Liberty

[Fishersjohn48]

Liberty: A word we are all familiar with yet when I recently sat down and thought about it, it became difficult to define. Each individual is free to define it in his or her own way. I always took it as meaning the right of individuals or groups of individuals to govern themselves.

I thought it would be interesting to hear what others definition of Liberty is. So what is YOUR definition?

 

[rambone]

Liberty is doing things without permission from the government; being free to act as long as you are not hurting someone else.

 

[hooky]

Good question. I'll start with this and it will probably evolve as I think more about it.

The freedom to do to my body or personal property whatever I please as long as I don't do anything harmful to another's body or property without their prior consent.

 

[justjoe]

Liberty is freedom from tyranny, either from the government or an individual. Websters defines tyranny as: The government or authority of a tyrant; a country governed by an absolute ruler; hence, arbitrary or despotic exercise of power; exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the purposes of government.

 

[Mad Brew]

I've always defined liberty as the ability to act without limitation yet without infringing upon the ability of another to do the same.

Meaning people should be able to do as they please, unless those actions prevent someone else from enjoying their own liberty. But I think there needs to be a qualifier about just because someone finds an act offensive, it does not mean that act infringes upon their liberty. However, I also think people should be able to find sanctuary from acts they find offensive, so... there are exceptions that apply to private property (whether owned or rented) as well as public areas.

 

[Pocketman]

Liberty is doing things without permission from the government; being free to act as long as you are not hurting someone else.

Define "hurting someone else." If your actions cause someone else, or society in general, to incur financial loss, would that be considered harmful to others?

 

[Mad Brew]

As an addendum, I believe that liberty should be blind to gender, religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and creed. So if men have the liberty to go topless, then so should women. If heterosexuals can kiss in public, so can homosexuals.

The only two limiting factors on liberty I can think of is history of infringement (i.e. criminals) and lack of experience/knowledge/capability (i.e. such as age for driving/drinking or licensing for doctors).

 

[CulpeperMM]

you can't have Liberty if you are dependent on others, whether by their charity or by extortion or racketeering. I think Liberty requires independence. If you can be made destitute by a change in welfare laws or an interruption of social security checks or the like, then you certainly are not independent, and i'd argue that your Liberty is at least impaired, if not non-existent. How can you have Liberty when a threat of reduction of "benefits" makes you cower.

i would say 90% of Americans have little true Liberty, in so much as they have exchanged it for the "security" of state. whether it be employment in a government run bank or auto manufacturer, or military-industrial manufacturer/contractor, medicare/medicaid provider hospital, or by direct welfare.

15% of all americans (~47 Million) receive food stamps
49% of americans of voting age pay no income taxes but receive or are promised some benefits
18% of americans (of all ages) currently receive social security, and 50% will expect it in the next 30 years.

By allowing the Federal Government to spend 21% of GDP each year (only taking in 14% in taxes) we have surrendered our Liberty.

If the Federal Government said that you had to submit to a guns confiscation scheme (including inspection of premises) in order to receive Social Security or to be employed by a Federal agency or a contractor to the federal government or to receive medicare benefits (even as a provider), what would happen?.

90% of the billy bad asses would hand over their guns to keep the checks coming.

Americans need to rediscover Liberty.

I think John Locke defined Liberty as being able to do anything as long as it doesn't infringe on the Life, Liberty, or Property of others (paraphrasing). Americans do not have Liberty by that definition.

My great grandparents died may years ago (i was a child). they didn't have alot, but they had chickens and a garden and didn't need anything from anybody til the day they died in their own home (80+ years old). They were charitable to their neighbors and firm with their children. I think they had Liberty, if nothing else.

There may be a few Americans that have still have Liberty. If there are, I envy them.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

In consideration of potentially "stupid prizes."

And as long as your "Liberty" doesn't make you medically dependent on me. "... my body, my house ..." is Liberty until the sniff-dog detects your manufacture or use of "stupid prize" chemicals. Libertarians don't really want to understand OTHERS' Liberty -- only their own. "No man is an island" nor fortress to himself.

Good question. I'll start with this and it will probably evolve as I think more about it.

The freedom to do to my body or personal property whatever I please as long as I don't do anything harmful to another's body or property without their prior consent.

 

[Mad Brew]

Define "hurting someone else." If your actions cause someone else, or society in general, to incur financial loss, would that be considered harmful to others?

Even though I'm not the OP, I'd like to chime in on this. I would say that yes, causing someone to incur financial loss would be infringing on their liberty, but only if it's beyond the needs of the community (i.e. taxes are necessary to sustain a society which provides the liberty).

I wonder if that is where this question is heading: the great tax debate.

Some people view anarchy as the ultimate state of freedom, but anarchy is an illusion at best and transitory power vacuum at worst. The only world in which anarchy could exist is one where individuals were isolated and unaware of each other and had sufficient resources and natural physical boundaries to keep them from bumping into one another.

Practical liberty is a trade-off between security and freedom within a society. The more freedom a society allows, the more likely liberty will be stripped unwillingly from those who cannot defend themselves as people with power and might taken what they can. But if you go too far the other way, then it's just as bad, but it's done by the state in interest of security.

So I guess practical liberty really dissolves into the greatest well-being for the greatest number of people.... well-being being defined as freedom of choice and free from worry about safety & livelihood.

 

[hooky]

And as long as your "Liberty" doesn't make you medically dependent on me. "... my body, my house ..." is Liberty until the sniff-dog detects your manufacture or use of "stupid prize" chemicals. Libertarians don't really want to understand OTHERS' Liberty -- only their own. "No man is an island" nor fortress to himself.

This is why I can't agree with legalizing drugs, until I'm not on the hook for your choices.

I can't have liberty unless everyone else has it too. If everyone did have liberty, then cook whatever you want and ingest as much as you'd like. Just don't get any of it on me.

 

[spencer rifle]

the greatest well-being for the greatest number of people....

The motive used by statists and progressive moral busybodies for generations to impose their "superiority" upon us.

 

[Mad Brew]

"No man is an island" nor fortress to himself.

I think you nailed it there. I think it would be hard to say anyone is independent of the rest of society. Even if you're living off grid somewhere deep in northern Alaska and subsisting on what the land provides and only with tools not provided by other people (i.e. like the stone age with found/modified tools), that land is protected (in theory) from being confiscated by other entities (national or private) by the United States government, backed by a military powered by citizens and funded by taxes.

Most people depend on the rest of society in ways they fail to realize: roads, education, security, internet - they are all provided by society via government & taxes. Stuff many people just take for granted, but couldn't live without even though they cry foul at idea of taxes being used to heal the sick (I value life over roads and meaningless wars, but YMMV).

I'm probably coming off sounding like a liberal loon, which is fine since I come off sounding like a crazy conservative when I talk about fiscal responsibility and gun rights elsewhere. Anyways, like I said before, practical liberty (i.e. what we have in reality, not theory) is a balancing act between security and freedom. Complete freedom means murder isn't a crime while complete security means mindless servitude to the State.

 

[justjoe]

So I guess practical liberty really dissolves into the greatest well-being for the greatest number of people.... well-being being defined as freedom of choice and free from worry about safety & livelihood.[/QUOTE]


From each according to their ability, to each according to their need!