Understanding Liberty

The US was founded on the principals of liberty, but you could not find one person in a hundred today that could even define the word.
Liberty is a very simple concept. It is the concept that a person should be free to live their lives as they please providing they do not infringe on the right of anyone else to do the same.
That means specifically not harming anyone or taking what belongs to them. It means that every transaction involving goods or services is done entirely on a mutually voluntary basis. At the point where force is used to secure a transaction, then liberty no longer exists.

 

The US was basically a libertarian nation until around the time of Woodrow Wilson, who was elected in 1912. The caveat is that it was only so for white males.

Wilson brought in the federal income tax, the war on drugs (Harrison Act of 1914). Under Wilson the FBI began, before which there was only the US Marshals Service as federal law enforcement. Today there are at least 73 federal law enforcement agencies, and even agencies such as Fish and Wildlife conducted an armed raid of a guitar maker.

Most Americans don't have a clue as to how radically our nation has changed over the past 100 years.

 

We now have a government that thinks that perhaps we have too much freedom and that we need to be protected from ourselves, that they know what's best for us.

 

Actually, the libertarian America came under attack as soon as the revolutionary war ended. The Federalists began to work to undermine liberty and establish a feudal system from the very beginning. Lincoln expanded the powers of the Federal Government and instilled the tyranny that made it the new King of the people. Wilson put the final nails in the coffin of liberty with the establishment of the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax Act, and the 17th Amendment. From that point forward, freedom did not exist in any real capacity.

 

You cannot really blame government. The real blame lies with the people. We have been derelict in our duty as citizens. We are guilty of wanting our government to provide us with comfort instead of liberty, because liberty requires us to be responsible for ourselves. We gave power to government in exchange for what government could provide. The problem is that the things government provides it must steal from others. In the beginning it provided free land, stolen from the Native Americans. Then it provided free labor by way of slavery to give prosperity, and not just in the south. It then stole land from Mexico to give to the people.

 

Force is the enemy to liberty.

 

You describe more than liberty, but you never define liberty. Allow me -
Liberty is the individual's authority over and responsibility for them self.

The US is founded upon self-possession. Liberty and private property are but part of that. Until 1776, almost everyone who ever lived was owned by someone else.

If one owns them self, that one necessarily owns the product of their industry. (Industry is the combination of ingenuity and material)
If one owns them self, that one necessarily has authority over and responsibility for them self.

What's at stake is not merely private property, or even liberty; what's at stake is self-possession.

 

Close but not completely accurate.

LIBERTY is the "Freedom to Exercise" a Natural/Inalienable Right of the Person.

To understand Liberty we must first understand a Natural/Inalienable Right. It is best described by enumerating the criteria for a Natural/Inalienable Right.

A Natural/Inalienable Right is inherent in the Person, not dependent upon another Person, does not violate the Rights of another Person, and does not impose an involuntary obligation upon another Person.

It was this understanding between the difference between "Liberty" (The Freedom to Exercise) and the actual Natural/Inalienable Rights of the Person that lead Thomas Paine to pen these words:

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

Government, to function, must always infringe upon our "Freedom to Exercise" (Liberty) our Natural/Inalienable Rights while in it's "best state" it only does so based upon compelling arguments and in it's worst state the infringements are not based upon compelling arguments and can, in fact, go beyond just an infringement and can literally violate the Natural/Inalienable Rights of the Person.

This is not accurate. Liberty only addresses the Freedom to Exercise a Natural/Inalienable Right and there are many actions of the person that are not based upon their Natural/Inalienable Rights. In the example "commerce" (i.e. a transaction involving goods or services) is not a "Natural/Inalienable Right" because it is always dependent upon two or more people. Commerce is based upon Statutory Law and is not based upon a Natural/Inalienable Right of the person because more than one person is required for commerce. Many "Statutory Laws" actually violate the "Natural/Inalienable Rights" of the Person and perhaps none more so than our "Statutory Laws of Property" in the United States.

"Liberty" is limited to the Freedom to Exercise a Natural/Inalienable Right of the Person and does not address commerce at all.

 

The first sentence is accurate while the remainder is not.

"Libertarianism" (i.e. the advocasy for liberty) was and is a highly progressive political ideology that was embraced by both Federalists and Anti-Federalists. For example, James Madison was the foremost spokesman for the Federalists and initially resisted the "Bill of Rights" that anti-Federalists like Thomas Jefferson advocated. Based upon compelling arguments Madison eventually agreed with the "libertarian" necessity for the Bill of Rights and authored all of those Amendments to the US Constitution.

The war against libertarianism was waged by the Social-Conservatives that sought to retain the social, political, and economic institutions that existed which included slavery and our laws of property that were established under the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. The Social-Conservatives were also successful in continuing the political institution of White (WASP) Male Supremacy in the United States which violated the ideology of libertarianism.

While some advances have been made nothing has really changed in the United States where the libertarians remain highly progressive in seeking to expand our "Liberty" (Freedom to Exercise our Natural/Inalienable Rights) while the Social-Conservatives seek to retain the historic White (WASP) Male Supremacy and property laws based upon the Divine Right of Kings as opposed to the "Natural Right of Property" as enumerated by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5.

 

Tell that to Obama, Bernie, Hillary and the rest of the freedom stealers.

 

I agree in a sense, but why pick Wilson? He was certainly the turning point from which there is no return, but the process started way before that.

What about Teddy Roosevelt? Wilson's Presidency was merely an extension of Teddy's.
What about Lincoln? A civil war fought to prevent Southern independence, suspension of habeas corpus, the first national income tax, printing of money, an astronomical rise in Federal spending, etc.
What about the Federalist party and the New Republicans that followed? The alien and sedition acts, the tariff of abominations, tax hikes, and a number of bad precedents set.
What about the rats? The pro-ratification lot fundamentally abolished the United States which existed from 1777 to 1787, and replaced it with a unitary nationalist state.

The US was extremely close to a libertarian nation from 1777-1787 precisely because it was such a radically federalist nation. Power was heavily decentralized across different jurisdictions, large urban centers in a select few states didn't have complete control over the nation. Average representation in state legislatures was 2500:1 as opposed to the 700,000:1 that exists in Congress today. Practically no taxation. Very few nanny state laws. Nanny state laws and high taxation for states which desired it.

As ridiculous as it sounds, China is ahead of the West on providing such a system. The special administrative region system provides Hong Kong and Macao substantive local autonomy. I am not directly asking for libertarian policy, I simply want local areas to have the choice. Neither Macao or Hong Kong are comparably libertarian to the early US, but Hong Kong has certainly been able to seek an independent path which is a massive improvement on mainland China: excepting the public housing and recently introduced labor laws, Hong Kong outdoes the West on economic liberty. But consider, has mainland China been adversely affected by the SARs having their autonomy? Not at all. This is how true federalism functions, not as on mainland China and else where regions are severely restricted by the national government.

Competitive federalism is the legacy left to us by great civilizations like the Old Swiss Confederacy and the early USA. We have treated it very poorly.

 

So, the USA went off the rails in 1787?.

Which simply tells me you just don't like America and never did. Fine, leave, but don't try to turn us into something that never existed. Most of us like it here, and the country has seemed to get by.

The problem with your version of Liberty is, it bites. It's mainly the "freedom" to be (*)(*)(*)(*) on in one way or another, it's great for the (*)(*)(*)(*)ter but really not at all fun for the (*)(*)(*)(*)tee, which is most of us

And please, no bs about how I don't want to take responsibility. It's conservatives who deny responsibility; for their guns, animals, cars, pollution, hell, their whole lifestyle. If you waste resources that means there are less for me, that hurts me because it means I have to pay more. If you crap all over the environment I have to clean it up or live in your filth, how are you not hurting me and everyone if you make it so we can't even breathe?

 

This is the best I've ever heard it put: Liberty is the freedom to do what you want with your body and property but not with other people's bodies or property.

Or to put it another way, liberty is the freedom do to whatever you want as long as it doesn't violate someone else's body or property.

 

Government equals force

 

Fine, so how do you justify driving a big car which pollutes the air and gives my children bronchitis, as well as driving up the cost of gasoline for everybody? You're giving me a fatal, chronic disease, how are you not violating my body?

And don't say that's included in the cost, If environmental costs were included in most costs most everything would be unaffordable by most everyone. but we do pay them, eventually, and it's very seldom paid by the actual originators.

All of you Libertarians just want to do what you want, no matter how much it hurts everybody else. All the rest of us are just supposed to roll over and die. Can you see some slight flaws in your ideology here?.

 

What car?

 

That Ferrari Testarossa you've been saving for, we've seen the websites. (You didn't know that colors that bright bled over into all your posts, did you? )

Please, let's not get caught up in minuitiae (sp) No man is an island, especially in the modern world. Everything you do affects everybody. That shouldn't paralyze you, no, but if you're aware of it you have to accept limitations. If you don't, you're just a moral reprobate hurting others and hiding behind the concept of liberty

 

Sorry to hear you and your children are so ill and that its all my fault.

 

Liberty is not license. Liberty is the freedom to do what you want with your body and property but NOT with other people's bodies and property. Liberty does not permit me to harm you. That would be license and a violation of your liberty.

 

First of all, good post, and this kind of post is why I come back to these boards in spite of the frustrations, the seemingly brain-damaged posters, etc.

Of course there is some arbitrariness in drawing the line at Wilson,; he was just the culmination of the Progressive Era, which had roots going back to the 19th century. And although Teddy was also a progressive, he was considered to the right of Wilson. Wilson only won in 1912 because Teddy ran as a 3rd party candidate, splitting the Republican vote between himself and Taft.

Despite all the slings and arrows, the nation survived as basically the land of the free right up until 1912. There was no federal income tax. There was no FBI, no federal law enforcement other than the Marshals Service (AFAIK). An American could walk into any corner pharmacy and purchase coke, pot, or opium. Even prostitution was largely legal or at least tolerated until then (granted it was Taft who signed the Mann Act in 1910, not Wilson).

Federal spending as a pct. of GDP was under 5% (2% in 1910):
http://taxfoundation.org/article/short-history-government-taxing-and-spending-united-states
Now the number is around 25%. One of every 4 dollars flows to Washington DC, which is now the richest region in the US.

There was no conception of the USA as world police. All of these things changed dramatically after Wilson's era. And Wilson also bequeathed us FDR, who started the gun-control movement (NFA of 1934), and showed how to stack the courts in order to get around the Constitution, which later became a specialty of Pres. Obama.



Just note that regarding Lincoln, for all the libertarian complaints about him, under his watch was one of the biggest advances in human liberty in US history with the ending of slavery.

I am not as confident as you in the efficacy of competitive federalism in ensuring freedom. It was federalism that slavery to continue for as long as it did. It's an open question as to how long slavery might have continued had not the South decided on secession. Abolition required amending the Constitution, and a 3/4 majority of states, but 13 of 33 states were pro-slavery at the time of secession. Pro-slavery Democrats also held majorities in both US House and Senate.

 

Liberty can mean many things to many people. It is not defined to do what you want, when you want, how you want, etc. That is not liberty, that is anarchy.

 

The nanny state necessarily goes hand in hand with the welfare state. Actually, as long as we have the behemoth welfare state, I want a behemoth nanny state to go with it. If hard-earned money is going to be extracted from my wallet to pay for drug rehab, liver disease, and type 2 diabetes, I want a war on drugs. a war on booze, and a war on junk food.

The CDC now estimates that 86 percent of health care costs are in effect due to behavior:
http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/

If I am to foot that bill, I want controls on behavior at every turn, from what you eat, to whether you decide to exercise, to how many cc's in your motorcycle, to how and with whom you engage in sex acts.

 

Precisely. It is freedom to do anything you want except to violate someone else's body or property. The qualification is integral to the definition. Without the restriction, you're talking about license not liberty.

 

And what happens when a group of individuals get together and form a "association" that governs how each person acts within the group, provide a redress of grievance, and a system of laws to abide by. That is also freedom even though it violates someone else's body or property indirectly thorugh restrictions.

 

Apparently you are one of the 99.