Liberty ideas

in liberty •  3 years ago 

I doubt I've ever had a truly original thought, including about liberty. Really, liberty is very intuitive-- if you can get away from the anti-liberty brainwashing. It's just not that hard to understand, unless you try to not understand.

I've had some thoughts about liberty that I thought were original, only to find someone else had the same thought first (sometimes thousands of years before me). In fact, that happens every time I think I thought of something completely original.

And it's OK. It doesn't matter where a good idea comes from, it only matters that it spreads. I am happy to help spread good ideas, no matter who thought of them first. It's not about me, or any other individual (which seems odd for an individualist to be saying), it is about the ideas leading to the truth; to reality.



Thank you for helping support Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated! Thank you.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

What's one thought, you thought was original only to find out someone else came up with that idea?!?

It has happened so many times it is hard to think of a specific example.

I guess the one I can think of right now is back when I first began to think about liberty-- I thought of myself as "libertarian", but one day I was taking that to its logical conclusion and realized that anarchy is PURE libertarianism. I thought this was quite a revelation and was very pleased with mysef for thinking of it. I was sure no one else had ever noticed this... until a little while later when I discovered that just about everyone who had been a liberty-lover (and connected to others) longer than I had been had already figured the same thing out. I'll admit I was a little disappointed at first.

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

I think your confused about how being libertarian is different from anarchy, which I can explain, in a very simple way. One is limited government and the other is no government. Libertarians believe freedom first, but your not free to just murder for someone for no reason, hence the roll for a limited government.

A libertarian is one who abides by the Zero Aggression Principle (or Non-Aggression Principle, if you prefer). Maximum liberty, minimum government. Nothing more complicated than that.

Well, if you actually take "Zero Aggression" seriously, and don't make exceptions, it makes it clear you CAN NOT have a State. Period. The minimum government is zero externally-imposed government, not some greater amount. That is why an anarchist is simply a libertarian with all the "buts" tossed aside; a libertarian in full bloom.

I, at least for now, still consider myself a libertarian because I think there might still be a place for a government - yes, a government with a full-on monopoly on violence - to record and enforce contracts that are voluntarily entered into by citizens. Ideally, it would be funded not through taxes but on fees paid when said contracts are filed or a dispute arises. I think the results would be more consistent than the "several private security providers" approach. This hypothetical government would not have a legislative branch to create laws and would not arrest and imprison people unless they violated a contract (or there is reasonable evidence that they did) and the dispute needs to be resolved. It certainly would not be involved in diplomacy or war with foreign entities.

Anyway, that's what I think today. Ask me again in a few months. :) (And at any rate, given a binary choice between your flat-out anarchy and our current government, I would definitely prefer the former.)

Well, I spent time in the zone you are now inhabiting, so I do understand it. I suspect the more you think/observe/learn, the closer you'll get to anarchy... but I'm biased.

But seriously, i wish you developed this post a little bit more; though i know the "liberty" topic is hard to explore without getting political.... still i totally agree.... there is so much anti-liberty brain washing going on :(

I like to keep posts short (even if I sometimes fail). However, I'm always open to suggestions as to topics people would like me to address. So, suggest away.
Also, yes, Taxation is theft!

Could you explore this topic i saw on another social media site:

From the radical-libertarian view point; is it wrong for a single mom to dress her 5 year old son up like a girl (make up & clothes, etc) and tell him he is a girl? Why or why not?

What does "wrong" mean? I think it means, in part, "causes harm to someone who doesn't deserve it". As in- violates someone's rights.

Do you believe this mom's behavior would cause him harm now or later? I suspect it might, if she does this all the time (as I think you are suggesting).

First of all, she's lying to him. You have a right to lie- freedom of speech- but you are responsible for any harm your lies cause. What if he finds out the truth later? Will he trust anything she says after this?

Second of all, she's taking his choice away from him. If he doesn't want to be a cross dresser or transgender later in life, she may be putting him on a pathway he may find hard to change later.

I wouldn't use force (obviously including "government" force) to stop her, but I wouldn't think too highly of her choice. I would probably shun her and explain my reasons to anyone who asks.

Do you have a degree in philopshy? I learned never ask a philospher a question.... you just end up with more questions :P

But to respond... i more just wanted to know how a libertarian would view something like that.... cause it wouldnt impact your own rights... but it certainly impacts the kid's; but thank you for explaining this out, i enjoyed reading you answer very much :D

LOL. No degree in philosophy. I just think too much.

One thing I didn't mention in my answer is that the mother doesn't own the kid. He owns himself, even if he isn't yet able to really exercise that ownership very much. And, it sounds like the mom in your example believes she owns the kid and is entitled to use him as she sees fit, regardless of his rights, feelings, and values.

Hmm thats a good point... that sounds like a property vs parentship debate

Where does her right as a parent end and his right to his property/individualism (in this case his body/mind) begin

great post