I’d like to know what is everyones definition of freedom? Can you say that egalitarianism is freedom?
And now for the libertarian logomachy to ensue…
Absence of involuntary (‘coercive’, ‘political’) exchanges.
The words ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ are not usually distinguished in any systematic or significant way. They simply have different roots in the English language. ‘Liberty’ has its origins in the Latin ‘libertas’. ‘Freedom’ comes from the Old English ‘freodom’.
It is usually not necessary to discuss what we mean by a particular word. We can take it for granted that others mean the same thing as we do. But this is not always true with the fundamental words that arise in moral, social and political contexts. One such ambiguous and disputed word is ‘liberty’. So it is necessary to give some kind of definition or even theory of ‘liberty’ before we can say clearly why it is important.
‘Liberty’ in its most general sense refers to the absence of constraints on something. Here we are interested in the absence of constraints on people by other people. There are two main ways to interpret this, which we can call zero-sum liberty and non-invasive liberty.
Zero-sum liberty
With zero-sum liberty, one person’s loss of liberty is always another person’s gain in liberty. If someone takes my car without my permission, then I lose the liberty to use that car and the taker gains the liberty to use that car. This has implications that can be used as criticisms. 1) Such liberty cannot be maximised for all, it can only be competed over or shared in some way. 2) Competing over liberty does not sound desirable but is even equality of such liberty much better? What exactly does it mean? Why is it desirable? Does it require continual political intervention to enforce the equality? 3) In any case, it follows that the standard for what types of liberty matter (liberty to do this but not liberty to do that) must be something other than liberty. But many people think that a conception of liberty itself should be the standard of what is allowable. 4) This view means that we have to balance the ‘liberty’ of a thief, or other aggressor, against that of his victims. Do we really think that this is what we are, and ought to be, doing? The zero-sum conception of liberty gives us problems rather than solutions. Yet people do sometimes talk of liberty in this way.
Non-Invasive Liberty
Non-invasive liberty agrees with the popular view of liberty as not being interfered with, or not being proactively imposed on, by other people. Not being attacked or robbed is part of liberty; attacking or robbing people is not part of liberty. And this has implications that look more like solutions than problems. 1) In principle, anyone in a society can have complete liberty. 2) In principle, everyone in a society can have complete liberty at the same time. 3) A clear and crucial distinction is now possible between (non-invasive) liberty and (invasive) licence. We can say that a thief, or other aggressor, is exercising licence and not liberty. And those who resist an aggressor (or use coercion to recover restitution from an aggressor) are merely protecting their own liberty, not limiting the (non-invasive) liberty of the aggressor. 4) Such liberty is not only desired by everyone but is generally also thought desirable for everyone, at least to a large degree.
External property ownership and even self-ownership itself are consequences of maximising non-invasive liberty. Therefore, expressed in more practical and plain terms, ‘liberty’ means being able to do what you like with your own body and your own property (as long as you are not thereby proactively imposing on the body or property of others). This sense of ‘liberty’ is what libertarians, or classical liberals, mean when they advocate liberty. This is also the dominant conception of liberty within Western history and it applies to any society that is described as generally ‘liberal’. It is the importance of this liberty that we are explaining.
‘Freedom’ is a rhetorical device. Everyone is for ‘freedom’.
Liberty in a general legal sense means that one is presumed to be able to act unless someone else can cite a specific reason they ought to be prevented, i.e., if they can prove a tort.
Liberty the way most people use it, libertarians included, is a rhetorical device.
Freedom is merely a very temporal transitory step to be “rid of” something in order to have the power “to do” something. Freedom does not matter when push comes to shove, power does.
This is my body. It’s not yours. You have no rights to it. It is not part of your family, tribe, clan, province, kingdom, country, state, nation, people, class or religion unless I say so.
That’s freedom.
That’s freedom.This is my body. It’s not yours. You have no rights to it. It is not part of your family, tribe, clan, province, kingdom, country, state, nation, people, class, religion or race unless I f**king say so.
That’s freedom.
No. Egalitarianism is the antithesis of freedom. Equality is sameness, we can’t be free if we’re supposed to be the same.
As for the definition of freedom, I agree with Ricky James Moore II. Every ideology somehow proclaims to bring about freedom. Only libertarians are right about it. For libertarians freedom is the absence of coercion.
Not being thretened if I do not pay taxes or government fines.
Ricky James Moore II wins the thread.
^ people should be allowed to do what they want, except when they shouldn’t?
doesn’t seem like a very helpful definition to me.
by that definition everyone believes in “liberty”, it’s just that many people disagree over when others “ought to be prevented” from “acting”.
The definition of freedom is not complicated. Freedom means that which the government does not control. You are free when the government cannot steal your income, when it cannot tell you what to say or with whom you may or may not associate. You are free when the government cannot take your kids and send them to far-flung wars to kill and be killed. You are free when you control your life, your property, your church, your business, and your future. You are free when the government cannot inflate away your savings, tax away your profits, lay waste to your dividends by regimenting corporate life, or controlling how much of what you buy and sell from where. - Lew Rockwell
Do I win?
blueline,
“You are free when you control your life, your property, your church, your business, and your future.”
Definitions like that always confuse me.
they seem to operate on the notion that “coercion” and “force” can be well defined. i’m not sure they can.
for example, i am “free” to choose to go to work today or not. if i choose not to go to work i will be fired, so i will have to weigh that cost against the benefits of not going in making my decision. but by lew’s definition i am still in control of my future and therefore “free” with respect to this choice.
what if my boss came to my house and held a gun to my head and said that if i didn’t go to work I was dead? Now is he “forcing” me to go work? I don’t know. in a very real sense, i still have control over my situation. I can still choose to not go to work, it is just that the cost of doing so is now much higher. so how is this situation qualitatively different from the previous one? i don’t see a clear distinction.
now, i don’t want to get into a philosophical discussion or anything. i just think terms like “freedom” and “liberty” are much more ambigious and “squishy” than some people let on.