The root choice


Musings on freedom
In the comments to this post on dissent, there has been some debate on when people can be "forced."

I think the discussion grows out of the different perspective on what government should be.

Like most small "l" libertarians, I believe that government involvement in ANYTHING should be highly restricted and limited to protecting the rights of individuals.

People should be free to make their own choices if they accept the consequences and if those choices do not interfere with the free choice of another.

Charlie down the street can live anywhere he wants, but he can't crash on my couch without my permission. He can't eat my groceries without my say so. He can't spend my money.

Now, if he takes a gun and takes my money, that is his choice, but it comes at the cost of mine. His "freedom" takes away from me. It's theft.

If the Federal Agency for Redistribution decides that I have "too much" and takes some of what I have so that Charlie can have more, that is also theft. Even if it is legally sanctioned.

Government should be reactive and very limited in scope.

Frankly, I don't care what Charlie does as long as it doesn't interfere with me. He has exactly the same rights as me. What he doesn't have is the right or power to interfere with my life.

The ONLY justification I have for interfering with Charlie's life is to prevent him from interfering in someone else's.

The Pagan writer Starhawk helped popularize the idea of "power with instead of power over." It really is that simple.

Liberty means you are free to choose while accepting the consequences.

You have no right to dump trash on my property or demand that I pay your water bill. Likewise, I have no right to demand you eat kosher or stop wearing leather. I may choose to join you, or you may choose to join me. The only thing that is out of bounds is initiating force.

That is a key point here, and often misunderstood.

The only way two ways I know of to avoid consequences are through the charity of others or using force to take someone else's choice. I've no problem with charity, as long as someone else doesn't presume to speak for my choice and expect me to pick up the tab. That is when "compassion" becomes extortion.

This is the difference that sets libertarian thought apart. Government should have no role in making that choice for others. People forget that tolerating those who did not accept consequences is a fairly recent development. I think it is tied up in the entitled victim mentality that we've discussed before.

Choose freedom or accept the costs of other's actions.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Thu - March 29, 2007 at 01:50 PM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved