Hi folks. I hear many an individual speak about freedom and liberty, how they cherish these rights, will fight for and, defend these natural rights and so on. Yet, many individuals whom say they support these rights go on to espouse policies and advocate for actions to be taken that are clearly antithetical to what is freedom and liberty.
Freedom and liberty are defined already. There is no getting around their definitions and the logical conclusion of these rights. That being said, here are the definitions of both freedom and liberty.
The quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : Free from slavery or restraint or from the power of another.
1 : 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
Anyone whom is forced to work for the benefit of another individual is not free, but is a slave. They do say that trying the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results equates to insanity. So throughout the many experiments that were governments and the politicians and vast bureaucracies within, the logical conclusion of government would equal insanity.
Yet continued on is the support of not only central governments, but the downright thievery that takes place through means of force and coercion. While we are defining things, let us define what theft is also.
1 a : the act of stealing ; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.
Last I've seen, taxation is not voluntary, and neither are many services. If one does not pay their taxes first letters will be sent, until ultimately property is forcibly taken and violence is used against the individual.
But hold on!!!, one might say. Taxation is necessary for a civilized society. So if we didn't have taxation, there would be individuals running around confiscating half of our incomes!..... That already happens through government, and the special interests that benefit from such theft. So if theft, and extortion are immoral, then how can such acts lead to a civilized moral society when they are uncivil and immoral at their inception?
the practice of obtaining something, esp. money, through force or threats.
Taxation is extortion, with a different name.
But what about the common good? If theft were beneficial for an individuals own little economy, then we would all be thieves. So how can any measure of it be acceptable? Such acts that are forced upon others are antithetical to individual freedom and liberty. So if one wouldn't want anyone threatening their family with violence if they don't pay up every week, then how can anyone advocate a politician do it on their behalf?
So we must look at how it is these policies of theft, coercion, and extortion are continually espoused. If an individual were to go to another individuals home with the intent of taking the homeowners property, and giving the property to their family and friends...this thief will likely face consequences. It could be a neighbor, the dog, or an armed homeowner. So the deterrent is there and can lead to theft prevention.
When a politician engages in theft to benefit special interest individuals or corporations, they do not have to face the homeowner. Those whom advocate the politician to rob and steal on their behalf do not face any consequences either. To ensure their grasp on such power they rely on standing armies, the police, and whatever other means necessary, of which all means are clearly antithetical to freedom and liberty.
Lets take two individuals. One individual named Mary is a homeowner. The other individual Larry, approaches the homeowner and wishes to purchase the said home and the land it occupies. Larry breaks out two suitcases and says to Mary "here, take this money in exchange for your home". Mary replies "this is Monopoly money, I will not accept such nonsense, so kindly leave my land". Larry tells her, "well it is money, because I say it is and it is backed by me and a group of my friends". Mary still refuses.
One of Larry's friends happens to be a politician. This politician writes into law tha Monopoly money will be used for all transactions. Larry goes back to Mary and says "this is now backed by the full faith and credit of the government". Mary still refuses such nonsense, and only wished to receive gold or silver in exchange for the property. Larry then comes back with the politician and the police, stating if she doesn't accept payment in monopoly dollars, she will go to jail.
Some individuals are saying, well this Monopoly money defies logic, and someone would have to delude themselves into believing just because a politician said so, the Monopoly money is real money, and ignore the actions of free individuals in a market, and it's subsequent testing of commodity money through the market (hence the various forms of money through history, until gold and silver won out as a free individuals money.
This same scenario is what the dollar is, along with other fiat currency. It has no value, other that an unrealistic value that has to be forced upon individuals through legal tender laws and threats of violence. For those are the only ways it can survive. Legal tender laws, and forcing an exchange partner to accept a media, or medium of exchange against their will also are antithetical to freedom and liberty.
There is no getting around the aforementioned natural rights that are freedom, and liberty and their meanings. So do you really support freedom and Liberty?