Photo 4 Mar 19 notes I recently responded to a similar question about how to simply define libertarianism (liberty) here. As you know, freedom and liberty are often used interchangeably and synonymously. Unfortunately the term is generally abused by every movement out there trying to justify their cause. As a result the waters have been muddied and hardly anyone knows what it means anymore. Similarly as Karen DeCoster mentions,
“A popular rallying cry is that we Americans “enjoy more freedom than any other citizens in the world.” However, I argue that freedom is not a test of measurements. Freedom is not merely a political end that is to be measured quantitatively against that which has been achieved historically in the U.S., or by others worldwide. Freedom is not a measurement to determine the amount of success that we gain, in increments, against our aggressors. Rather, freedom is an end gained via an objective moral order, rooted in the ability to entirely eliminate all coercion from the State, our main aggressor.” — Why We Are Not Free.
Striking at the root as to why there is a lot of confusion regarding the meaning of freedom is Murray Rothbard,
“Some may object that man is not really free because he must obey natural laws. To say that man is not free because he is not able to do anything he may possibly desire, however, confuses freedom and power.  It is clearly absurd to employ as a definition of “freedom” the power of an entity to perform an impossible action, to violate its nature.” — The Mantle of Science.
This clears up the erroneous definitions and uses outlined in your question; freedom from pain, pleasure, death, life, boredom, happiness, and oppression. How then, does one properly define freedom? Hans-Hermann Hoppe makes it very clear here:
A society is free, if every person is recognized as the exclusive owner  of his own (scarce) physical body, if everyone is free to appropriate or  “homestead” previously un-owned things as private property, if everyone  is free to use his body and his homesteaded goods to produce whatever  he wants to produce (without thereby damaging the physical integrity of  other peoples’ property), and if everyone is free to contract with  others regarding their respective properties in any way deemed mutually  beneficial. Any interference with this constitutes an act of aggression,  and a society is un-free to the extent of such aggressions.

I recently responded to a similar question about how to simply define libertarianism (liberty) here. As you know, freedom and liberty are often used interchangeably and synonymously. Unfortunately the term is generally abused by every movement out there trying to justify their cause. As a result the waters have been muddied and hardly anyone knows what it means anymore. Similarly as Karen DeCoster mentions,

  • “A popular rallying cry is that we Americans “enjoy more freedom than any other citizens in the world.” However, I argue that freedom is not a test of measurements. Freedom is not merely a political end that is to be measured quantitatively against that which has been achieved historically in the U.S., or by others worldwide. Freedom is not a measurement to determine the amount of success that we gain, in increments, against our aggressors. Rather, freedom is an end gained via an objective moral order, rooted in the ability to entirely eliminate all coercion from the State, our main aggressor.” Why We Are Not Free.

Striking at the root as to why there is a lot of confusion regarding the meaning of freedom is Murray Rothbard,

  • “Some may object that man is not really free because he must obey natural laws. To say that man is not free because he is not able to do anything he may possibly desire, however, confuses freedom and power.  It is clearly absurd to employ as a definition of “freedom” the power of an entity to perform an impossible action, to violate its nature.” The Mantle of Science.

This clears up the erroneous definitions and uses outlined in your question; freedom from pain, pleasure, death, life, boredom, happiness, and oppression. How then, does one properly define freedom? Hans-Hermann Hoppe makes it very clear here:

  • A society is free, if every person is recognized as the exclusive owner of his own (scarce) physical body, if everyone is free to appropriate or “homestead” previously un-owned things as private property, if everyone is free to use his body and his homesteaded goods to produce whatever he wants to produce (without thereby damaging the physical integrity of other peoples’ property), and if everyone is free to contract with others regarding their respective properties in any way deemed mutually beneficial. Any interference with this constitutes an act of aggression, and a society is un-free to the extent of such aggressions.
  1. beyond-liberty reblogged this from conza
  2. carpelibertatem reblogged this from conza
  3. iambinarymind reblogged this from conza
  4. losingthepedals reblogged this from conza
  5. This was featured in #Politics
  6. conza posted this

Design crafted by Prashanth Kamalakanthan. Powered by Tumblr.