The Philosophy Of Liberty Which Collectivists Will Never Understand!
 

This is the creed I go by as the definition of liberty or more properly called Individual liberty:


This is something that collectivists be it Socialists or Communists (A communist is just a Socialist in a hurry) simply cannot grasp as their mind can only think in collective terms as that of the group and never as of the individual.

This is a philosophy I try to live by. I really like those 10 points, have saved those :D

I believe freedom, although it's a very basic value, is not the only one on which society stands; in fact, freedom is a merely individual value. When other individuals appear and join, equality (or the lack of it) appears as another value; and if an individual or group takes the power and rules over them, we've got justice as another value to take in count.

Freedom, Equality, Justice.

I also add that the base of all of them must be Truth, because it's the only way to reach them; and anything ruled by lies cannot work and instead leads to violent situations such as conflicts about who owns the land.

Anyway, I think I have freedom very well defined on an essay I've been working on since a few months; but I have to translate it from Spanish so give me some time to post it here.

Translation is very rough.

May I ask what is it that you find obscure about this philosophy and the 10 illustrated points? Because to me is crystal clear and it covers just about everything that needs to be covered.

I don't think it's obscure at all, but just covers the individual part of philosophy. Focusing solely on freedom we might produce anarchist-like postures; so it is important to focus also on how to give an fair and equal treatment to our surroundings, and on how to govern correctly, with justice.

Again, I believe those three values are basic for any society. They must be in a fair balance (excess of equality may kill freedom, excess of freedom may kill equality, lack of justice kills both freedom and equality, and such...), what is not easy to reach.

That's all I have to say, I think.

And notice that point number 5 is antidemocratic: minorities are imposed a ruler they didn't choose.

Actually no because we do not live a in true democracy and thank God we do not but in a Republican form of government where individual rights are protected by a constitution as opposed to being subject by the whims of the majority, more on this latter.

Actual democracy is scarier, we've just democratized the previous system we had: feudalism; hence why we feel the urge of having a head of state or keep the boundaries and territory-based governments. We're that original.

However, I wonder what you would have replied if I hadn't added the last line.

Yeah that was the most prominent part of your post, the second was give equal treatment to our surroundings? Equal treatment to surroundings? Huh?

Nevermind, there's no deaf as the one who doesn't want to hear.

Why are you snapping like that? My question is valid considering how you phrased it and I quote

Now you probably meant to say that the environment needs to be protected and that's a given. Having said that there is no need to increase the sphere of government to achieve this which is exactly what is happening sadly.

I think he may mean our "surroundings" as in our societal surroundings.

When it comes to the environment, I think it depends on what type of protection is needed. In order to get the private sector to apply practices for the good of the environment, I would think you would need to convince them that it is in their best economic interests to do so. An example of this would be how well some oil companies take care of the environment they are working in. Several oil companies found that their workers (especially Geologists) are more productive when they, the workers, feel that the oil company the workers are working for is doing what it can to preserve the environment in which the workers are working. Businesses are also more willing to work for an environmentally conscientious oil company. On the other hand, I do not see how a society can manage the presence of negative externalities without some sort of government intervention in most cases.

I think the basis for a healthy society is covered in the principles of the philosophy of liberty. Societal surroundings have nothing to do with preserving a healthy society. There can be no peace without freedom, is as simple as that. Define negative externalities.

I'll let Zenit continue this portion with you, as I can only speculate as to what he meant by "surroundings." I think he is either referring to the society that an individual lives in, or maybe the other societies that interact with an individual's own society.

Externality is an economic term used to describe the impact of an economic activity that spills over to affect a third party. In the case of externalities, the price of a good does not fully represent the costs and/or benefits of producing/consuming that good. A negative externality is used to describe economic actions that result in detrimental impact to third parties. In other words, the production or consumption of a good or service results in costs that are not fully payed by the producer or consumer of that good or service. Pollution would be a common example of a negative externality.

The problem is, Punk, that we've been talking about different things so far. You're on theoretical land, I am on practical land. In your land, all people is Joe Average or stickmen and are the same. In my land, I make distinctions based on what I see.

So your Philosophy of Liberty works perfectly on your land, but not on mine. And on my land, things are much more difficult to put in practice because you have to take in count that every thing, even in the most subtle aspects, is related to another fifty things. In this case Freedom and Equality are together.

When I mention equality, I mean it because I don't believe in the "work hard and you'll get where you wanna be" philosophy. Claiming this would mean that we're all, as said before, Joe Average. We're different, we live on different countries and are determined by different factors. And we've got different opportunities.

I, for example, just because my parents weren't geniuses have a low IQ. You instead might have a 125 IQ. Are we going to have the same opportunities to get the same works for example? No, I would not be free in that aspect because I'm automatically put in the lower levels of society (I'd be working on places where it was needed a lower intelligence such as industries and therefore, getting a lower salary) while you could perfectly be an engineer and live in the posh zone of the city.

Since this is a money-based society, your freedom is "larger" than mine. You can do things I can only dream about. And why? Because I'm stupid while you're a genius. Is it my fault? Have you worked harder than I?

No. But we're determined by our inheritance.

When I say that you must treat the person next to you the same as you deserve to be treated, I mean that just put yourself in the other's place. See, you'd like to be treated like that? No? Then why do they have to withstand that treatment?

This is why equality is the basic value of any society. Without it, it'd be impossible to guarantee freedom for everyone.

And equality is a collective value, because we need two or more individuals to make a distinction between them; and thus determine the hierarchy of a society. And freedom, again, is merely individual since it determines what a single person can or cannot do.

Actually no, is not. And let's get things clear. What you are talking about is so called Economic equality or namely the O'l Socialist/Communist idea of redistribution of wealth.

But what you fail to realize is that your system penalize and enslave people that are smarter and thus more productive for the sake of those that are not very productive or not productive at all. Now how is that fair or how can it even be called equality?

Capitalism is the unequal share of benefits while Socialism/Communism is the equal distribution of misery for all.