That means that everyone has access to those means. Many liberals and most conservatives do not support providing free housing, healthcare and groceries to people who don’t work. That’s why it’s a leftist take.

[–] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I don't disagree, my point is that people in this thread have got positive and negative freedoms and rights mixed up

[–] Sop@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 8 months ago

Ah okay. I thought you were saying that those takes aren’t political because everyone wants it. (Which is obviously not true).

As far as I understand in Marxism freedom is understood as having all the means necessary to make decisions over your own live, like education, housing and healthcare. So ‘freedom to’ would be used in the context of having freedom to choose your own path.

Freedom to have a house is in that sense sounds to me like an example of the capitalist definition of freedom from restrictions, because the freedom to have a house means freedom from land ownership laws that currently prevent most people from owning the land they live on (or claiming land for their own that isn’t in use if they’re houseless)