8 votes

What Is Liberty?

Lately there have been a number of people visiting my website that are getting there as a result of searching for "What Is Liberty?".

What's really cool is to see the ones from around the world in places like India, Guatemala, Singapore, Pakistan, Egypt etc.

I'm trying to come up with the shortest way to explain it that is easy to understand.

Right now I have:

In it's simplest explanation, liberty means that you own your own life and property.

You are free to make your own choices for your life and property as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's right to their life or property.

If you take someone's liberty it is slavery. If you take someone's life it is murder. If you take someone's property it is theft. No person or group of people has a right to use force to impose their will on others, nor give power to a government to do the same.

What Is Liberty?

So, what is your definition of liberty? Any suggestions or changes to make what I currently have better, or a good quote or YouTube video that you know of would help and be greatly appreciated.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Cyril's picture

BUMP.

BUMP.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

Great job you did on this website!

Great job you did on this website!

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Thank you

I really have no idea how to do any of the website stuff but I'm trying to learn as I go.

WearsMyLiberty.com - Liberty shirts and Ron Paul shirts to spread the message

A Quick Question

Thank you to everyone that has helped so far. I've added the definitions that people have given and the Ron Paul quote to the What Is Liberty page, and also made a graphic to share in a blog post and on Facebook.

Government Should Never Be Able To Do Anything You Can't Do.

In sharing this I've been asked, "So the state can't send anyone to jail? I can't detain someone against their will, therefore the state can't, is that right?"

Does anyone have a good way to answer these types of questions?

WearsMyLiberty.com - Liberty shirts and Ron Paul shirts to spread the message

initiation vs. retaliation

The non-aggression principle states that no one may initiate force against person or property -- but force may be used in response to someone violating the n.a.p.

Thanks

Normally I wouldn't "debate" with someone whose mind I know I can't change, but since they commented in public I don't want other people to see it and think "yeah, that's right" and dismiss the quote.

I'll try to explain the difference between using the government to initiate force on someone and using government to prosecute people who have first violated someone else's rights.

WearsMyLiberty.com - Liberty shirts and Ron Paul shirts to spread the message

Cyril's picture

"... is that right?"

No, it isn't.

Self-ownership, and living our lives as we see fit - with our own customs, traditions, beliefs, behaviors - is NOT incompatible with having JUST LAWS and JURYS and DUE PROCESS - and a system of sanctions to pick from, if and only if one is found guilty.

Liberty means you can do whatever you want with your life and nobody shall prevent you to do so (including WASTING YOUR TIME or ENERGY) - UNLESS you are infringing on someone else's inalienable rights.

And that's where JUST LAWS, JURYS, and DUE PROCESS come into play when someone can make complaints against you for infringing on their property, their rights to speak freely or associate freely, or physical integrity, or etc.

If liberty is understood, it can also be understood that a record of laws and sanctions CAN BE KEPT so that everybody knows what they risk if they INFRINGE on others' rights, in various degrees and by various means.

It is not incompatible, and it indeed worked in U.S. History for good periods of time. Although, granted, IT IS A HARMFUL CONSEQUENCE of Perverted Laws that sometimes makes us believe that the Law and its Force IS INTRINSICALLY PERVERTED. IT IS NOT.

MEN get corrupt and perverted FIRST. Then, they pervert the Laws to gain even more power. The clues are well known... Perverted Laws tend TO BREED AT FAST PACE, and TO GET ALWAYS BIGGER AND COMPLICATED, so as to escape the check from the People.

Or, when "short", they use maximal language ambiguity so as to grant as much veiled power as possible should justice itself become corrupt and interpret these malleable "laws" to serve the interests of the corrupt.

But it is NO fate. NOT of the Law, per se, anyway.

Again: MEN get corrupt and perverted FIRST.

Hence the importance of having the Laws and Lawmen in permanent CHECK by the People.

For one thing of improvement I can think of, I would for instance NOT HAVE CONGRESSMEN, AND SENATORS be paid / compensated at all by taxes taken from the People.

Politicians WHO WOULD REALLY want to commit to their ideas to solve concrete problems among their people would have to do so by their own funds - FROM A "REGULAR JOB" - as doctors, cab drivers, merchants, what else I know.

Rent-seeking by public funds is a big source of corruption when you supposedly represent the People, but you are sure to get paid anyway WHETHER OR NOT you care about the bills you are supposed to review and vote on.

Sorry for the slight digression, but I think it was relevant.

'Hope this helps,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Liberty

..is something one cannot enjoy in a corporaation or the armed forces or dictatorship.

donvino

Liberty is

...doing whatever it is you want in life as long as it does not harm other people or their property.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
- President John F. Kennedy

That's a good concise definition Jackie

.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Liberty is the absence of overreaching authority and

its ensuing legislation and regulations. Liberty is freedom from laws that prohibit and restrict one's ability to speek freely, defend oneself, attain justice, travel unmolested, elect governments, use person property, attain and retain personal property, petition government officials, peacefully protest unjust laws and expose corruption.
Feel free to add to the list.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Absence of crime

I think Liberty is all that is left when no one commits a crime upon any other person; no victims are left without some form of actionable remedy against said victimization by criminals. Liberty is the absence of crime because those IN Liberty employ the power they create toward that end: Liberty.

I disagree on the concept of property and rights since criminals are very good at twisting the meaning of words to cause injury to targeted victims, and that particular crime is known as fraud.

I think that crimes are accurately measurable as transfers of power from the targeted victims as that power flows to the willful criminals, not by accident, but by willful thoughts and actions designed to transfer that power in that way by the criminal and either unknown by the victim, or the victims is already powerless to willfully employ an effective remedy.

So to me the concept of Liberty is not abstract in the least, it is a measurable reality wherever and whenever an individual exists absent a criminal individual gaining power at the expense of the victim, and those accurately measurable power transfers can include any number if individual victims suffering power loss at the hands of any number of individual criminals working cooperatively toward the same goal: organized crime.

I think that Liberty, as an accurately measurable condition of human life, is accurately measurable as surplus productive power, in any form by which human beings thereby have the power to survive and survive well, and crime is accurately measurable as the flow of surplus productive power flowing from those who produce surplus productive power into the individual criminals control (a power is a control) through the employment of crime whereby surplus productive power is consumed in all the costs required to perpetrate crime upon the producers.

In short I think the following is true:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&sta...

_________________________________
The ancient maxim makes the sum of a man’s legal duty to his fellow men to be simply this: “To live honestly, to hurt no one, to give to every one his due.”

This entire maxim is really expressed in the single words, to live honestly; since to live honestly is to hurt no one, and give to every one his due.
_________________________________

Without the means by which crime is no longer a high growth industry, where crime pays so well, without remedy there is no Liberty, and there will only be crime, which ends the human species.

Liberty is in that sense life, as the means to gain the power required to perpetuate it, and make it worth living.

Joe

2 things

You say you "I disagree on the concept of property and rights" because a consequence of such can lead to fraud.

So is no one allowed to own property in your world? Or is there some property that can never be owned?

From yor link:
"It is the science which alone can tell any man what he can, and cannot, do; what he can, and cannot, have; what he can, and cannot, say, without infringing the rights of any other person."

Who gets to decide what anyone can do, have, say? This sounds very authoritarian and Marxist to me. Granted, I didn't read the entire link, but that comment raised a red flag.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Snide?

"So is no one allowed to own property in your world?"

Before I can even attempt to answer honestly, I'm inclined to ask for honesty. Does your choice of wording "in your world" constitute a snide remark, as in a "dig" or as in a personal attack upon my character or is there some other reasoning behind that word choice?

Joe

Did you not write "I think"?

Forgive me for assuming you actually 'thought' about the concepts you were presenting and all its consequenses. Your thoughts as presented in your comment constitute a vision of how you either see the world 'as is' or how you would want to see the world 'be'. If neither is the case then you need to find a better way to describe what concept it is you are trying to expound on.
And if you 'honestly' are somehow offended by my questions, does that mean I have caused an injustice by what I offensively 'presumed' to be my right of free speech when, according to the link you provided, which, since you provided it must mean you are in agreement with it - my freedom of speech falls into the category of some 'science' which alone "can tell any man what he can, and cannot, say, without infringing the rights of any other person." and you are the one who will regulate such speech?
Or is your accusation of 'snide' your way of deflecting critisism of beliefs/thoughts/concepts you have not fully reconciled?
Don't pretend to want to know me when you are obviously looking for any way to discredit my questions and not answer them by accusing me of being dishonest, IOW - a criminal according to your 'book'. Definitely ticked off by your arrogance and inuendos.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

I can ask again.

What was the intent for choosing the words "in your world"?

Please.

Joe

you have a problem

I explained. It's not my problem if you are incapable of understanding. I've now concluded that you have no idea how to answer the questions I posed because you've never really thought about what you've adopted. You're using a pathetic 'intent' argument to avoid answering.
If you don't want you're world view/thoughts/ideas challenged then I suggest you either don't comment or accept the consequenses of your actions, in this instance being questioned.
I believe you are the one being dishonest - and I don't need 'science' to figure that one out.
I'm done here.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

some thoughts

Ron Paul: "Government should never be able to do anything you can't do"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=JM8d_Arjz6g#t=982s

And continuing on this concept, watch this video regarding the issue of "it is not possible to delegate a right (to government representatives) which you do not have".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAY_hHGKL4M

Also, I think you need to introduce the non-aggression principle.

Lol, Bill Richardson

That video is great. I'd think he was trying to dodge the question at first but it actually looks like he just really doesn't understand the concept. And then when he finally does, "I have to go".

Thank you, that's exactly the kind of thing I'm going for. The Ron Paul quote is a great way to put it so that people can understand.

WearsMyLiberty.com - Liberty shirts and Ron Paul shirts to spread the message

ytc's picture

A good place to start the discussion: "Liberty Defined" by RP.

http://libertydefined.org (hosted by our very own Joη :-)

Wow, That's Awesome

Thank you, I'd never seen that site before. I don't know why I didn't think of Liberty Defined, such a great book. I'll definitely add a link and some excerpts.

WearsMyLiberty.com - Liberty shirts and Ron Paul shirts to spread the message