Minarchy May Be The Only Viable Practical Path To Freedom

[r3volution 3.0]

....in order to truly 'comm'unicate we must have a 'comm'on understanding of the terms, concepts, etc. we use...

...and i've found very very very few people, if any, who share a truly 'comm'on understanding of 'liberty'.

In ordinary English, "liberty" has a vague meaning.

In the liberal/libertarian tradition - from Locke to Mises to Rothbard - it has a very precise meaning.

Liberty is the absence of aggression. What is aggression? The violation of property rights. What is a property right? An exclusive right to use something. So then, what does it mean to violate a property right? To use something owned by another person without their permission. How does one acquire property rights? By appropriating previously unowned natural resources, by voluntary exchange with others, or - should one be the victim of a crime - as compensation from the criminal.

That's liberalism/libertarianism in a nutshell. The concepts are quite simple. Any confusion must result from people using ordinary English connotations of "liberty," without understanding the term's special meaning in the context of liberal/libertarian political philosophy.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

....the 'absence of aggression' is what i might call 'peace'...the 'absence of restraint' is what i might call 'liberty'..'freedom'...'anarchy'...etc..

 

[paleocon1]

I would prefer a real Republic which systematically excludes those with transnational progressive tendencies from the electorate.

 

[osan]

....the 'absence of aggression' is what i might call 'peace'...the 'absence of restraint' is what i might call 'liberty'..'freedom'...'anarchy'...etc..

Or compulsion.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

Or compulsion.

...or 'government,' etc....which is why i equate 'liberty' with 'anarchy'...

...i'd like to go back to my statement that in order to truly 'comm'unicate we must have a 'comm'on understanding of the words/terms we use...r3volution 3.0 wrote: "Liberty is the absence of aggression. What is aggression? The violation of property rights. What is a property right? An exclusive right to use something. So then, what does it mean to violate a property right? To use something owned by another person without their permission. How does one acquire property rights? By appropriating previously unowned natural resources, by voluntary exchange with others, or - should one be the victim of a crime - as compensation from the criminal.

That's liberalism/libertarianism in a nutshell. The concepts are quite simple. Any confusion must result from people using ordinary English connotations of "liberty," without understanding the term's special meaning in the context of liberal/libertarian political philosophy."

...firstly, are there any others here who perceive 'liberty' the same way r3volution 3.0 does???!...secondly, can R3 name even one 'liberty' candidate whose policie$ don't FREQUENTLY harm 'liberty', 'property rights,' etc.. (hint: i believe you'll find there are no 'property rights'...only property privilege$...)

 

[osan]

...or 'government,' etc....which is why i equate 'liberty' with 'anarchy'...

Try this: http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2012/12/autodiathism.html

...i'd like to go back to my statement that in order to truly 'comm'unicate we must have a 'comm'on understanding of the words/terms we use..

And this: http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2009/11/langauge-and-freedom.html

r3volution 3.0 wrote: "Liberty is the absence of aggression. What is aggression? The violation of property rights. What is a property right? An exclusive right to use something. So then, what does it mean to violate a property right? To use something owned by another person without their permission. How does one acquire property rights? By appropriating previously unowned natural resources, by voluntary exchange with others, or - should one be the victim of a crime - as compensation from the criminal.

And this: http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2009/11/what-is-freedom.html

 

[Natural Citizen]

Liberty is the absence of aggression.

Individual Liberty means against Government-over-Man. And the term Liberty should never be offered in dialogue absent the term Responsibilty. Liberty-Responsibility. They are Indivisible terms that should always be offered together in context if one is sincere in his argument.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

natural citizen writes: Individual Liberty means against Government-over-Man.



...this is much too squishy...too wishy-washy and vague for me...

...'government' is a MAN-MADE construct in essence...therefore, you are saying 'individual liberty means against MAN-over-man'...

..but i assume you are in favor of some 'men' being denied 'individual liberty' by other 'men', right?...

...please get down to ground and be clear...be specific...avoid platitudes...