14 votes

Can you please help me truly truly understand liberty?

I know each of DPers have a different level of awareness and living in liberty.

Maybe those raised up in a country where the constitution and officials truly protected the God given freedom can help those in other countries that still struggle to deprogram themselves from years of propaganda.

So what about a Be-Do-Have. Liberty in definition, then practice, then fruits. Can you please help me truly truly understand liberty?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Liberty Defined is simply....

The right to do WHATEVER YOU LIKE so long as you DO NOT infringe upon the EQUAL rights of others...

That my friend is Liberty 101

Now, getting the Government and Other people to respect that definition is another whole ball of wax!

Love Liberty, be Vigilant

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17)

Faith in God will prevail all things!

Liberty without property rights is ill defined

Property rights are a form of social contract. It is the basis by which we take resources out of nature(where access to those resources is uninhibited) and into the possession of an individual, where he controls their use, and access to them.

Liberty is freedom from aggression from other people. Aggression is defined interns of property rights. If property rights are not clearly defined then liberty cannot be defined.

There are different schools of thought in regards to how to define property rights. My definition is when resources that do not exist in the abstract are taken out of nature by mixing them with human industry.

Now when discussing resources in the abstract(human time, territory, etc..) it gets a little dicey and I haven't come reconcile it all yet.

All rights are a form of social contract, as is government. The state is not a form of social contract, but the enterprise of territorial domination, who claims authority over all social contract.

Liberty: Respect for person and property.

Practice: do not hurt people or take there stuff.

Fruits: The kingdom of god for all who care to share in it.



According to social contract theory, liberty stands in contrast to freedom. Freedom is the absence of legitimate constraint on any action, and liberty is the collection of actions which are still permissible after you give up some freedoms to get along in society. Example: With complete freedom, I can steal from you, and you can steal from me, but we don't get along very well. We agree to not steal from each other in order to get along better in society.

According to this definition/viewpoint, no society has complete freedom. Everyone gives up some freedoms to live in society. And every society has some liberty. Even in North Korea, there are certain things individuals can still do.

From this point of view, furthermore, the objective of the American colonists was to live in a society with "as much liberty as possible." And there should be a continuing debate on the "correct level of liberty" in society, i.e., the one which is best for wealth production, security, and so on.

I used to think this sounded pretty reasonable, but my current position/view is somewhat different and hopefully more aligned with reality. My view is that social contract theory is a deceptive sham. No one agreed to a social contract. Furthermore, from studying the colonists, I'm convinced that this is not what some of them---the instigators of the first American revolution which occured in the hearts and minds of those people two or three generations before the first shots were fired at Lexington---had in mind. The application of "social contract theory" and the "philosophy of liberty" was introduced by a second group who brought upon those who remained the plague which was the Constitution.

Thus, liberty, as defined above, is also a kind of deception. There is still some grain of truth, however, to what I described above. Liberty is the collection of actions which are permissible in society, but those freedoms which are not allowed, are those that are not allowed for the convenience and support of the parisitic ruling caste. Such a society is built on force, threats, and slavery. It is not civilized, and it is not civilization, but it is the only society humanity has so far been able to produce in a general sense, or at least on a broad scale, i.e., one that is widespread.

My current view, furthermore, sets the idea of liberty aside altogether. Let me explain why. The notion of liberty really arose from the observation of certain people in the ruling caste that the ruled caste (slaves/cattle) were much more productive if they had "more freedom" i.e., liberty. But this kind of change in livestock management practices is clearly still categorized as slavery. I don't want to be a slave, but I recognize that most humans have made themselves fit only for slavery. It is a question of being free in one's mind.

Continuing...my position has led me to set the notion of liberty aside in favor of complete freedom. No human has a legitimate right to limit my freedom in any way. It should not be concluded, however, that I have rejected the notion of society. I don't think livestock nor livestock management are necessary for society. On the contrary, the elimination of a ruling caste managing a ruled caste (government) must be eliminated in order for human society to be civilized, that is, for civilization to be created.

Having said that, my "full freedom" position does require an extra ingredient (actually several, perhaps the most subtle of which is a careful justification of what constitutes personal property). The particular extra ingredient I have in mind here is responsibility. Thus, in this framework, there is no freedom to steal. As a consequence of responsibility, I reject the possibility of stealing as being a freedom outright. This might also be called self-government.

So my final advice is, if you can, forget about the notion of "liberty" and concentrate on becoming responsible enough (and determining the correct societal parameters and the correct people with whom to define a new, intentioned, explicit notion of social contract) to embrace freedom instead.

Since that's a mouthful, let me try to repeat/summarize: There is a difference between liberty and freedom. Liberty is defined on the terms of a ruling caste in a society built on violence and slavery. Freedom is not for everyone, but it can be for some of us. Our best shot is to determine the requisite matters of responsibility in order to build a free society, and set about intentionally determining those others with whom we will build that civilized society (and how we are going to do it).

For further reading, you might pick up Larken Rose's book "The Iron Web."

Truly get Freedom VS Liberty

What I got so far?

Freedom stands in principles and is more related with spiritual/intellectual.

Liberty stands in practices and is more related with physical/emotional dimensions.

Both are in God's control that created in the beginning the heavens and the earth and everything in it.

He gave us life, liberty and propriety to use them in love and peace.

This means we are free to make good and bad decisions and deeds and experience the consequences.

So why am I free? To serve and share what I know, what I do and what I have with those around me to build up long lasting relationships.

Does that makes sense? Thank you very much for you input and please help me out to continue fully understand it!

Positive support for Ron Paul ideas! Support from the Restoration and Liberty Movement on http://cristianpaduraru.com

John Locke Defines Liberty - See #6, #21, #57 Below

John Locke 2nd Treatise on Civil Government
In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Locke_Civil_Government/lo...

#6. "But though this be a state of liberty (i.e. in the STATE OF NATURE - no government or society), yet it is not a state of licence; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some NOBLER use than its bare preservation calls for it.

The "State of Nature" has a "Law of Nature" to govern it, which obliges every one, and REASON, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent,

no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another's pleasure.

And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorise us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours. Every one as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition,

ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others' rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the LAW OF NATURE be observed,

which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the LAW OF NATURE is in that state put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its violation. For the Law of Nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world, be in vain if there were nobody that in the State of Nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders; and if any one in the state of Nature may punish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so. For in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do.

8. And thus, in the state of Nature, one man comes by a power over another, but yet no absolute or arbitrary power to use a criminal, when he has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats or boundless extravagancy of his own will,

but only to retribute to him so far as calm reason and conscience dictate, what is proportionate to his transgression, which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint.

For these two are the only reasons why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call punishment.

In transgressing the LAW OF NATURE, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men for their mutual security,

and so he becomes dangerous to mankind; the tie which is to secure them from injury and violence being slighted and broken by him, which being a trespass against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it, provided for by the LAW OF NATURE, every man upon this score, by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and, by his example, others from doing the like mischief. And in this case, and upon this ground, every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the LAW OF NATURE.

9. I doubt not but this will seem a very strange doctrine to some men; but before they condemn it, I desire them to resolve me by what right any prince or state can put to death or punish an alien for any crime he commits in their country? It is certain their laws, by virtue of any sanction they receive from the promulgated will of the legislature, reach not a stranger. They speak not to him,

nor, if they did, is he bound to hearken to them. The legislative authority by which they are in force over the subjects of that commonwealth hath no power over him.

Those who have the supreme power of making laws in England, France, or Holland are, to an Indian, but like the rest of the world -- men without authority.

And therefore, if by the law of Nature every man hath not a power to punish offences against it, as he soberly judges the case to require, I see not how the magistrates of any community can punish an alien of another country, since, in reference to him, they can have no more power than what every man naturally may have over another.

10. Besides the crime which consists in violating the laws, and varying from the right rule of reason, whereby a man so far becomes degenerate, and declares himself to quit the principles of human nature and to be a noxious creature, there is commonly injury done, and some person or other, some other man, receives damage by his transgression; in which case, he who hath received any damage has (besides the right of punishment common to him, with other men) a particular right to seek reparation from him that hath done it. And any other person who finds it just may also join with him that is injured, and assist him in recovering from the offender so much as may make satisfaction for the harm he hath suffered.

11. From these two distinct rights (the one of punishing the crime, for restraint and preventing the like offence, which right of punishing is in everybody, the other of taking reparation, which belongs only to the injured party) comes it to pass that the magistrate, who by being magistrate hath the common right of punishing put into his hands, can often, where the public good demands not the execution of the law, remit the punishment of criminal offences by his own authority, but yet cannot remit the satisfaction due to any private man for the damage he has received. That he who hath suffered the damage has a right to demand in his own name, and he alone can remit. The damnified person has this power of appropriating to himself the goods or service of the offender by right of self-preservation, as every man has a power to punish the crime to prevent its being committed again, by the right he has of preserving all mankind, and doing all reasonable things he can in order to that end. And thus it is that every man in the state of Nature has a power to kill a murderer, both to deter others from doing the like injury (which no reparation can compensate) by the example of the punishment that attends it from everybody, and also to secure men from the attempts of a criminal who, having renounced reason, the common rule and measure God hath given to mankind, hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tiger, one of those wild savage beasts with whom men can have no society nor security. And upon this is grounded that great law of nature, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." And Cain was so fully convinced that every one had a right to destroy such a criminal, that, after the murder of his brother, he cries out, "Every one that findeth me shall slay me," so plain was it writ in the hearts of all mankind.

12. By the same reason may a man in the state of Nature punish the lesser breaches of that law, it will, perhaps, be demanded, with death? I answer: Each transgression may be punished to that degree, and with so much severity, as will suffice to make it an ill bargain to the offender, give him cause to repent, and terrify others from doing the like. Every offence that can be committed in the state of Nature may, in the state of Nature, be also punished equally, and as far forth, as it may, in a commonwealth. For though it would be beside my present purpose to enter here into the particulars of the law of Nature, or its measures of punishment, yet it is certain there is such a law, and that too as intelligible and plain to a rational creature and a studier of that law as the positive laws of commonwealths, nay, possibly plainer; as much as reason is easier to be understood than the fancies and intricate contrivances of men, following contrary and hidden interests put into words; for truly so are a great part of the municipal laws of countries, which are only so far right as they are founded on the law of Nature, by which they are to be regulated and interpreted.


#21. The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the "LAW OF NATURE" FOR HIS "RULE".

(APP Note: See this exact wording in the Rights of the Colonists 1772 by Samuel Adams: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Rights_of_the_Colonists/r...)

The liberty of man in society is to be under no other legislative power but that established by consent in the commonwealth, nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact according to the "TRUST"

(APP: Original Constitutional Compact the Government was first created under)

put in it.

Freedom, then, is "NOT" what Sir Robert Filmer tells us: "A liberty for every one to do what he "LISTS" (i.e. WANTS), to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws";

but freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it.

A liberty to follow my own will in all things where that rule prescribes not, not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man, as freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the "LAW OF NATURE".

22. This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power is so necessary to, and closely joined with, a man's preservation, that he cannot part with it but by what forfeits his preservation and life together. For a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot by compact or his own consent enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another to take away his life when he pleases. Nobody can give more power than he has himself, and he that cannot take away his own life cannot give another power over it. Indeed, having by his fault forfeited his own life by some act that deserves death, he to whom he has forfeited it may, when he has him in his power, delay to take it, and make use of him to his own service; and he does him no injury by it. For, whenever he finds the hardship of his slavery outweigh the value of his life, it is in his power, by resisting the will of his master, to draw on himself the death he desires.

23. This is the perfect condition of slavery, which is nothing else but the state of war continued between a lawful conqueror and a captive, for if once compact enter between them, and make an agreement for a limited power on the one side, and obedience on the other, the state of war and slavery ceases as long as the compact endures; for, as has been said, no man can by agreement pass over to another that which he hath not in himself -- a power over his own life. ..."


#57: "....So that however it may be mistaken, the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.

For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, "WHERE THERE IS NO LAW, THERE IS NO FREEDOM".

For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which "CANNOT BE" where there is no law;

and is not, as we are told, "a liberty for every man to do what he "LISTS" (i.e. WANTS)."

For who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?

But a liberty to dispose and order freely as he lists his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property within the allowance of those laws under which he is,

and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own. ..."


In Locke Treatise on Toleration (APP Par. #35) he states this:

"....Let any man pull down, or build, or make whatsoever expenses he pleases, nobody murmurs, nobody controls him; he has his LIBERTY. ..."


American Patriot Party.CC

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nat...

Daily Paul: http://www.dailypaul.com/user/14674

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

piggy backing

to add to all the great answers, id like to piggy back on a few in particular. self ownership, understanding of economics and how it applies to EVERYTHING, and reading from the greats. the 3 main ones id recommend is "economics in one lesson" henry hazlitt, "the law" f.bastiat and "liberty defined" r.paul. honarable mention "for a new liberty" m rothbard. get those under your belt and you will have a grasp on what liberty is.

St.Amant, LA...Libertarian Party of Ascension Parish

In a nutshell...

Definition: Don't harm anyone else.

In practice: Harm of anyone else, including by government, is not tolerated.

Fruits: Fewest possible people are harmed.

To find liberty don't go outside yourself.

Awareness of a self as free is a do it yourself project.

It will become real for you when you make it real for yourself.

Some even think God leaves us free to be free.

No enslavement by others need prevail.

How can that be?

Free includes debt-free!


Rightful individual liberty is having the freedom to behave any way one wishes without interference from others so long as one does not initiate direct, proximate, and nonconsensual harm.


Liberty is the right to do as you choose. Liberty entails personal responsibility, because liberty is also the right to commit personal harm; personal responsibility is knowing that we shouldn't use all of our liberties--such as our right to use mind-altering substances or our right to not wear a seat belt. Liberty is about respecting our differences and knowing just because I don't own a gun, that I have no right to say my neighbor shouldn't be allowed to own one. Liberty is a philosophy of love and peace and tolerating and embracing the different choices of others that they are free to make. Liberty is awesome, very awesome indeed.

Phxarcher87's picture

You are going to want to stop

Stop thinking you should rule over others peoples decision making. Liberty is about your decisions to gain life liberty property and the hunting of happiness. Build a wall of love around your heart the enemy wants to take you and your family to his domain.

James Madison


Liberty is being able to exercise your unalienable rights at any time you wish as long as you do not interfere with the equal unalienable rights of others.

I suggest you read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat

You can read it for free here

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

Cyril's picture

Or Henry David Thoreau :

Or Henry David Thoreau :


Or Benjamin Constant :


[...] Individual liberty, I repeat, is the true modern liberty. Political liberty is its guarantee, consequently political liberty is indispensable. But to ask the peoples of our day to sacrifice, like those of the past, the whole of their individual liberty to political liberty, is the surest means of detaching them from the former and, once this result has been achieved, it would be only too easy to deprive them of the latter [...]

The danger of modern liberty is that, absorbed in the enjoyment of our private independence, and in the pursuit of our particular interests, we should surrender our right to share in political power too easily. The holders of authority are only too anxious to encourage us to do so. They are so ready to spare us all sort of troubles, except those of obeying and paying! They will say to us: what, in the end, is the aim of your efforts, the motive of your labors, the object of all your hopes? Is it not happiness? Well, leave this happiness to us and we shall give it to you. No, Sirs, we must not leave it to them. No matter how touching such a tender commitment may be, let us ask the authorities to keep within their limits. Let them confine themselves to being just. We shall assume the responsibility of being happy for ourselves [...]



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


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


Firstly and academically, I'd define freedom as conscientious agency.

Regarding Liberty, I see it as an ideological derivative which emphasizes individual empowerment within a civic model.

Given that the Libertarianism (as represented by the Party Platform) is arguably inconsistent however (ie. still endorsing taxation
or being popularly associated with exclusive privatization)
I politically espouse Dignitarianism, which advocates the prerogative of individual choice concerning public domain.

btw may I ask where you are from, paduraru?

in one word: Self-Ownership

in one word: Self-Ownership

Cyril's picture

Yes. I'd wager it's among the top 3 shortest synonyms.


I'd wager it's among the top 3 shortest synonyms.

(Hence the link in my signature.)

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


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


"The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion that we as individuals are responsible for our own lives and decisions. We do not have the right to rob our neighbors to make up for our mistakes, neither does our neighbor have any right to tell us how to live, so long as we aren’t infringing on their rights. Freedom to make bad decisions is inherent in the freedom to make good ones. If we are only free to make good decisions, we are not really free." Ron Paul

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” - Thomas Jefferson

Live in Liberty
Tom Rankin

Cyril's picture

Liberty =

Liberty =

Think, say, do, anything you want.

Just don't force me into condoning, or rejecting, or positioning myself into anything I had no interest or intent to be part of.

I have interest in individual rights and justice, and I accept them easily.

Individual rights are easy to grasp because so few of them :

life, free opinion, free speech, and free association, private property, AND due process in justice when we infringe upon others' rights, wittingly or not. And that's it.

I have no interest in collective plunder - on either side - doing it or suffering it.

Collective plunder also includes to be forced (or forcing people) into surrendering on our individual responsibilities and delegating them to complete strangers, btw.

It's not only about someone (or many, in gangs) taking our stuff by force.


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


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

Rightful Individual liberty

Rightful individual liberty is having the freedom to behave as one wishes without interference from others so long as one does not initiate direct, proximate, and nonconsensual harm.
One is free to behave as one wishes without interference from others, so long as one does not initiate direct, proximate, and nonconsensual harm.

What other questions do you have about individual liberty?

Lots of great comments

But I would just add, if you want to understand liberty in a fluent way you will probably have to learn economics. Most influential and common arguments against freedom are economic ones. If you don't understand it you are a deer in the headlights as soon as someone says "This whole mess was caused by the free market and deregulation!" or "You just want the poor to starve!" or "The new deal pulled us out of the great depression, that's why we need another one!" etc, etc.

Spoiler alert: There are devastating answers to all of these.

A moral and philosophical understanding of liberty is important, essential even, but if you don't understand the way things work and how and why they would be immensely better in a real world practical way if we had a free society you are in a game with only an offensive line up and no defense.

No law is enforceable without

No law is enforceable without violence. Otherwise they could not be enforced. ANY law is therefore a legal excuse for the government to commit violence against citizens. And thanks to the internet we are aware encounters between law enforcement and even innocent, law abiding citizens sometimes lead to serious injuries or even death.

At root most laws require or prohibit something with the implicit threat of force or take someone's property and redistribute it to another with the implicit threat of force.

Therefore laws allow the government to be a 'legal' thief and mugger. If you can't steal your neighbor's property or beat him if he refuses to let you have it hire a lobbyist, get a law passed, and have the government do it for you.

The founding fathers recognized all this. This is why they specifically delineated the specific powers of the federal government and stated anything not specifically delineated is not within their authority. Nowadays the government can pass a law and steal from you, beat you, or imprison you for just about anything, recently including not sending money to a corporation every month which sells insurance.

The answer is simple. Resist the temptation to pass laws to tell others what to do. Fight laws which do so. Seek to repeal those which do so. When considering a law don't ask whether you 'like' the outcome or not, ask whether with its passage you and your fellow citizens will be more or less free.


Are you free to say whatever you want without reprisal from an "official" organization?

Are you free to associate with the people which you wish to associate?

Are you free to use the fruits of your labor as you wish?

Are you free to engage in activities that do not harm others - even those that are potentially self-destructive - without reprisal?

Are you free to defend yourself against all encroachments against your person and dependents - even from people you may consider "authority" figures?

Are you free?

Be-Do-Have > Life-Liberty-Propriety

So it is like to be, to do, to have.

To learn, to live, to love.

Life, Liberty, Propriety.

Then Voluntary... exchange :-)

Wonderful - will let them sink in deeply!

Download inspiring vibrant housemusic for the Ron Paul liberty revolution from http://theremixlabel.com

Excellent video In fact this

Excellent video

In fact this was one of the many videos and texts that broke me free from my cognitive dissonance. That video and the video below is probably my two favorite videos ever


This is just how I view Liberty, others will differ for sure

I am sure my perspective will differ a lot from others, this is my definition that I live by, I derive the majority of ethics and beliefs from the Bible.

Liberty truly is the freedom to choose, without others influencing or forcing you to do anything against your will. These are a few examples I can think of, that I believe in. I know some will disagree, and if so I would like to hear where, lets discuss it, so leave a reply.

1. I have the right to do whatever I want or choose, so long as my actions do not violate the rights of another individual. Here it is important to understand "rights", but that may be a different list entirely.

2. Liberty is being left alone from government harassment or other outside forces.

3. Liberty is having the ability to produce, or not produce as I so desire. If I choose to make a profit, that is my business and no one elses. I believe ALL "regulation" of businesses to be illegal. It is not the job of government to provide safety. If my products intentionally hurt someone, then I have violated someones rights. Until then, I am free to keep a messy kitchen(which I hope most wouldn't anyway), choose to not pay for or keep fire extinguishers, or have enough seating or bathrooms, or not prohibit smoking if i am so inclined.

4. Liberty is to each individual, and marriage is defined as two becoming one, Liberty envelopes both AS one. This then extends to any immediate family who is not yet old enough to make decisions for themselves. Therefore, if we choose, or choose not to spank my children as a form of discipline, it is our right to do so.

4b. I do believe in right to life, regardless of age however. This is a very old message dating back to the beginning of the Old Testament. Right to life always proceeds any other rule or law. Always.

5. I define age of consent(no longer bound to parents) as:
a)passed puberty
b)old enough to understand there are consequences to our actions.
Before this, I hold parents responsible for actions of children as all are one. It is our responsibility to teach and discipline our kids, not governments. Government should be out of the school business completely.

I honestly believe most are old enough by 13 or 14 to take responsibility for themselves, as this is around the age they start doing things for themselves rather than asking parents for permission. If by this age they choose to start their own business, get a job, or finish schooling, or even get married(I bet ill hear it for this one), I believe this is around the age they are able to choose for themselves. It is obvious that the majority of kids today probably do not fit into this category until around age 16 or 17, even for puberty. However, I do not think kids should be ->forced to finish schooling when they do not feel a need to do so, or could better prepare themselves for their life in another manner. I know girls that simply want to settle down and have no desire to get a job, they just want a man and want to start a family. A 15yo girl in my school got her GED and did just that, got married and lives happily. I just think she should be able to do this without the GED.

I'm sure this list could go on, but I have to pack up at work and head home now. Ill check in later. :)

Not trying to be a **** here

Not trying to be a **** here but if you derive your liberty from the bible how do you tackle such text as Romans 13, Hebrews 13:17, 1 Peter 2:13-25, 1 Peter 2:13.. I could probably go...

Honest question as I said I'm not trying to make enemies

Not trying to be a **** here

but he didn't say (as some have, and i call them out) that you have to be Christian to believe in liberty or be a 'real' libertarian. He just said that is how he understands liberty.

I don't say people have to be an atheist or anarchist to understand liberty.

If his comment influenced a Christian to understand liberty better in that persons own way I think it's wonderful.

There's only one inherently evil religion, in my opinion, statism.

Not trying to make enemies because we probably agree on most everything, but let's atheists and Christians accept each other as brothers and sisters in liberty.