Well that’s the $64,000 questions isn’t it? The U.S. tried to do it with a constitution and we all know how that turned out. But, that doesn’t mean we can’t continue to strive for liberty.
What is liberty, though? Is it even a good thing? Someone’s liberty may be someone else’s slavery. Much of what we in the west hold dear (and have cheap) is payed (“subsidized” if I want to be really cynical) by someone else’s health (or even freedom) in China or Myanmar.
Is a fundamental Christian pastor free to deny to marry a gay couple because of his beliefs? Or are a gay couple free to force a fundamental Christian pastor to marry them, because they have the right to marry? Who’s liberty is more important?
I’m in no way against what we instinctively think of as “liberty;” I’m just thinking it might be a much more complex thing than what a dictionary definition would suggest. I also don’t think it can be solved by a “state v.s. free market” thing; it’s such a western thing to think everything is about how the economy is run.
Freedom can not co-exist with force. Let us run it by the numbers.
First Principles
prin·ci·ple - a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
lib·er·ty - the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice
-
Self Ownership Principle - the state or fact of owning one’s self
-
Non Aggression Principle - Aggression is always unacceptable
ag·gres·sion - an unprovoked coercive action or procedure, especially when intended to dominate or master
pro·voke - stimulate or give rise to (a reaction or emotion, typically a strong or unwelcome one) in someone
co·er·cion - the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force, threats, or fraud
force - violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing
threat - an expressions of intention to inflict force
fraud - intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right
- Defense Principle - Defending yourself and others is always acceptable.
de·fend - provoked reaction against aggression, with force if necessary
So yes the fundamental Christian pastor is free to deny to marry a gay couple because of his beliefs. No a gay couple is not free to force a fundamental Christian pastor to marry them, it is OK by a liberty stand point to make their own religion and get married with that religion. Logic dictates freedom can not co-exist with aggression.
2 Likes
Is stopping somebody from exercising their freedom an act of aggression? Because then it’s not that hard to conceptualize the Christian pastor as the aggressor.
Also, things that would be considered a clear case of self-defense in America or much of Europe would be considered a clear case of aggression in South-Korea.
What I mean by these is that what constitutes provocation, aggression, coercion, threat, violence, defense, etc can be very different based on cultural assumptions (if we wanna be global, that can be important), so a dictionary definition might not help much.
Another question would be whether enforcing our concept of freedom on another people group with a vastly different (and not necessarily inferior) view of life is itself a violation of the freedom we’re trying to promote 
The state has the legitimacy of authority by dint of it being granted by the majority consensus of the electorate - Corporations have the consensus of a handful of profit seeking shareholders only.
BTW not read all posts quite yet, but @Tim87 seems to me to add a welcome and long overdue ray of sanity to this thread. 
(up to post 90 which nailed it)
PS: “Statist” and “coercion” are the free marketeers buzz words…lol
Leave it to the free market courts to decide how to interpret such things. That is the only way such a process can scale.
The pastor isn’t stopping them from exercising their freedom, he’s not stopping them from getting married, it’s just that he personally won’t do it.
A handful? Where do you think those pension funds that most people have are invested?
Without voluntary subscription to state services, there is little in the way of choice available. A vote on non-binding promises once every 4 years? Pfft! No wonder turnout is dropping! Voter turnout at UK general elections 1945 – 2019 | UK Political Info
Who are the “most people” with pension funds first, if you don’t mind.
I totally agree that people have become disaffected by politics/govt etc and with good cause. It doesn’t appear to matter who you vote for, they will represent the interests of the Corporations, not the people. So,what has happened here?
I would suggest that the Corporations have subverted Democracy by variously bribing, threatening and lobbying Govts,
Do you agree with this dynamic? If so,then please recognise that the problem does not lie with the general idea of Democratically elected Govt, but with the way the system has been corrupted - this is the issue that needs to be resolved, not the idea of Govt. The only other issue with the system is in its centralised nature. Large chunks of Govt can be de-centralised and this crypto tech is now able to hold Govts more accountable via transparency at the same time as providing safe-guards against over zealous branches of Govt. The system will get better is all I’m saying and we should be wary of being misdirected as to to the nature of the threat by those proselytizing on behalf of the Corporations.
This is done via media and basically “brain-washing” (to use another’s phrase ) people by foisting this bizarre “Free-Market above all else” ideology on them - in order to create exactly the environment in which they can continue to rape, pollute and pillage the planet.
This is why definitions are important.
Once again definitions are important. The above listed definitions by any other name still have the same meaning. The pastor is not stopping the couple from exercising their freedom. Defence requires provocation otherwise it is aggression.
What contract? Party A arrives at a vacant lot or an abandoned building and decides to move in. Party B then comes along at some point in time later and CLAIMS he owns the property. There IS NO CONTRACT BETWEEN THESE PEOPLE! You keep thinking that just because you stake a claim to a property that that magically places you in a contract with the whole world. IT DOES NOT. It’s you making a statement but no one at all has to respect that statement. No one has to give a shit about your opinion. If you arrive at land parcel A and say that you own it what’s to stop me from saying different? THERE IS NO CONTRACT BETWEEN US! Yes you DO have to assert your territory because your claim means nothing without it. A claim without something to back it up is just you blowing wind. You could be one of these guys that wanders around making grandious claims at every random lot he finds “I own this land and you must pay me tribute.” A masterful con artist. You have no fixed territory that you defend and you have no proof of ownership. Why should I care what you SAY or believe you? It’s what you can do that matters. You say you staked a claim to the land? I say you are both a liar and I don’t care as I don’t recognize your ability to claim land anyway. What are you going to do? The notion the claimant does not need to assert anything is based on the notion that one assumes the claimant is telling the truth. It also assumes that both claimant and prospective customer/tennant have a similar philosophy towards land. If they do not then the claimant does need to assert ownership.
Yes, that is called state sponsored crony capitalism.
Agreed, another issue is involuntary contracts with the citizen of these democracy’s. Democracy’s are meant to be for the people not the other way around.
Edit: @Al_Kafir it’s nice to see you have an ally for a change
Pretty much anyone with a pension fund. Your pension fund manager will buy shares in companies, corporate bonds, etc. If those companies do well, your pension fund grows.
I would suggest the huge likelihood is that you’ve just started a war over territory, which would be the very obvious result of adopting such a mad cap scheme.
You are advocating going back to the days of fiefdoms, then Kingdoms.
You also appear to be advocating free movement between borders which would be another hare-brained disaster.Have you not noticed how immigration is the Number one issue in the long standing free- trade EU? Do you see how this overloads the infra-structure and leads to the rise of Right Wing parties? How well do you think this will work globally and how popular do you think mass migration from poorer countries will be?..lol
My disagreement with government goes deeper than them doing a good or a bad job. It is the involuntary nature of the relationship between the state and the individual which is the problem.
If the state decided to make all services distinct, distributed and voluntary, I would have no problem with it. However, I would argue that it then ceases to become a state at all.
1 Like
Its a good thing we don’t have free movement between borders other wise all those dirty poor people might get a chance at life, liberty and happiness.
Edit: free trade and a free market require free movement, otherwise it is not free.
1 Like
My what?
OK, good…and we can term it “crony Capitalism” if you wish, however…
If you agree with the opposite dynamic that Corporations are basically sponsoring Govt…then "State sponsored doesn’t work…and you’ve inverted the problem.
Can you give me an example of this,just to clarify.
Ah…the same problem again I’m guessing, as “the other way round” would mean the people representing the State…right? The previously agreed dynamic would infer if anything, that the people are being “used” in various ways by the Corporations, by way of subverting Democracy via the Govt. The Govt/Democracy is not functioning as it should due to the Corporations.
Just look at the way the defence industry in USA is massively dominated by Corporations - something Eisenhower warned about letting happen - exactly the scenario we have today:
Yes it is… finally another voice of reason:
Passports and border controls are a relatively modern concept, largely brought about for security reasons during WW1. Before then, people were pretty free to roam.
When you don’t have big tax/spending, borders hardly need enforcing. Socialist states require air tight seals to prevent money from leaking out of the cycle. People are naturally attracted to free stuff.
If you contribute towards a pension, you will have a pension fund manager assigned to your account.
Regardless, pension funds park money in corporations. Millions of people in every country invest - via their pensiond - in corporations. It isn’t just a few rich folk, etc.
1 Like
I am an American citizen by birth. The contract started the moment I was born. You could argue that I could just move to another country, but other countries have a problem with free movement. I might not be able to move to another country and I bet my current country won’t let me move back after I left.