The Philosophy Of Liberty Which Collectivists Will Never Understand!

[PunkMaister]

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

01. Is based on the principle of self-ownership. You own your life. To deny this is to imply that another person has a higher claim on your life than you do. No other person, or group of persons, owns your life nor do you own the lives of others. You exist in time: future, present, and past. This is manifest in life, liberty, and the product of your life and liberty. The exercise of choices over life and liberty is your prosperity. To lose your life is to lose your future. To lose your liberty is to lose your present. And to lose the product of your life and liberty is to lose the portion of your past that produced it.

02. A product of your life and liberty is your property. Property is the fruit of your labour, the product of your time, energy, and talents. It is that part of nature that you turn to valuable use. And it is the property of others that is given to you by voluntary exchange and mutual consent. Two people who exchange property voluntarily are both better off or they wouldn't do it. Only they may rightfully make that decision for themselves.

03. At times some people use force or fraud to take from others without wilful, voluntary consent. Normally, the initiation of force to take life is murder, to take liberty is slavery, and to take property is theft. It is the same whether these actions are done by one person acting alone, by the many acting against a few, or even by officials with fine hats and fancy titles.

04 . You have the right to protect your own life, liberty, and justly acquired property from the forceful aggression of others. So you may rightfully ask others to help protect you. But you do not have a right to initiate force against the life, liberty, or property of others. Thus, you have no right to designate some person to initiate force against others on your behalf.

05. You have a right to seek leaders for yourself, but would have no right to impose rulers on others. No matter how officials are selected, they are only human beings and they have no rights or claims that are higher than those of any other human beings. Regardless of the imaginative labels for their behaviour or the numbers of people encouraging them, officials have no right to murder, to enslave, or to steal. You cannot give them any rights that you do not have yourself.

05. Since you own your life, you are responsible for your life. You do not rent your life from others who demand your obedience. Nor are you a slave to others who demand your sacrifice.

06. You choose your own goals based on your own values. Success and failure are both the necessary incentives to learn and to grow.


07. Your action on behalf of others, or their action on behalf of you, is only virtuous when it is derived from voluntary, mutual consent. For virtue can only exist when there is free choice.

08. This is the basis of a truly free society. It is not only the most practical and humanitarian foundation for human action; it is also the most ethical.

09. Problems that arise from the initiation of force by government have a solution. The solution is for people of the world to stop asking officials to initiate force on their behalf. Evil does not arise only from evil people, but also from good people who tolerate the initiation of force as a means to their own ends. In this manner, good people have empowered evil throughout history.


10. Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the marketplace of values rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal. Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences. Achieving a free society requires courage to think, to talk, and to act - especially when it is easier to do nothing.

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.

[Human No More]

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

[ZenitYerkes]

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.

Freedom

We've got two kinds of freedom: ideal and real

• Ideal freedom: individuals able to do whatever they want with no coercion or limitations of any kind
• Real freedom: limited freedom due to:

Individual limitations: that are caused and come from the person itself, their nature or their characteristics.

• Consequences of previous actions: such as, if you cut your legs off don't expect to be able to walk anymore.
• Physical limitations: for example, you cannot fly if you have no wings
• Cognitive and ability limitations: you are unable or banned to participate in certain activities if you lack the required abilities or information to do them

Social limitations: not caused by the person, but rather their surroundings. These are:

• Dependence limitation: a person that needs another one to live is not completely free
• Authority limitation: the obedience to authority is over the will of the individual in a society
• "Consensus" limitations: such as cultural impositions, common ethics and law, social pressure and coercion,...

I believe these are the elements that limit our freedom and what make the resultant real freedom. No, we're not completely free and will never be because that would mean fighting against aspects of our nature; however we must work to bring the people the greatest freedom we can, and not restrict it in any way.

Translation is very rough.

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

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.

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.

[ZenitYerkes]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

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.

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

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.

05. You have a right to seek leaders for yourself, but would have no right to impose rulers on others. No matter how officials are selected, they are only human beings and they have no rights or claims that are higher than those of any other human beings. Regardless of the imaginative labels for their behaviour or the numbers of people encouraging them, officials have no right to murder, to enslave, or to steal. You cannot give them any rights that you do not have yourself.

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.

[ZenitYerkes]

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.

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

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?

[ZenitYerkes]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

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.

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

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

so it is important to focus also on how to give an fair and equal treatment to our surroundings

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.

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

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.

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

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.

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

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.

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.

Define negative externalities.

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.

[ZenitYerkes]

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.

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

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.