I cant remember if it was @finnian, or @growpro that recommended I write an article about what liberty means to me, Honestly I kinda blew it off because I thought it was honestly too obvious, easy and was a shit post honestly. Using liberty and freedom just being buzzwords and tags to get views and up-votes. But after reading other people's ideas and interpretations of what liberty is... I see that it's not obvious AT ALL.
Some people think that it is complete and utter chaos with people just doing whatever they want with no responsibilities, or repercussions for their actions. Some people think that it is completely anti-state / anti government / anti establishment and that "Real" liberty minded people can't/won't /shouldn't ever co-operate with them ever, under no circumstances.
These people in my opinion are dangerous and ridiculous; they are committing a logical falicy, specifically the no true Scotsman falicy. Personally I consider this very dangerous for others that are supporting and believe in personal liberty. As it (the mentality) turns us (liberty minded people) against each other and will turn us against each other, and undermine the cause.
Liberty to me is simple; the freedom to do whatever you would like as long as ALL parties involved and impacted are consenting. Its really not that hard, don't force people to do shit they don't want; don't force people to pay for shit that they don't want/need; don't force people into anything they do not consent to. This is super freaking easy in my opinion. The main problem with this is that it is now VERY common for people to hate and be intolerant of people who have opinions different from theirs. Instead of just disagreeing and going their separate ways people try to force others into changing their opinions and their views.
Think about this; think about what liberty means to you..... What does liberty mean to you personally, let me know what you think.
To me at least, my individual liberty stops when something I do infringes upon yours. There will always be rules against harm to others and their property, and I should also keep my word (contracts).
Differences in opinion should never be the deciding factor. The deciding factor should be whether someone or their property has been harmed or a contract they agreed to has been broken.
",,,,do whatever you would like as long as ALL parties involved and impacted are consenting" Seems we are fairly close to same ideas. The non-consent is the breaking of the contract or "word".
Yes, this gets into voluntaryism too. Are all parties consenting and voluntary or not? That's the key to something being ethical or not.
You have a minor misspelling in the following sentence:
It should be believe instead of belive.lol thanks
It's a hard one because we were not born equal. Meaning that we did choose our parent, how wealthy they are or the country of our birth. That single factor determines what opportunities are available to us and the ease of getting them.
It is only when you look at this issue can you make a framework for what liberty is. If you want to look at where your political alignments actually lie it is worthwhile doing the Political Compass.
The rest of the site is interesting too as it pitches political philosophers on the chart too. I come out sitting on top of Thomas Paine ....maybe a hairbreadth to the left.
There are my results. I'm not surprised by them at all. Thanks for the link to the test!
I was born dirt poor. I guess I won the lottery DNA wise and geographically though, because hard work has paid off. This is one reason I'm all for open travel by peaceful people too. If you are born and raised in a lousy place, move to a better place. Instead, we are locked into different tax farms, and people are often stuck where they are born.
I was born in a country which is bottom of the OECD developed nations social mobility rankings. ie if you were born poor you aren't going anywhere. When I was a small kid I went to a primary school in a really bad area. We moved simply because my parents jumped on an opportunity. At 28 there was a class reunion. My best friend from that time was a grandmother 3 times over (boggle at the fact she was 28)and all the boys in the year except for three were dead. The cleverest boy in the class wasn't dead but wasn't at the reunion. He was selling stolen car batteries in the local bar. Rather colored my viewpoints on wealth, liberty and opportunity.
But... you're here. You're talking to me, and we are very far apart geographically I'm guessing. You can read, write, and speak my language (not saying it's best or anything). Just the fact that you're talking to me in this discussion means you've "made it" in a sense. You're not quitting, you've worked hard in the right ways, and you're not giving up.
I'm an agorist too, so we could discuss the cleverest boy a bit more too if you ever wanted. I don't agree that people should steal other people's property, but even that has qualifications. I wouldn't blame a starving man from taking from my field of food in other words. I might however ask him to work that field in exchange for the food. Have you shared your story at all on here?
The reason I'm here is purely luck rather than good judgement. I also don't think of it as a story as it is rather everyday for a lot of people in the world. It is just that the chattering classes tend to walk round in blinkers and shout down anything that does not conform to a set of narratives that they have built up over the years. Having said that I have built up my own set of narratives and while I do try to listen it is rare that I actually divert from them.
I'm also not big on philosophers and economists from a wealthy background creating solutions for poverty as they generally don't understand the implications of their actions.
Every action has consequences. You've made a lot of good choices, or you would not be here writing to me. That's not luck. Fortune favors the prepared. I don't believe in luck.