...not being familiar with the term, but thinking I was , I immediately jumped to "ontological liberty" as being faith-based as in theologically based. Apparently it is not necessarily, but rather relates to developing a personal philosophy that is consistent. Still, because there is no "ontological" personal philosophy that is complete, it generally serves as scaffolding, necessary scaffolding, to be used for organization of thoughts until more information results in a higher level of interpretation that also is consistent.
We know that Ron Paul is a man of faith and that, therefore, his definition of "Political Liberty" can not be separated from his experiential bedrock. He masterfully defends and defines "Political Liberty" in a way that seldom offends, is all inclusive, and is not pushing self-righteously his religious beliefs.
We've seen especially through recent history that the term "liberty for all" and the Bill of Rights is easily sabotaged when emphasis is not placed on "individual freedom and rights" only so long as they don't infringe upon others' rights.
I suppose I am stretching to learn a new language...a liberty language that is consistent with my own experiential faith, but that offends not and does not lead to argument for argument's sake or comes into direct opposition to anther's personal ontological philosophy regarding true freedom.
Do some of us need to develop a more secular approach to discussing liberty with others? Be more Ron Paul-like. I've asked myself that. I have appreciated the liberty extended to those of us who enjoy a theological approach in some discussions; however, I want to understand the boundaries...where overextending the privilege becomes preaching, offensive and is counter-productive to understanding and sharing the basic tenets of "Political Liberty."
It is just something I think about. I appreciate your response and bringing the word "ontological" into my vocabulary although I probably have the meaning wrong!
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: