Views on liberty: social contracts and other odds and ends

I wrote in previous posts in this series on my views on the foundation of liberty and rights. They are all in the archive.
To go the other route, one could simply argue, off course, against liberty and self ownership. But as human society and morality evolved, most people at least claim they are for freedom, just inconsistently so. The easiest way to deal with inconsistencies is either ignore them, attempt to redefine freedom or mumble something about social contracts.

The so called social contract is rather elusive and changes too frequently according to whatever suits the one making the argument. Me, I disagree with paragraph 3 in subsection 7 mostly. But if you do not admit the freedom principle, how can there be a social contract? A social contract, like all contracts, should be based on consent of involved parties. How can someone not free enter a contract?

Yes, yes, I know the social contract is just a philosophical concept. It is just a bad one, ill defined, based on nothing objective, and easy to exploit. Meaningless. Ask Kim Jong Un about the social contract and the fat bastard will probably tell you.

There are irreconcilable philosophical differences between paradigms. Self-ownership is, in my view, a much more objective measure than social contract. Because self-ownership has clear boundaries and a clear definition- own your body as long as you respect the fact that others own theirs.

Interaction with government is essentially different from other interactions in human society, due to the monopoly powers of government. In the sphere of private interaction there's choice, even if the choice is unpleasant. Some say that choosing a service from a big corporation is not a choice if you don’t have an alternative, but there is the choice of going without, even if it is inconvenient. There is no right to convenience.

Your freedom is defined by freedom of action within your possibilities. You are not less free if you do not afford a BMW. but want one. You are not less free if you can’t go to a university because you can’t pass the entrance exam. Lack of access to top education based on insufficient grades is not more or less a limitation of rights or freedom than lack of access on the base of not enough money.

Not freedom but may feel like it

Liberty as a political concept and degrees of freedom in day to day action – which can depend on many things - are separate concepts. So being rich does not in any way increase liberty in the philosophical sense, but can increase the range of actions you can undertake.

In nuce (as long as you are not allergic or something),there is a clear difference between personal side of each human life and common side of a group, a difference between society and government, a difference between an moral responsibility and a legal one. It is OK to feel ones duty is to help the unfortunate, but a different thing to be forced by to do so.

Being an asshole is a right, while having cake isn’t. It’s sad in a way, because we’d all rather have more cake than assholes in our life, but that’s the way it is. Freedom is meaningless if we are only free to make choices that meet with government approval.

“To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.” – G.K. Chesterton