under-drawing if you want).

2) Post it online

3) Hashtag it with #inktober and #inktober2016

4) Repeat

Note: you can do it daily, or go the half-marathon route and post every other day, or just do the 5K and post once a week. What ever you decide, just be consistent with it. INKtober is about growing and improving and forming positive habits, so the more you’re consistent the better.'

That's pretty much it.

If you want to take part just follow the above instructions and prompts on the picture.
I'll be posting my drawings exclusively on my Instagram so be sure to check that out (and follow me while you're there!)

I have a few more things I want to talk about, so expect updates ot happen soon.
Until then

Peace!

-DH-

89. Guest Stream w/ EpicErid on YouTube!

So, I've been doing Art Streams on Twitch, and a while ago I did a stream on my Twitch with my friend EpicErid as a guest artist.

We drew some Pokémon fusion pieces....
If you'd like to check it out, it is now on my YouTube



I hope you enjoy!

Go follow me on youTube, Twitch and also, go check out EpicEird.

@Intsagram
@Twitch
@Twitter

Until next time

-DH-

88. Twitch update.

So, I've updated my Twitch recently.
I've been trying to stream 3 times a week, and thought it was time I got my shit together.

So you can check my channel out at twitch.tv/darkhazzl3

My schedule has been updated and can be found on this very blog under the Twitch Schedule tab.

Streams will usually be Tuesdays, Wednesdays & Thursday's at 10/11 pm GMT.
Time may vary.

Tuesday:
Technical Tuesday; If I'm doing an art stream, this will probably be the day! May play games to test out mods and glitches too!

Wednesday:
The Old School Nintendo show w/ MyWallet; Melee mods and more, usually terrible, old Nintendo games.

Thursday:
Free for all Thursday: I'll play whatever/ what the stream votes for!

Any other streams will be announced via Twitter, so keep you eyes peeled!

Select Vods will be uploaded to my YouTube.
I really want to start creating a community around my Twitch and YouTube channels.

I've set up a Discord channel for 'The Bross,' and a lot of the community will be there, or The Bross stream group.

In addition to this I've decided to set up a Revlo.
Revlo allows streams to reward folks who consistently watch their stream, and follow them on various social media/ other online outlets,

You can check out the rewards and such over on https://www.revlo.co/darkhazzl3.

That's it for now, So go check that shit out yeah?

Peace!

-DH-

87. Speedpaint: Dex the Tiefling Sorcerer.

If you're subscribed to me on YouTube you may have seen my latest video (If not, you should totally clink here now!)

In this video I drew one of my friend's (and potential future member of The Bross) Dungeons and Dragons characters; Dex the Tiefling Sorcerer as an Avatar.
The video is the product of 2 separate streams on my Twitch channel (which you can follow by clicking here!).
It took about 7 hours to draw and paint (with a few hiccups along the way!), but I've condensed it down to about 20 mins by upping the speed by 2500 times!

Anyway, you should go check it out.



Thanks for reading and watching!
Comments and constructive criticism always welcome, either here, on the video itself or on the completed pieces Instagram post

If you'd like to know what I'm doing follow me on YouTube, Twitch and all the socials @DarKHaZZl3.
Also, I've updated The Underhive Hero with some more hobby project goodness, so go check that out too.

Peace!

-DH-

86. Dear Diary...

This is one of those more self reflecting blog posts, more like a diary entry...


My head has been all over the place recently.
A lot of bad things seem to have decided to happen all at once, and fate has decided it's going to do its very best at blocking all attempts at recovery.

Obviously Brexit annoyed the ever loving fuck out of me.
That's a given.

But since then it just seems like everything has hit a downward spiral.

I smashed the front wheel of my car into a curb, wrecking two tires in the process, which was fantastic.

Then I got made redundant.
The job I've spent 3 to 4 years trying to get back in to.
They're closing the store I work at, and opening a single staffed store at another location.

So, yeah... that's been pretty shit.
Having to job hunt is soul destroying.
Doing it with an unemployment deadline hanging over your head is far to much pressure.


To top it all off, my social life just keeps taking a beating.
I feel like I did years ago... during and after University.
That crushing sense of loneliness that goes hand in hand with everyone you ever feel anything for either being a total dickbag to you, or just generally disregarding you for reasons.


All of this has just lead to this bad mood I just can't seem to shift.
Today I feel totally defeated and down, and the only thing I have to console me is myself and the void that is the internet.

I just don't get it.
When others in my life are down I do my damnedest to be there for them... to help them and to occasionally surprise them with things to keep their mood up.
But no one seems to think to do those things for me anymore.
They just get mad at me for being annoyed when they trample all over me.

And then I have to go to a job I don't have anymore, and pretend to be as happy as fuck when people ask about the store moving.

It is draining my will to keep this up, and there is no sight of someone who will help me through it, because taking these hits alone is soul destroying.

85. because you need education. Political essay 5. The law of peoples.

I talk about Rawls' 'Veil of Ignorance' often when speaking about human rights and norms, and how we as a society are pretty shit at equality.

So I thought I'd speak a bit about Rawls here, and crucially, some of the flaws in his concept of 'The Law of Peoples.'

Unlike the 'Veil of Ignorance,' 'The Law of Peoples' actually sets out to talk about how enforcing rights in the world should work.
It's a big question, so I'm going to skip over indulging in that right now and save it for the essay bellow.
But what I will say is this;
A decent standard of universal rights is of paramount importance.
Couple this an emphasis of inclusivity and you have a good, basic standard of equality.

If you'd like to read more on my view of equality, then I suggest reading Rawls 'A Theory of Justice.'
I'll use Wikipedia to sum it up here for those who don't want to;

The "veil of ignorance", along with the original position, is a method of determining the morality of a certain issue (e.g., slavery) based upon the following thought experiment: parties to the original position know nothing about the particular abilities, tastes, and positions individuals will have within a social order. When such parties are selecting the principles for distribution of rights, positions, and resources in the society in which they will live, the veil of ignorance prevents them from knowing who will receive a given distribution of rights, positions, and resources in that society. For example, for a proposed society in which 50% of the population is kept in slavery, it follows that on entering the new society there is a 50% likelihood that the participant would be a slave. The idea is that parties subject to the veil of ignorance will make choices based upon moral considerations, since they will not be able to make choices based on self- or class-interest.
As John Rawls put it, "no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like."^[1] The idea of the thought experiment is to render obsolete those personal considerations that are morally irrelevant to the justice or injustice of principles meant to allocate the benefits of social cooperation. The veil of ignorance is part of a long tradition of thinking in terms of a social contract. The writings of Immanuel Kant, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson offer examples of this tradition.

So why is this relevant now?
Well, put simply, if one were to make decisions, with concepts of Freedom (positive and negative), Equality and Rights in mind, from behind this veil, then intolerance and racial hatred should not exist.

Decent morality is not compatible with prejudice.
Equality is not compatible with prejudice.
Freedom is no compatible with prejudice.
Rights are not compatible with prejudice.
Decent morality is not compatible with wilful ignorance.
Equality is not compatible with
wilful ignorance.Freedom is no compatible with wilful ignorance.
Rights are not compatible with wilful ignorance.


As we have concluded thus far, the Leave camp and UKIP mimic extreme right wing movements, and show Fascist tendencies.
This intolerant behavior is not compatible with Freedom and Equality.
If one were to approach the subject of impartially that the Veil of Ignorance grants, then it simply would not be acceptable.

The problem we face is that currently people don't behave/ think/ vote this way.
It's high time they did.

To what extent does Rawls’ proposal for a ‘Law of Peoples’ amount to a defence of basic human rights?

   In The Law of Peoples' John Rawls approaches the problematic issues of liberty and justice on a larger scale. Building on concepts formulated in previous works, Rawls attempts to establish a realistic conceptual standpoint in which Liberal democratic societies should approach various 'other' societies within the international community. The Law of peoples is inevitably a multifaceted and complex conceptual entity, and in following with his previous work, concerns itself somewhat with the issue of human rights. Indeed, it is this aspect of the 'law of peoples' that has caused conflict. Whilst in previous works Rawls has argued in favour for extensive protection of rights for liberal people, it is not the same case in 'The Law of Peoples.' Rawls puts forward a substantially weaker set of 'urgent' human rights, which he conceives as not only fundamental and necessary, but also; and somewhat importantly, reasonably acceptable to all societies, liberal or not.
   Rawls suggests that the 'Law of peoples' is an adequate concept for dealing with peoples, and indeed some suggest that in this regard the 'law of peoples' can seen as a concept that defends basic, or rather, urgent, human rights. However, there have been numerous criticisms of the law of peoples. Some argue that these 'urgent' rights are simply not demanding enough, as they are in fact less demanding than the already widely accepted universal declaration of human rights. Other go further in their criticisms, not just focusing on the lack of general rights, but also the lack of commitment to specific aspects of rights, such as the distinction between subsistence and adequacy.

   Rawls specifies these urgent rights when setting down his two criteria for decent hierarchical societies; "The first part is that a decent hierarchical people's system of law, in accordance with its common good idea of justice....secures for all members of the people what have come to be called human rights....Among these human rights are the right to life (to the means of subsistence and security); to liberty (freedom from slavery, serfdom, and forced occupation, and to a sufficient measure of liberty of conscience to ensure freedom of religion and thought); to property (personal property); and to formal equality as expressed by the rules of natural justice (that is, that similar cases be treated similarly). Human rights, as such understood, cannot be rejected as peculiarly liberal or special to the western tradition. They are not politically parochial." (Rawls 1999; 6).
  Indeed, it would outwardly appear that Rawls "doctrine of human rights in [Law of Peoples] offers hope for more effective protection of human rights in all parts of the world, on the one hand by diminishing the right of states to violate human rights with impunity within their own boarders, and on the other by giving other states the right to intervene in their internal affairs if such violations continue to occur" (Macleod 2006; 138).
   Many of the critics of the law of peoples support the ground on which Rawls makes his arguments and assumptions; supporting the proposition of the original position/veil of ignorance theory (Tasioulas 2005). It is with this minimal conception of 'urgent' human right where differences seem to occur.
 Indeed, on this point, Buchanan offers a scathing critique of Rawls underlying assumptions and arguments for this minimalist list of rights, arguing that it can result in;
  "a society in which there is a permanent racial, ethnic, religious, or gender underclass, hovering just above subsistence, systematically excluded from the more desirable economic positions, having grossly inferior property rights, lacking access to education and health services available to the dominant classes, unable to afford legal counsel and bereft of sophisticated due process protections available to others, would not be a society in which thus disadvantaged could comp[lain that their human rights were violated." (Buchanan 2006; 151).
    John Tasioulas' critique also looks into this problem of narrowness within the law of peoples. This is especially evident in Rawls' take on the 'right to life.' Tasioulas notes that Rawls' conception follows on from that of Shue's earlier work in what exactly 'subsistence' consists of. Shue argues that  this right secures access to "unpolluted air and water, adequate food, clothing and shelter, and a basic minimum of health care - thus enabling its holders to have what is needed for "a decent chance at a reasonably healthy and active life of more or less normal length, barring tragic intervention" (Tasioulas 2005, 16; Shue 1996, 23). Rawls' conception of what construes as the 'right to life' falls short of the pre-existing conception of what the 'right to life' is in international law; Tasioulas points out that "International lawyers standardly construe this as an entitlement to more than the means of subsistence." (Tasioulas 2005; 16). It is this commitment to a minimal conception of human rights that he argues shows the "inadequacy of a decent society on the score of welfare rights" he goes on to point out that "nothing in this definition prevents a decent society making lavish provision for the welfare of its members. But the concept of 'decency' is compatible with other, less attractive possibilities" (2005; 17). Indeed, this lack of fuller rights is again pointed out in regards to his definition of the 'freedom of conscience.' Tasioulas again argues that this conception is not sufficient; "A decent hierarchical society, on Rawls's account, must protect its members from religious persecution, but it need not grant them 'equal' freedom of religion. In particular, it is not prevented from establishing a state religion or excluding peoples from certain occupations on the ground of religious creed. Thus, the situation...sketched out would severely impair the ability of members of the minority to achieve an adequate living standards without unambiguously violating anything that Rawls would recognise as their human rights." (2005; 17).
   Indeed Tasioulas is not the only one to note that the law of peoples does not set a particularly high standard of human rights for a society of peoples to be branded 'decent.' M. Victoria Costa also argues that Rawls minimal conception of human rights is simply not enough.
   In a similar vein of argument as Tasioulas, Costa points out that Rawls 'urgent' human rights are considerably less demanding than the Universal declaration of Human rights (Costa 2006; 58). Costa acknowledges that Rawls purposely limits the scope of his conception of urgent human rights to achieve a decent level of legitimacy and tolerance of diverse cultures in an international community of peoples, however Costa argues that due to the fact that the rights represented within the universal declaration of human rights are "internationally acknowledged today, they are clearly candidates in the list of basic human rights, provided adequate political justification can be given for them" (2006; 58). In this regard, Costa see's little need for the narrow conception of rights in which Rawls commits to in the Law of peoples; "The universal declaration of human rights and the two subsequent covenants, both of which were the result of processes of international dialogue and both of which were endorsed by most countries of the world, testify to the wide acceptability of the idea of human rights. So too does the development of the current range of cooperative organizations designed to protect human rights all over the globe" (2006: 58-59).  Rawls often notes that this restricted list of rights in an effort to maintain tolerance and thus legitimacy in an international community, and Costa is not the only one who sees this as fundamentally flawed. Buchanan also argues similar point, from the basis that "there is nothing parochial about grounding human rights in basic human interests if, as seems clear enough, such interests exist" (Buchanan 2006; 159), he goes on to argue that;
   "if the goal is to be tolerant, there are many ways in which this can be achieved in the process of attempting to promulgate and institutionalize a theory of human rights that is grounded in assumptions about basic human interests or capabilities, without abandoning the whole enterprise. Tolerance can be given its due in many aspects of the institutionalized process of formulating human rights conventions and devising procedures to monitor compliance with their norms. For example, provision can be made, as it is in the current institutionalization of human rights, for ensuring that the various adjudication and compliance monitoring processes through which the content of human rights norms is specified and critically revised over time include inputs from a variety of cultural perspectives, under conditions of accurate information about what sorts of institutional arrangements are need to protect human beings basic interests" (2006; 159-160).   
  Thus it would appear that there is general consensus in the critique of Rawls's law of peoples. Firstly that there are underlying flaws and unanswered complexities that, once logically thought through, appear contradictory. These result in a minimalist, and generally pragmatic list of basic human rights (Macleod 2006). However, these flaws, once played out, reveal that it is entirely justifiable to enlarge this list of rights, and it is equally legitimate to enforce them. This is grounded upon the already, pre-existing 'consensus within the international community on human rights, embodied within already existing institutions such as the universal declaration of human rights. This is then should be the standard for which liberal peoples judge 'decent' peoples, and as such, inform their policy towards them.
   The manner in which these arguments are put forward is convincing in itself, not least because the need for pressing the issue of human rights is important. However, all these arguments are somewhat flawed in a similar, and somewhat obvious fashion. The work of David Reidy is useful in emphasising these issues. Indeed Reidy notes that "with respect to the content, nature and function, and justification of human rights, then, Rawls's position appears to be heterodox to some significant degree" (Reidy 2006;170), however, he argues that upon closer inspection. Rawls puts forward a far more robust defence of human rights that he is often given credit for. This argument is essentially broken down into two parts; misinterpreting, misreading or misunderstanding the language Rawls uses, and the current state of international law.
   To being with, that Rawls states that "Human rights set a necessary, though not sufficient, standard of decency of domestic and social intuitions" (Rawls 1999; 80). Reidy points out that it is in the section on human rights that Rawls "affairs as human rights, in the full and most fundamental sense of the term, the rights specified on articles 3-18 of the [universal declaration of human rights]. These include the central elements of due process and the rule of law.., the right to seek asylum..., the right to national identity..., and the right to freedom of movement" (Reidy 2006; 170). Indeed, Rawls's list of human rights is "rather more robust than many readers have been willing to acknowledge" (2006; 171).
   Despite this the law of peoples is certainly minimalist when compared to the universal declaration of human rights, as many liberal democratic rights are explicitly excluded. It is here where the role of pre-existing human rights entities comes into play. The most important observation that Reidy makes in this sense is that "strictly speaking, the [universal declaration of human rights] is not a legally binding document and all the parties signatory knew that when they signed." (2006; 172). This important distinction is one which Rawls makes, and which the critics have somehow failed to acknowledge. The Law of peoples on the other hand is significantly different to these pre-existing, non-binding and thus, apparitional standards. Rawls concern is with "those human rights binding on states regardless of and prior to any consent they may or may not give, human rights that must be secured for there to be anything like a morally acceptable international politics of human rights" (2006; 173).
   These points offer a convincing rebuttal to the critics of the Law of peoples in regards to the minimal list of human rights, and the legitimacy of intervention and enforcement. However there still exists the question of why liberal democracies states would not impose liberal democratic standards on 'decent non-liberal' peoples; indeed in building a universal set of human rights what would stop liberal peoples agreeing on "some general right to democratic political process, or to universal suffrage, or to non-discrimination in employment or eligibility to run for office?" (2006; 179). Again Reidy attempts to answer these criticisms. He points out that such standards, set a century ago, would exclude nations such as England and the U.S.A from a decent society of peoples, and thus loose the right of self determination and freedom from intervention (2006; 179 -180). Reidy argues that "given their own self-understanding, and with it the historical bases of their own amour proper, it would be unreasonable of liberal democratic peoples to authorize principles of international morality that permit the use of international force solely to secure the liberalization and democratization of such an apparently otherwise decent body politic" (2006; 180). In this light, the rights that would secure a state from intervention, and thus allow for self determination, are far more akin to those rights that Rawls sets out in a more 'charitable' reading of the Law of peoples.
   It would appear the that while the Law of peoples does not explicitly set out to defend human rights, the creation of a community of decent, well ordered peoples should, in theory, lead to an international community in which the most fundamental human rights are not only respected, but built upon. While there have been valuable critical accounts of the law of peoples; the arguments made, the clarity and the minimalist list of rights, it is clear that these have been rather misleading in their interpretations. It is certainly true that the law of peoples could function with a broader list of human rights, and still function in a similar way as the universal declaration of human rights, however that is not the principle aim of the law of peoples. Simply put then, the law of peoples aims to establish an international order, in which exists a list of basic human rights that "bind all states regardless of their consent" (2006; 185). In this regard then Rawls law of peoples, while not explicitly defending human rights, offers are more convincing and enforceable system to do so than the current system. Indeed, in his conclusion Reidy even goes as far as to state that  "if we conjoin Rawls's doctrine of basic human rights with the foregoing account of the politics of human rights, we see that Rawls has set out a powerful vision of how free peoples, following their own historical path and faithful to the limits of liberal conception of international right, might arrive at a world within which (at least generically) liberal democratic rights are universally recognised and enforced as human (though not basic human) rights" (2006; 186).
Bibliography

• Buchanan, Allen (2006). 'Taking the Human out of Human Rights', In Rex Martin and David A. Reidy (Ed's), Rawls's Law of Peoples: A Realistic Utopia? , Blackwell: Oxford.
  
• Costa, M. Victoria (2005). 'Human Rights and the Global Original Position Argument in The Law of Peoples', Journal of social philosophy, 36: 1,  p. 46-6.
  
• Macleod, Alistair M. (2006). 'Rawls's Narrow Doctrine of Human Rights, In Rex Martin and David A. Reidy (Ed's), Rawls's Law of Peoples: A Realistic Utopia? , Blackwell: Oxford.
  
• Rawls, John (1986). A Theory of Justice, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
  
• Rawls, John (1999). The Law of Peoples with 'The Idea of Public Reason Revisited,' Harvard University Press: Massachusetts.
  
• Reidy, David A. (2006). 'Political Authority and Human Rights', In Rex Martin and David A. Reidy (Ed's), Rawls's Law of Peoples: A Realistic Utopia? , Blackwell: Oxford.Tasioulas,
•  John (2005). 'Global Justice Without End?', Metaphilosophy, 35:1/2.
  

84. Because you need educating. Political essay 4. Positive and Negative Freedom.

Following on from my previous post about Why politics Matters...

I'm going to talk about Freedom and equality; what exactly freedom is in practice (why we need rules to be free), and then using this as a sort of basis we'll talk about ensuring freedoms and entitlement in another post.

As for this post; it is about freedom and the difficulties of defining it.

Now you may be wondering why the fuck this is important.
Well hold on for some logic here folks

Isiah Berlin came up with the concept of two types of freedom; positive and negative; freedom to and freedom from.
While his concept is flawed in aspects it does make some valid points.

Essentially, we need rules to guarantee a better quality of freedom for all.
We give up certain rights to ensure others.
For example; the right to kill everyone is given up, so we in turn are safe.

We give up certain rights ot ensure that we have a basic level of human rights for all...
Almost like the European Bill of Human rights that most of the front running Tories want to tear up... oh shit.
'How can such people possibly get to power? you may ask.

This is what happens when you put the 'remove all external restrictions about removing human rights' stick in front of the 'I'm a rich white privileged asshole' power hungry Tory.
Slight bias opinion? Maybe.
But go check out the voting patterns of all the Tory leadership candidates.
Most of them have admitted at some point or another, to removing some, if not all, of the EUBR.

And all of this is happening, because Leave is dragging us out of the EU and possibly all our other European obligations (depending on how fucked international relations are afterwards).
Regardless, they will weaken powers when and where they can.


Anyway, read this for more.


  “Contrary to what Isaiah Berlin argues, no hard and fast distinction can be drawn between negative and positive freedom.” Discuss.

     Freedom is a concept that is at the basis of a large amount of political and philosophical debate, both in the past and the present. Despite these lively debates it is difficult to pin down exactly what freedom entails. Some would argue that freedom is the ability to do whatever one desires, (freedom as 'want satisfaction'), however this does not work in reality as it is possible to inflict upon another's 'freedom.' In an attempt describe the nature of freedom, Isaiah Berlin argues there are 'Two concepts of liberty;' 'Positive' and 'Negative' forms of freedom. However, there are those who criticise such a stark distinction between these forms of freedom. Some disagree with this duel distinction of liberty, such as Gerald MacCallum, whom argues that "there is but one concept of liberty"(Gaus 2000: 98); one of a three part structure. Other critics such as Gerald F. Gaus argue that it is important "not to overstate the differences between negative and positive liberty"(Gaus 2000: 98), and that the key factor is one of choice. In light of these critiques of Berlin's 'two concepts of liberty' some would argue that there is no clear distinction between negative and positive freedom. This statement has some truth to it, as the critics of Berlin show, however, as Gaus writes "although the distinction is not quite so stark as some have thought, it seems that Berlin has made a powerful case that the different interpretations of liberty are grounded on different, indeed competing, understandings of value, reason and human nature" (Gaus 2000: 98). To understand the extent of contrast between negative and positive freedom, it is important to examine both the arguments supporting Berlin's theory and the various criticism and alternate approaches to this contested concept of freedom.

   Berlin; whom uses liberty and freedom interchangeably, argues that the negative sense of freedom is "involved in the answer to the question 'What is the area within which the subject - a person or group of persons- is or should be left to do or to be, without interference by other persons?'"(Berlin 2002: 169). While on the other hand positive freedom is "involved in the answer to the question 'what, or who, is the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather that that?'"(Berlin 2002: 169). In essence, Negative freedom is the freedom from external interference and Positive freedom is the freedom to act. Berlin acknowledges the fact these are different forms of freedom, however that "the answers to them may overlap" (Berlin 2002: 169). Negative liberty; the freedom from interference, describes the degree of interference on an individual by other individuals or institutions; "the wider the area of non-interference the wider [the individuals] freedom"(Berlin 2002: 170). Berlin points out however that there is need for some restriction on an individual's freedoms; "we must give up some of our liberty to preserve the rest" (Berlin 2002: 173). Negative liberty deals with the level of interface on freedom (for good reasons of bad), while on the other hand Positive liberty on the "the wish on the part of the individual to be his own master" (Berlin 2002: 178); the individual's ability to act in their own best interest. In addition Berlin argues that, to an extent, an individual can be "coerced for [their] own good, which [the individual] is too blind to see" (Berlin 2002: 180), as "this may, on occasion, be for [their] benefit; indeed it may enlarge the scope of [the individual's] liberty" (Berlin 2002: 180). In essence therefore positive liberty is the expansion of individual's liberty, regardless of others. It is in this characteristic that Berlin finds fault with the concept of positive liberty; "To an extent of a man's, or a people's, liberty to chose to live as he or they desire must be weighed against the claims of many other values, of which equality, or justice, or happiness, or security, or public order are perhaps the most obvious examples. For this reason, it cannot be unlimited" (Berlin 2002: 215). This is the distinction between positive and negative freedom; positive allows little room for other individual's liberty and other values. Negative liberty on the other hand is a more pluralistic 'ideal' as it recognises "the fact that human goals are many, not all of them commensurable, and in perpetual rivalry with one another" (Berlin 2002: 216). It is for these reasons that Berlin argues that not only are the two forms of freedom different, but that negative freedom is preferable to positive freedom, as it allows for a greater equality before the law for those being ruled over.

    Despite the arguments of Berlin, there are those that do not agree with this distinction between the two concepts of liberty. MacCallum states that the challenges to Berlin's view have nothing to do with a 'truer' freedom; a reference to Berlin's preference of negative freedom, but rather "that the distinction between them has never been made sufficiently clear" (MacCallum 1991: 100). He argues that the problem with this distinction is that, like in most instances, there is confusion over what exactly constitutes as 'freedom.' MacCallum suggests that only by measuring questions of 'freedom' against the conditions of freedom; the triadic formula, "taking the format x is (is not) free from y to do (not do, become, not become) z,' x ranges over agents, y ranges over such 'preventing conditions' as constraints, restrictions, interferences, and barriers and z ranges over actions or conditions of character or circumstance" (MacCallum 1991: 102), can a distinction of freedom be made. MacCallum concluded by writing that the "discussion of the freedom of agents can be fully intelligible and rationally assessed only after the specification of each term of this triadic relation has been made or at least understood...this single 'concept' of freedom puts us in a position to see the interesting and important ranges of issues separating philosophers who write about freedom in such different ways, and the ideologies that treat freedom so differently" (MacCallum 1991: 121). In the context of Berlin's 'two concepts of liberty' it is clear that MacCallum feels that it is not possible to make such a distinction between 'freedoms,' and that "the analysis and understandings of discussions of freedom should not, therefore, be expected to produce always a neat ordering of the discussion, but it will help further to delimit the alternatives of reasonable interpretation" (MacCallum 1991: 121).

   Berlin however disagrees with MacCallum, arguing that "a man struggling against his chains or a people against enslavement need not consciously aim at any definite further state. A man need not know how he will use his freedom; he just wants to remove the yoke" (Berlin cited in Gaus 2000: 95). This argument takes the focus away from the conditions and aims of an individual's freedom; the individual in question may not have any knowledge of potential freedom opportunities, and concentrates on the approach to the analysis of liberty; in doing so Berlin insists that the questions of positive liberty; 'who governs me?', and negative liberty; 'how much am I governed?' are still relevant. This further distinction has also been challenged. "Positive liberty tie[s] freedom very close to reason; a free person must be a person who acts according to reason rather than through impulse, superstition, or custom or out of ignorance. In contrast, what has been called pure negative liberty seems to understand freedom without and reference to what is rational for a person to do: it does not concern itself at all with why a person acts, only whether this act is obstructed" (Gaus 2000: 96). Drawing on the writings of John Stuart Mill, Gerald F. Gaus argues that this distinction between positive and negative liberty is flawed; there is more to 'negative' freedom than just the obstacles to choices. According to Gaus "A free act must in some sense be chosen. To act freely, one must be capable of choice, or be a chooser, and one must exercise that capacity...Free action, even in the negative sense of freedom, thus does, after all, presuppose the exercise of a capacity: the capacity for voluntary choice" (Gaus 2000: 96). Essentially this means that the concept of negative freedom cannot be fully understood by only taking into account external interference, as ultimately an individual has to make a choice before being restricted; "although negative freedom is by no means to be equated to autonomy, it does presuppose the exercise of a more modest capacity, autarchy, the capacity to choose" (Gaus 2000: 97). It in this context that the concept of negative freedom can be seen as 'self defeating', as it falls back on assumptions of the exercise of choice; as only "choosers can be denied political liberty" (Gaus 2000: 98), while at the same time criticising that same exercise in the positive conception of liberty.

   Despite these criticisms of Berlin's 'two concepts of liberty' it "seems that [he] has made out a powerful case that the different interpretations of liberty are grounded on different, indeed competing, understandings of value, reason, and human nature" (Gaus 2000: 98). It is with this idea of competing human nature in mind that Maria Dimova-Cookson argues a "new scheme of the relation between positive and negative freedom that is based both on a retrieval of T. H. Green's theory of freedom and some further reconstructions of his theory"  (Dimova-Cookson 2003: 508). The problem she identifies with the 'two concepts' is that the distinctions between the two have been difficult to maintain, and as such has lead to increasing criticism. It is argued that freedom can be split into a political sphere; negative and positive freedom, and a personal sphere; juristic and 'true' freedom, and although the two are similar there are key differences between the two. In the personal sphere juristic freedom is "the power to act according to preference" (Dimova-Cookson 2003: 513), whilst 'true' freedom is found in the "pursuit of self-perfection, in the pursuit of something that the individual believes to be truly good and that will bring [them] permanent satisfaction" (Dimova-Cookson 2003: 513). In essence, doing what you want one the one side, and doing what you should on the other; ordinary action and moral action; "While the pursuit of the moral good implies the intention to good for the others, the pursuit of the ordinary good does not imply such an intention" (Dimova-Cookson 2003: 513). It is clear in this context the Berlin prefers the ordinary/juristic freedom, whilst Green the moral/'true' freedom. Dimova-Cookson on the other hand argues that while there is a clear distinction between the two, "one's moral good translates to another's ordinary good" (Dimova-Cookson 2003: 516), It is this difference in perspective that she argues is the key distinction between Negative and Positive freedom in the political sphere as well; "In the case of positive freedom, the agent exercises his freedom in his 'capacity' as a producer of moral goods; in the case of negative freedom, the agent is a 'recipient' of such goods. As there necessarily two sides to each moral interaction - productive and recipient counterparts - political freedom has its two aspects - positive and negative" (Dimova-Cookson 2003: 524).

  It would seem that Berlin's 'two concepts of liberty' are inherently flawed. The many critics of the concepts of Positive and Negative freedom have pointed out its various shortcomings; The lack of specific terms regarding  the extent of freedom as seen through the use of the triadic analysis formula, and the idea that all negative liberty is self defeating based on the assumption of choice in all forms of freedom. Despite this it would seem the Berlin's distinction between the two has merit, and when explored in more depth through the personal and political spheres it would seem that the "same social circumstances that make the exercise of positive freedom imperative...make the demand for negative freedom legitimate" (Dimova-Cookson 2003: 528). This may not be the distinction at the heart of Berlin's argument in 'two concepts of liberty,' but it would seem that while both concepts of liberty are intertwined, the "defence of positive freedom, can strengthen the grounds for defending negative freedom" (Dimova-Cookson 2003: 528). As such a clear distinction can be made between the two; a distinction of perspective.

Bibliography.

·         Berlin, Isaiah (2002). Liberty. New York: Oxford University Press.

·         Dimova-Cookson, Maria (2003). 'A new scheme of positive and negative freedom: reconstructing T. H. Green on Freedom', Political Theory, 31: 508, pp. 508 - 532.

·         Gaus, Gerald F (2000). Political Concepts and Political Theories. Oxford: West View Press.

·         MacCallum, Gerald C (1991). 'Negative and Positive Freedom,' in D Miller (ed.), Liberty. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 100 - 122.