Philosophy of Freedom

The whole philosophy of liberty boils down to self-ownership—you know, individual sovereignty, autonomy, whatever you want to call it.

The core principle is dead simple: you own your life. Period. Saying otherwise is just a fancy way of claiming someone else has a bigger stake in your existence than you do. No person, no group, no government... nobody owns you, and you don't own them.

You exist through time—past, present, and future. That temporal stretch is your life, your freedom, and everything you've built with it.

Lose your life, and you lose your future. Lose your freedom, and you lose your present. Lose what you've earned, and you're losing the very history that shaped who you are.

Your life and your freedom represent your property. Your stuff is the result of your work—it's the literal product of your time, energy, and talent. Property is just nature that you’ve transformed into something useful through labor. It also includes stuff owned by others that you acquired through voluntary trade and mutual consent.

Voluntary exchange means both sides actually benefit from the deal—otherwise, why bother? Only the people involved can legitimately decide to make that swap.

Sometimes, people use force or fraud to snatch property without consent. Using force or fraud to take a life is murder. Using it to take freedom is slavery. Using it to take property is theft. Simple as that.

It doesn't matter if it's one guy acting alone, a mob ganging up on one person, or a bunch of "authorities" using their power to crush you—the outcome and the immorality are exactly the same.

Everyone has the right to defend their life, their freedom, and their rightfully earned property from aggressive interference. You can ask for help defending those rights, sure. But nobody has the right to initiate force or aggression against someone else's life, liberty, or property. And because of that, you can't delegate to some third party the right to go out and initiate aggression on your behalf.

You have the right to find your own leaders, but you damn well don't have the right to impose a ruler on anyone else. No matter how they get picked, leaders are still just humans—they don't have any special rights or privileges that put them above anyone else.

I don't care what fancy titles they hold or how many people cheer for them—officials and leaders have zero right to kill, enslave, or steal. You can't hand over rights to someone else that you don't even possess yourself.

Since you own your life, you're responsible for it. You aren't renting your existence to people demanding obedience, and you aren't a slave to anyone demanding you sacrifice yourself for them. You pick your own goals based on your own values. Success and failure—both are necessary for learning and growing. Actions done for others, or by others for you, are only moral if they're based on voluntary, mutual consent... because morality can't exist without freedom of choice.

That's the bedrock of a truly free society. It isn't just the most practical and humane way to live—it's the only ethical one.

All those global messes caused by governments initiating force? There's a fix. The fix is to stop demanding that officials use force on your behalf. Evil doesn't just come from bad people—it comes from good people who tolerate the initiation of force as a way to solve problems. That's how, throughout history, the good guys have kept handing power to the bad guys...

Trusting a free society means focusing on the market process of discovering moral values—not some forced vision or preordained goal shoved down everyone's throats. Using the state to force a specific vision on people is just intellectual laziness, and honestly, it almost always ends in unintended, messy consequences...

Building a truly free society takes guts—guts to think, speak, and actually act. Especially when doing nothing is the easy way out.

This whole thing is based on the epilogue from "The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible" by Ken Schoolland. If you ask me, it’s one of the most punchy texts ever written explaining the political philosophy of libertarianism—or even more accurately, voluntarism. Just two basic principles:

1. You own your life. Nobody has a greater claim to your life than you do. Life isn't just existing physically; it's a timeline stretching from your past into your future.

2. Initiating force against peaceful people—for any reason whatsoever—is morally disgusting and totally unacceptable. The only time force is okay is in self-defense, after someone else has already crossed the line against you.

I don't see anyone on this forum—or even in broader American society—having a serious conversation about this stuff, so I'm hoping for a more concrete discussion here. 🙂

driftingjackal5 said:

The whole philosophy of liberty boils down to self-ownership—you know, individual sovereignty, autonomy, whatever you want to call it.

The core principle is dead simple: you own your life. Period. Saying otherwise is just a fancy way of claiming someone else has a bigger stake in your existence than you do. No person, no group, no government... nobody owns you, and you don't own them.

You exist through time—past, present, and future. That temporal stretch is your life, your freedom, and everything you've built with it.

Lose your life, and you lose your future. Lose your freedom, and you lose your present. Lose what you've earned, and you're losing the very history that shaped who you are.

Your life and your freedom represent your property. Your stuff is the result of your work—it's the literal product of your time, energy, and talent. Property is just nature that you’ve transformed into something useful through labor. It also includes stuff owned by others that you acquired through voluntary trade and mutual consent.

Voluntary exchange means both sides actually benefit from the deal—otherwise, why bother? Only the people involved can legitimately decide to make that swap.

Sometimes, people use force or fraud to snatch property without consent. Using force or fraud to take a life is murder. Using it to take freedom is slavery. Using it to take property is theft. Simple as that.

It doesn't matter if it's one guy acting alone, a mob ganging up on one person, or a bunch of "authorities" using their power to crush you—the outcome and the immorality are exactly the same.

Everyone has the right to defend their life, their freedom, and their rightfully earned property from aggressive interference. You can ask for help defending those rights, sure. But nobody has the right to initiate force or aggression against someone else's life, liberty, or property. And because of that, you can't delegate to some third party the right to go out and initiate aggression on your behalf.

You have the right to find your own leaders, but you damn well don't have the right to impose a ruler on anyone else. No matter how they get picked, leaders are still just humans—they don't have any special rights or privileges that put them above anyone else.

I don't care what fancy titles they hold or how many people cheer for them—officials and leaders have zero right to kill, enslave, or steal. You can't hand over rights to someone else that you don't even possess yourself.

Since you own your life, you're responsible for it. You aren't renting your existence to people demanding obedience, and you aren't a slave to anyone demanding you sacrifice yourself for them. You pick your own goals based on your own values. Success and failure—both are necessary for learning and growing. Actions done for others, or by others for you, are only moral if they're based on voluntary, mutual consent... because morality can't exist without freedom of choice.

That's the bedrock of a truly free society. It isn't just the most practical and humane way to live—it's the only ethical one.

All those global messes caused by governments initiating force? There's a fix. The fix is to stop demanding that officials use force on your behalf. Evil doesn't just come from bad people—it comes from good people who tolerate the initiation of force as a way to solve problems. That's how, throughout history, the good guys have kept handing power to the bad guys...

Trusting a free society means focusing on the market process of discovering moral values—not some forced vision or preordained goal shoved down everyone's throats. Using the state to force a specific vision on people is just intellectual laziness, and honestly, it almost always ends in unintended, messy consequences...

Building a truly free society takes guts—guts to think, speak, and actually act. Especially when doing nothing is the easy way out.

This whole thing is based on the epilogue from "The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible" by Ken Schoolland. If you ask me, it’s one of the most punchy texts ever written explaining the political philosophy of libertarianism—or even more accurately, voluntarism. Just two basic principles:

1. You own your life. Nobody has a greater claim to your life than you do. Life isn't just existing physically; it's a timeline stretching from your past into your future.

2. Initiating force against peaceful people—for any reason whatsoever—is morally disgusting and totally unacceptable. The only time force is okay is in self-defense, after someone else has already crossed the line against you.

I don't see anyone on this forum—or even in broader American society—having a serious conversation about this stuff, so I'm hoping for a more concrete discussion here. 🙂

What you’ve laid out here flies in the face of every conceivable—and frankly, impossible—law regarding infinite economic growth. Anyone foolish enough to try and obstruct that momentum is looking at being laughed out of the room at best. At worst? You end up like Swartz, trapped in an endless loop, or if you're truly stuck in the gears, you'll find yourself facing a Kennedy-style magic bullet to the head.

What exactly is it you're looking to dive into?

We’re all just chickens in a coop, really. Our radius of movement is dictated by whoever happens to be hunting us, and we spend our precious little scraps of existence trading away our time just to stay fed—even though, if we're being honest, we don't actually have much time to begin with. Right?

Every once in a while, you see someone actually pull it off—they find a way to grab some capital, maybe through a clever side hustle or a lucky break, and use it to carve out a bit of genuine freedom for themselves. It’s that ability to just move through the world without being tethered to someone else's whims. But honestly? It’s a rare thing to witness. And I’m not even talking about those career politicians or the usual vultures circling the taxpayer dime; they aren't "securing freedom," they're just padding their own pockets. No, I mean the real outliers.

The average person... just stuck in that middle ground. They sleep about as much as they actually live—eight hours a day, give or take. That leaves you with maybe three or four hours of actual "life" left in the tank. Everything else? It just dissolves into the commute, the grind at the office, and then resting just so you can go back and do it all over again. It’s a cycle of working to rest and resting to work.

It feels almost pointless to even debate the concept of freedom at this stage. We essentially signed off on our own exploitation nearly a century ago. Sure, we might sit here feeling content because we have access to clean running water and electricity, but that doesn't change the underlying reality—we’re still just slaves in a different guise. Look at what's happening in places like Vietnam; people are scraping by on a few meager dollars, trapped in poverty with absolutely no way to save money or actually get ahead in life.

Thank God that the wonderful West gives you money upfront—provided you promise to be industrious for the next few years and actually pay it back. It really highlights how much poorer we are compared to Vietnam. If we didn't have this option to borrow against our future, we’d just be living paycheck to paycheck. I can't help but wonder what life would actually look like for some hypothetical Person X working for the average guy. $1667Forget all that talk about having a "safety net" or some family estate to fall back on. I’m out here on my own, just a renter navigating the world without any way to take on debt.

It seems like you may have cut off mid-sentence. I’m standing by—just let me know what you need me to rework. $1667 Maybe there’s some kind of uprising brewing over in Vietnam, but this? This isn't Vietnam. We're just broke.

In this day and age, being broke and being free are two things that just don't go together. It’s a hard truth. I often think about someone who decides they've had enough of the rat race—someone who chooses to just live in a tent, completely off the grid without electricity. In the real world, the police would probably just come along and kick them out for being there. It's difficult to claim independence when you lack the means to defend your own space.

Freedom in the 21st century? It’s a bit of an illusion. At the end of the day, what we really have is just varying levels of bank balances. Even money itself isn't some magic wand that lets you do whatever you want; honestly, more often than not, having cash actually ends up being its own kind of constraint. Take that old TV show Nightmare, for example. For years, people labeled it this bastion of "democratic" discourse because anyone could basically walk in and say whatever they pleased. But looking back, that wasn't true freedom at all. It wasn't about liberty; it was just about the host's deep pockets and his connections to powerful politicians who decided, quite conveniently, to let him talk like that.

It went on for a while, I suppose, until they finally stepped in and shut it down.

Television is always censoring the hard stuff. You’re never going to see anything explicit during the day—it's just constant censorship. Sure, maybe you'll catch some breasts here and there, but full-on nudity? Forget about it. It's almost impossible.

A gun? No. A bullet? Not really. An explosion? Nah. That’s all just business as usual. You can watch Obama’s cronies butcher Gaddafi without blinking, but suddenly people can't handle watching Lisa Ann swallow someone's junk? Make it make sense.

So much for 21st-century freedom.

It’s a myth. We live in a world where pharmaceutical lobbies hold so much sway that growing a specific plant—one with proven medicinal properties—is still treated like a crime. Cigarettes? Sure, go ahead.

That’s just more proof of what "freedom" looks like today. And frankly, I couldn't care less what the conservative zealots think about it; this isn't some hippie demagoguery. Marijuana—and I loathe that term, really, it's just corporate branding designed to distance itself from actual "herb"—is just a plant. It's no different than Swiss chard. Except, apparently, I can plant chard whenever and wherever I please, but marijuana is off-limits?

I remember mentioning this to my mother once, and she told me that even growing tobacco is prohibited. I can't say for certain if that's strictly true, but if it is, then there you have it: the state of freedom in the 21st century.

It is truly fascinating, the narrative they've managed to sell us. Working eight hours a day until you hit sixty-seven... you're away from home for eight hours every single day starting from when you're seven years old, yet they still have the audacity to lecture us about liberty.

It's all quite ridiculous, really.

I expected this to be more about societal freedom—democracy, really—rather than individual liberty, especially since this forum is flooded with sentiments like "the people have no say and can't change anything."

Otherwise, the quoted text in the opening post sounds noble; I doubt anyone here would disagree with it. However, once you try to apply those ideals to real-world scenarios, everyone will just interpret them however they please.

@Amanda Patel2 — it’s a far cry from the 19th century or anything before that—back when nobody actually did a thing, yet everyone somehow had everything they needed.

Solid read. People will only achieve true freedom once they're liberated from the oppression and violence of the state.

Personally, I think the text feels a bit unrealistic because it starts with one individual and expects every single person to follow suit perfectly.
If that were actually possible, nobody would need any kind of community beyond family units.

And you can bet those family groups wouldn't even dream of building something like a railroad—it just wouldn't make financial sense for them. 🤷

So, from a purely humanistic standpoint, the piece is lovely, but economically speaking? It just doesn't hold water.

Ashley Bishop4 As stated by:
If you ask me, the whole argument feels a bit disconnected from reality. It seems to be predicated on the idea of a single individual, and then—as if that were perfectly reasonable—it expects every other person out there to mirror that exact same standard. I guess it just assumes everyone operates on that same level, which, let's face it, isn't exactly how things work in the real world.
If we were actually able to pull it off, I suppose no one would have any need for any communities whatsoever, other than perhaps those based on the Rhodes model.

I suppose there’s a common misconception that individual liberty implies the total dissolution of social structures. I don't think that's quite right. To me, true freedom doesn't mean we all become isolated islands; rather, it means that any community or social group you join is a result of your own volition—based on your specific interests, values, or whatever else drives you. It’s about association without coercion. You choose your circle, rather than having one forced upon you by some higher authority.

Ashley Bishop4 As requested:
I suppose if you look at it from a certain perspective, the Rhodesian communities wouldn't have even considered building something like a railroad in the first place—it simply wouldn't have made any financial sense for them. 🤷

So, if you look at this from a purely humanistic perspective, I suppose the argument is quite elegant and holds up rather nicely; however, when you actually sit down to crunch the numbers, the economic reality just doesn't hold water.

Take the development of the American railroad—specifically the first transcontinental line—as a prime example. It wasn't some massive state initiative that jumpstarted the whole thing; it was driven by individuals. Things were going incredibly well for them, too, right up until the moment that army of bureaucrats showed up with taxpayer money in hand. They moved in, fueled by state subsidies, and manufactured those massive tycoons at the expense of the public (which, let's be honest, seems to be how it always works). ☕)

I suppose one has to wonder how a private railroad could possibly manage to get off the ground without a massive government handout, let alone how it could hope to stay competitive against three different rail giants whose entire overhead was essentially footed by the taxpayers. It seems like a bit of a rigged game, doesn't it?

James J. Hill was essentially held hostage by the cold, hard reality of the bottom line. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he couldn't just rely on a blank check from Washington; he had to operate strictly within the bounds of profitable, red-to-black business dynamics. Instead of "rushing to collect government subsidies," he took a much more methodical approach, expanding his railroad one segment at a time into the rugged northern wilderness. His strategy was actually quite clever, I suppose: Hill would build an extension westward a few hundred Miles , then move in farmers fra The East to settle the land along his tracks, often doing so free of charge. Once those farmers were established, they’d naturally begin using Hill's railroad to ship their crops back East to market. Because Hill received no government money, he was forced into a cycle where every single westward expansion had to prove its profitability before he could even dream of laying more track. It was a grueling process, but it worked. In ten years , Hill completed his transcontinental railroad, the Great Northern, without receiving a single cent of taxpayer money. Quite an achievement, really.

To hit peak efficiency while keeping operating costs at an absolute minimum, Hill had to approach every single expansion with incredibly meticulous planning. It wasn't just luck; Hill personally mapped out and constructed his lines along the shortest, most direct routes possible. He was also extremely thorough when surveying the land, specifically hunting for paths that offered the gentlest grades to minimize the struggle over hills. Furthermore, since Hill was footing the bill with his own hard-earned private capital, he was absolutely relentless about demanding the highest caliber of workmanship and top-tier materials.

-------

The construction of the transcontinental railroads serves as a rather striking case study in the clash between political entrepreneurs and true market entrepreneurs. Back in the 1860s, we saw this massive, rapid expansion of rail lines tearing across the USA. It seems that certain political entrepreneurs, always hunting for an easy payday, decided to shake hands with Congressmen who were looking to grab some unearned power and prestige. Essentially, those political players lobbied Congressmen for the federal government to subsidize the building of America's First transcontinental railroad.
It was essentially a goldmine for the parasitic elite class. You had white-collar political grifters lining their pockets with massive government handouts, while the Congressmen authorizing those subsidies got to bask in the glory—essentially justifying their own existence by claiming they were doing the public a massive favor by financing The building of America's First transcontinental railroad.

The fix for all the issues mc brings up is simple self-sufficiency—basically just working for yourself on your own terms.

driftingjackal5 said:

The whole philosophy of liberty boils down to self-ownership—you know, individual sovereignty, autonomy, whatever you want to call it.

The core principle is dead simple: you own your life. Period. Saying otherwise is just a fancy way of claiming someone else has a bigger stake in your existence than you do. No person, no group, no government... nobody owns you, and you don't own them.

You exist through time—past, present, and future. That temporal stretch is your life, your freedom, and everything you've built with it.

Lose your life, and you lose your future. Lose your freedom, and you lose your present. Lose what you've earned, and you're losing the very history that shaped who you are.

Your life and your freedom represent your property. Your stuff is the result of your work—it's the literal product of your time, energy, and talent. Property is just nature that you’ve transformed into something useful through labor. It also includes stuff owned by others that you acquired through voluntary trade and mutual consent.

Voluntary exchange means both sides actually benefit from the deal—otherwise, why bother? Only the people involved can legitimately decide to make that swap.

Sometimes, people use force or fraud to snatch property without consent. Using force or fraud to take a life is murder. Using it to take freedom is slavery. Using it to take property is theft. Simple as that.

It doesn't matter if it's one guy acting alone, a mob ganging up on one person, or a bunch of "authorities" using their power to crush you—the outcome and the immorality are exactly the same.

Everyone has the right to defend their life, their freedom, and their rightfully earned property from aggressive interference. You can ask for help defending those rights, sure. But nobody has the right to initiate force or aggression against someone else's life, liberty, or property. And because of that, you can't delegate to some third party the right to go out and initiate aggression on your behalf.

You have the right to find your own leaders, but you damn well don't have the right to impose a ruler on anyone else. No matter how they get picked, leaders are still just humans—they don't have any special rights or privileges that put them above anyone else.

I don't care what fancy titles they hold or how many people cheer for them—officials and leaders have zero right to kill, enslave, or steal. You can't hand over rights to someone else that you don't even possess yourself.

Since you own your life, you're responsible for it. You aren't renting your existence to people demanding obedience, and you aren't a slave to anyone demanding you sacrifice yourself for them. You pick your own goals based on your own values. Success and failure—both are necessary for learning and growing. Actions done for others, or by others for you, are only moral if they're based on voluntary, mutual consent... because morality can't exist without freedom of choice.

That's the bedrock of a truly free society. It isn't just the most practical and humane way to live—it's the only ethical one.

All those global messes caused by governments initiating force? There's a fix. The fix is to stop demanding that officials use force on your behalf. Evil doesn't just come from bad people—it comes from good people who tolerate the initiation of force as a way to solve problems. That's how, throughout history, the good guys have kept handing power to the bad guys...

Trusting a free society means focusing on the market process of discovering moral values—not some forced vision or preordained goal shoved down everyone's throats. Using the state to force a specific vision on people is just intellectual laziness, and honestly, it almost always ends in unintended, messy consequences...

Building a truly free society takes guts—guts to think, speak, and actually act. Especially when doing nothing is the easy way out.

This whole thing is based on the epilogue from "The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible" by Ken Schoolland. If you ask me, it’s one of the most punchy texts ever written explaining the political philosophy of libertarianism—or even more accurately, voluntarism. Just two basic principles:

1. You own your life. Nobody has a greater claim to your life than you do. Life isn't just existing physically; it's a timeline stretching from your past into your future.

2. Initiating force against peaceful people—for any reason whatsoever—is morally disgusting and totally unacceptable. The only time force is okay is in self-defense, after someone else has already crossed the line against you.

I don't see anyone on this forum—or even in broader American society—having a serious conversation about this stuff, so I'm hoping for a more concrete discussion here. 🙂

In economic terms, individual liberty practically means that nobody can live off your dime without your explicit permission...

It's difficult to expect a real debate about this here in the States, where people seem perfectly fine with everyone living off someone else's tab. In America, if you actually try to live off your own earnings—say, by being a private entrepreneur—you're often branded a thief. But if you live off everyone else's money through public service, suddenly you're a respected member of society fighting for the "public interest."

Decades of brainwashing from communists, nationalists, and today's autocratic parties have finally come due. I honestly have no idea how many people in this country actually think for themselves anymore.

What I'm curious about is: how many people actually realize that a system built on these principles of individual liberty is, in reality, that much-hated and despised free market? 😍

Jack Smith5 said:The fix for all the issues mc brings up is simple self-sufficiency—basically just working for yourself on your own terms.

That’s the only way out, really, but it’s practically impossible in today’s hyper-consolidated, paranoid world.

Charles Campbell7 said:In economic terms, individual liberty practically means that nobody can live off your dime without your explicit permission...

It's difficult to expect a real debate about this here in the States, where people seem perfectly fine with everyone living off someone else's tab. In America, if you actually try to live off your own earnings—say, by being a private entrepreneur—you're often branded a thief. But if you live off everyone else's money through public service, suddenly you're a respected member of society fighting for the "public interest."

Decades of brainwashing from communists, nationalists, and today's autocratic parties have finally come due. I honestly have no idea how many people in this country actually think for themselves anymore.

What I'm curious about is: how many people actually realize that a system built on these principles of individual liberty is, in reality, that much-hated and despised free market? 😍

this

From what I've seen, most modern hippies, Occupy Movement types, and the like preach about "freedom" while trying to ride everyone else's coattails. Real freedom means all human interactions happen without coercion and based on mutual consent.

Ryan Nelson5 said:I expected this to be more about societal freedom—democracy, really—rather than individual liberty, especially since this forum is flooded with sentiments like "the people have no say and can't change anything."

Otherwise, the quoted text in the opening post sounds noble; I doubt anyone here would disagree with it. However, once you try to apply those ideals to real-world scenarios, everyone will just interpret them however they please.

If you read that text and decide you're totally on board, you gotta ask yourself: do the people you call "leaders" actually believe what they wrote? And if they don't, why the hell are you following them? I’m convinced the only way to shift the political and social vibe is to start with the individual, not by shouting opinions from some political soapbox. It’s about getting individuals to realize that begging the state—or whoever’s in power—for handouts is straight-up immoral, and actually understanding *why* it's wrong.

Take the last census, for instance. Almost 90% of Americans identify as Christian. Isn't the whole foundation of Christian morality built on things like "love thy neighbor as thyself," "turn the other cheek," and "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you"? So why don't people actually live like that? Why is it that kids who were sitting in religious studies class yesterday are out on the streets tomorrow screaming for "free education"? Let's break down what "free education" actually means for a second. There are really only two options: either they think teachers should work for zero pay, or they think the state needs to provide them with fair compensation. But can the state pay for anything without taking it from someone else first? Obviously not. The state is just a monopoly on the legal use of force. When they respond to this demand for "free schooling," they’re going to use coercion—using taxes to snatch property from one person to give it to another. In this case, they’d strip all taxpayers to fund the education of the people demanding it. That’s the state initiating force on their behalf. Yet, the people demanding "free school" would never dream of breaking into their neighbor's house and grabbing a few thousand bucks to pay for their tuition. So why is it okay when the state does it for them?

driftingjackal5 said:If you read that text and decide you're totally on board, you gotta ask yourself: do the people you call "leaders" actually believe what they wrote? And if they don't, why the hell are you following them? I’m convinced the only way to shift the political and social vibe is to start with the individual, not by shouting opinions from some political soapbox. It’s about getting individuals to realize that begging the state—or whoever’s in power—for handouts is straight-up immoral, and actually understanding *why* it's wrong.

Take the last census, for instance. Almost 90% of Americans identify as Christian. Isn't the whole foundation of Christian morality built on things like "love thy neighbor as thyself," "turn the other cheek," and "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you"? So why don't people actually live like that? Why is it that kids who were sitting in religious studies class yesterday are out on the streets tomorrow screaming for "free education"? Let's break down what "free education" actually means for a second. There are really only two options: either they think teachers should work for zero pay, or they think the state needs to provide them with fair compensation. But can the state pay for anything without taking it from someone else first? Obviously not. The state is just a monopoly on the legal use of force. When they respond to this demand for "free schooling," they’re going to use coercion—using taxes to snatch property from one person to give it to another. In this case, they’d strip all taxpayers to fund the education of the people demanding it. That’s the state initiating force on their behalf. Yet, the people demanding "free school" would never dream of breaking into their neighbor's house and grabbing a few thousand bucks to pay for their tuition. So why is it okay when the state does it for them?

It isn't just immoral; I would argue it is profoundly foolish. What people perceive as "free" handouts from the government are nothing more than empty illusions and outright scams. If you look at the reality of the situation, almost all social programs run by the American state—which accounts for about two-thirds of the entire budget—are pure deceptions. In truth, none of those students, patients, farmers, retirees, or citizens in general actually profit; instead, they are being systematically plundered through these very programs.

However, I suspect that nothing can realistically be accomplished on this front until we silence these sanctimonious parrots who drone on incessantly about the "social state," the "public interest," and "justice." Most of them are likely well-meaning people, but their catastrophic ignorance causes them to trample everything in their path. As for those individuals who justify taking out massive, unpayable foreign loans just to fund lifestyles involving luxury apartments and fancy cars—arguing that "Americans need a place to live and something to drive"—we ought to call them by their real names: parasites and traitors, and hold them accountable. I wonder what that crowd will have to say in a few years when the state finally collapses under its own mountain of debt: "Oh, our apologies, we didn't realize"?😠

Charles Campbell7 said:It isn't just immoral; I would argue it is profoundly foolish. What people perceive as "free" handouts from the government are nothing more than empty illusions and outright scams. If you look at the reality of the situation, almost all social programs run by the American state—which accounts for about two-thirds of the entire budget—are pure deceptions. In truth, none of those students, patients, farmers, retirees, or citizens in general actually profit; instead, they are being systematically plundered through these very programs.

However, I suspect that nothing can realistically be accomplished on this front until we silence these sanctimonious parrots who drone on incessantly about the "social state," the "public interest," and "justice." Most of them are likely well-meaning people, but their catastrophic ignorance causes them to trample everything in their path. As for those individuals who justify taking out massive, unpayable foreign loans just to fund lifestyles involving luxury apartments and fancy cars—arguing that "Americans need a place to live and something to drive"—we ought to call them by their real names: parasites and traitors, and hold them accountable. I wonder what that crowd will have to say in a few years when the state finally collapses under its own mountain of debt: "Oh, our apologies, we didn't realize"?😠

Haha, when you typed this out, you must have been using a copy-paste from some ancient 486... "ends up in debt slavery"?

We’ve been there for a long time now. It’s actually good to see someone else still holding a solid stance against the whole pension scam.

First sentence from the text cited in the first post:

Philosophy of freedom is built on the idea of self-ownership (also called individual sovereignty, individual autonomy, etc.).

There's this book, "The political theory of possessive individualism : Hobbes to Locke," by C. B. Macpherson, published in 1962 (with a US edition in 1981). It dives into the "roots of liberal-democratic theory." Basically, all the other "noise" that 17th and 18th-century political thinkers obsessed over gets tossed aside, leaving nothing but the raw question of property. Cut through all the fluff, and "individual sovereignty and autonomy" just boils down to owning stuff. It’s strictly about protecting property—that's the "sacred" part. Everything else about being a person, having agency, or true freedom? Just ignored.

The essence of your life and liberty is your property, or ownership.

Like I said. Accumulated knowledge, reputation, friends, love, kids... none of that counts as "essence." It’s all just "property" that nobody's allowed to touch because:

Your property is the fruit of your labor—the product of investing your time, energy, and talent.

Sure, maybe some external factors play a role here and there, but who cares. Not worth mentioning.

Sometimes people use force or fraud to take property from others without consent. Initiating force or fraud to take a life is murder. Initiating force or fraud to take liberty is slavery. Initiating force or fraud to take property is theft.

Proudhon (way back in the 19th century) claimed all property is theft from others, and Rousseau (even earlier) argued the first guy to fence off a plot of land and yell "this is mine!" was a criminal. They were dedicated to freedom too, just not in this "possessive individualism" way.

In real-world politics, proponents of "libertarian" theory (or "anarcho-capitalism" if you want to go extreme) argue that no one—not even the state—has the right to snatch any part of someone's property via taxes or any other levy. That's "aggression."

Everyone has the right to defend their life, liberty, and justly acquired property from the violent aggression of others.

The theory skips a huge question: what if some property was obtained unfairly? Do we have the right to investigate that? Does anyone else have the right to seize it? (Like, during a "transfer of ownership"?) In practice, libertarians just assume that all property is, by definition, justly acquired.

You’ve got every right to look for your own leaders, but you sure as hell don't have the right to force those rulers on everyone else. No matter how they get picked, at the end of the day, they're just people. They don't carry some magical status or special rights any different from the rest of us.

Exactly. The state shouldn't be able to tell a wealthy guy he has to cough up taxes just so the poor can get social security or so every kid gets a public school education. Everyone should just look out for themselves and their own kin!

Since you own your own life, you're the one responsible for it. You aren't renting your existence out to others who demand your obedience, nor are you a slave to anyone demanding your sacrifice.

But let's be real, we all do that. It's the basic setup—selling your labor. Marx didn't invent that; people were doing it way before him. Almost everyone is either "renting out their lives" (aka selling hours or the right to use our muscle) to someone else, or we're renting out someone else's life. That's how a capital owner makes money—not off their own sweat, but off yours.

There are actual solutions to the global mess caused by governments initiating force. The fix is simple: stop demanding that officials initiate force on your behalf.

And remember, "force" is just a fancy word for taxation. That needs to go. People should handle their own healthcare, their kids' schooling, all that stuff. In a truly radical version, even your own safety—because honestly, what's the point of the police? That's just someone else's force. Why does it even exist? Just buy a gun and protect yourself and your family.

Using state power to shove a specific vision down everyone's throats is just intellectual laziness, and it almost always blows up in your face with unintended consequences.

Oh, I bet! Like that "vision" where everyone has health insurance and gets help when they're dying without some bureaucrat checking their bank account first. Yuck. Disgusting. Total violation of freedom! Heaven forbid we don't strip the poor of their "freedom" to die!

Building a free society takes guts—guts to think, speak, and act. Especially when staying quiet is the easy way out...

I'll give you this: libertarianism, or The political theory of possessive individualism : Hobbes to Locke, is a coherent theory built on a single idea of liberty. But you gotta watch the fallout. So far, no society has actually committed to it consistently. In the USA, for instance, instead of libertarianism, we deal with "communitarianism."

I said earlier that The political theory of possessive individualism : Hobbes to Locke makes sense, but you gotta watch out for the fallout. But still...

driftingjackal5 said:If you read that text and decide you're totally on board, you gotta ask yourself: do the people you call "leaders" actually believe what they wrote? And if they don't, why the hell are you following them? I’m convinced the only way to shift the political and social vibe is to start with the individual, not by shouting opinions from some political soapbox. It’s about getting individuals to realize that begging the state—or whoever’s in power—for handouts is straight-up immoral, and actually understanding *why* it's wrong.

Take the last census, for instance. Almost 90% of Americans identify as Christian. Isn't the whole foundation of Christian morality built on things like "love thy neighbor as thyself," "turn the other cheek," and "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you"? So why don't people actually live like that? Why is it that kids who were sitting in religious studies class yesterday are out on the streets tomorrow screaming for "free education"? Let's break down what "free education" actually means for a second. There are really only two options: either they think teachers should work for zero pay, or they think the state needs to provide them with fair compensation. But can the state pay for anything without taking it from someone else first? Obviously not. The state is just a monopoly on the legal use of force. When they respond to this demand for "free schooling," they’re going to use coercion—using taxes to snatch property from one person to give it to another. In this case, they’d strip all taxpayers to fund the education of the people demanding it. That’s the state initiating force on their behalf. Yet, the people demanding "free school" would never dream of breaking into their neighbor's house and grabbing a few thousand bucks to pay for their tuition. So why is it okay when the state does it for them?

... trying to pull that whole absolute egoism philosophy out of Christianity? That just doesn't track anymore.

Looking further at this logic—which basically trashes ALL free education (yeah, even elementary and high school!)—we're seeing honest, blunt libertarianism again. It’s the kind that isn't afraid to spit out an unpopular consequence. In the real world, every single state in the US has figured out that K-12 education (which nowadays is basically 11-12 years!) has to be mandatory and free, and for a lot, even college too.

For those of us without kids, the state is essentially taking our money to pay for someone else's tuition. Hardly anyone complains about that. Or take the healthy folks—I'm 55 and rarely get sick—our money goes toward treating the sick, and so on. If you follow the "possessive individualism" theory to its logical end, it's all unfair, but most people won't call it that. That's why libertarianism isn't popular and probably never will be.

You wrote a ton of stuff here, but you haven't actually explained why you think taking liberty so "literally" is a bad thing. Is it because sick people won't get care? How can you even know that? Before medicine was socialized, there were fraternal organizations—like the mason, the Rosicrucian, the Elkov, and a million others—where you got top-tier healthcare just by paying a small annual fee, and it was all completely voluntary. Check out this video on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBFoC1gkExI

Is it because kids won't go to school? Do you seriously believe nobody went to school before the state took control of education? There was an entire network of private institutions, from religious groups to charities, that ran their own schools and educated kids for free...

Or is it because you'd feel "less secure" in a free society without coercion? Here’s what David Friedman has to say about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YfgKOnYx5A

We can talk about whatever you want, but when you just dismiss an idea as "unrealistic" out of hand without making a single concrete argument... it doesn't work.

Look, driftingjackal5, it doesn't matter what my take is. What matters is grasping how "freedom" is actually being defined here—it’s a different beast than what most thinkers argue. Plus, you gotta look at the fallout. You can push libertarianism all you want without falling into that Ayn Rand trap where she claims even basic compassion is immoral. That whole "objectivism" thing is its own kind of nightmare.

Look, it’s not like this is some revolutionary new concept I’m just trashing out of spite. Every single capitalist state from around 1870 through the post-WWII era hit a wall where they had to roll out social programs because there was no other way. They basically expanded that whole "minimal state" liberal idea because they had to. It's not a theory; it's just what happened—an *a posteriori* reality.

Before the government took over the whole education scene, hardly anyone actually went to school. Back in Europe, literacy rates were trash—maybe 1% of people could read, maybe 10% if you were in some high-end area. The little bit of schooling that did exist was tied to the Church, which definitely wasn't exactly a libertarian institution.

I already dropped some basic critiques, like how people insist that everyone’s wealth is strictly just the result of their own hard work. That's obviously BS. In capitalism, if you control the capital, you hire people and bank on their labor—that's literally the whole point. It'd be pretty hilarious to see a libertarian party actually fight to abolish inheritance rights based on that logic, just to stop some kid from starting life as a millionaire off their parents' grind.

lonetrucker4 said:Look, driftingjackal5, it doesn't matter what my take is. What matters is grasping how "freedom" is actually being defined here—it’s a different beast than what most thinkers argue. Plus, you gotta look at the fallout. You can push libertarianism all you want without falling into that Ayn Rand trap where she claims even basic compassion is immoral. That whole "objectivism" thing is its own kind of nightmare.

Look, it’s not like this is some revolutionary new concept I’m just trashing out of spite. Every single capitalist state from around 1870 through the post-WWII era hit a wall where they had to roll out social programs because there was no other way. They basically expanded that whole "minimal state" liberal idea because they had to. It's not a theory; it's just what happened—an *a posteriori* reality.

Before the government took over the whole education scene, hardly anyone actually went to school. Back in Europe, literacy rates were trash—maybe 1% of people could read, maybe 10% if you were in some high-end area. The little bit of schooling that did exist was tied to the Church, which definitely wasn't exactly a libertarian institution.

I already dropped some basic critiques, like how people insist that everyone’s wealth is strictly just the result of their own hard work. That's obviously BS. In capitalism, if you control the capital, you hire people and bank on their labor—that's literally the whole point. It'd be pretty hilarious to see a libertarian party actually fight to abolish inheritance rights based on that logic, just to stop some kid from starting life as a millionaire off their parents' grind.

I wouldn't call it an inherent deficiency. During that specific era, there was a massive surge in capital—essentially a spike in productivity—which allowed for things like basic education, since such costs didn't significantly strain the economy at the time. Therefore, those social programs, among others, were actually a byproduct of increased capital and productivity rather than a result of state intervention necessitated by some failure of the system.

lonetrucker4 said:Look, driftingjackal5, it doesn't matter what my take is. What matters is grasping how "freedom" is actually being defined here—it’s a different beast than what most thinkers argue. Plus, you gotta look at the fallout. You can push libertarianism all you want without falling into that Ayn Rand trap where she claims even basic compassion is immoral. That whole "objectivism" thing is its own kind of nightmare.

Look, it’s not like this is some revolutionary new concept I’m just trashing out of spite. Every single capitalist state from around 1870 through the post-WWII era hit a wall where they had to roll out social programs because there was no other way. They basically expanded that whole "minimal state" liberal idea because they had to. It's not a theory; it's just what happened—an *a posteriori* reality.

Before the government took over the whole education scene, hardly anyone actually went to school. Back in Europe, literacy rates were trash—maybe 1% of people could read, maybe 10% if you were in some high-end area. The little bit of schooling that did exist was tied to the Church, which definitely wasn't exactly a libertarian institution.

I already dropped some basic critiques, like how people insist that everyone’s wealth is strictly just the result of their own hard work. That's obviously BS. In capitalism, if you control the capital, you hire people and bank on their labor—that's literally the whole point. It'd be pretty hilarious to see a libertarian party actually fight to abolish inheritance rights based on that logic, just to stop some kid from starting life as a millionaire off their parents' grind.

Education certainly existed in ancient Rome (and even earlier). And it persisted right up until Rome ran out of capital. It seems to me that education depends on capital availability, not on the state. By the way, the sole reason the Church acted as the educator during the Middle Ages was because they were the only ones in Europe preserving Roman texts while everyone else was busy fighting over the collapse of the Pax Romana. Of course, they adapted those texts to fit their own doctrine and eliminated anyone who dared to be a competitor.

lonetrucker4 said:Look, driftingjackal5, it doesn't matter what my take is. What matters is grasping how "freedom" is actually being defined here—it’s a different beast than what most thinkers argue. Plus, you gotta look at the fallout. You can push libertarianism all you want without falling into that Ayn Rand trap where she claims even basic compassion is immoral. That whole "objectivism" thing is its own kind of nightmare.

Look, it’s not like this is some revolutionary new concept I’m just trashing out of spite. Every single capitalist state from around 1870 through the post-WWII era hit a wall where they had to roll out social programs because there was no other way. They basically expanded that whole "minimal state" liberal idea because they had to. It's not a theory; it's just what happened—an *a posteriori* reality.

Before the government took over the whole education scene, hardly anyone actually went to school. Back in Europe, literacy rates were trash—maybe 1% of people could read, maybe 10% if you were in some high-end area. The little bit of schooling that did exist was tied to the Church, which definitely wasn't exactly a libertarian institution.

I already dropped some basic critiques, like how people insist that everyone’s wealth is strictly just the result of their own hard work. That's obviously BS. In capitalism, if you control the capital, you hire people and bank on their labor—that's literally the whole point. It'd be pretty hilarious to see a libertarian party actually fight to abolish inheritance rights based on that logic, just to stop some kid from starting life as a millionaire off their parents' grind.

Libertarianism doesn't insist that labor is the sole means of acquiring wealth; that sounds more like Marxist doctrine to me. The actual emphasis is on the protection of property rights. More broadly, it’s about the freedom to make decisions without coercion.

lonetrucker4 said:Look, driftingjackal5, it doesn't matter what my take is. What matters is grasping how "freedom" is actually being defined here—it’s a different beast than what most thinkers argue. Plus, you gotta look at the fallout. You can push libertarianism all you want without falling into that Ayn Rand trap where she claims even basic compassion is immoral. That whole "objectivism" thing is its own kind of nightmare.

Look, it’s not like this is some revolutionary new concept I’m just trashing out of spite. Every single capitalist state from around 1870 through the post-WWII era hit a wall where they had to roll out social programs because there was no other way. They basically expanded that whole "minimal state" liberal idea because they had to. It's not a theory; it's just what happened—an *a posteriori* reality.

Before the government took over the whole education scene, hardly anyone actually went to school. Back in Europe, literacy rates were trash—maybe 1% of people could read, maybe 10% if you were in some high-end area. The little bit of schooling that did exist was tied to the Church, which definitely wasn't exactly a libertarian institution.

I already dropped some basic critiques, like how people insist that everyone’s wealth is strictly just the result of their own hard work. That's obviously BS. In capitalism, if you control the capital, you hire people and bank on their labor—that's literally the whole point. It'd be pretty hilarious to see a libertarian party actually fight to abolish inheritance rights based on that logic, just to stop some kid from starting life as a millionaire off their parents' grind.

Libertarianism views freedom through the lens of property rights—basically, it’s all about tiers of privilege. Who owns what, and why? Who gets to claim a life, and based on what? The inevitable conclusion here is that the individual actually living that life holds the ultimate right to it. If you don't see it that way, then Objectivism really doesn't have much to do with libertarianism at all. Besides, Ayn Rand openly despised libertarians like Murray Rothbard... so I'm not sure why you're even bringing him up in the same breath unless you're just trying to discredit libertarian "references"...

Look, let’s get one thing straight—I'm not trashing this as some revolutionary new idea I'm dismissing *a priori*. That’s not how I roll. The reality is that every single capitalist state—from around 1870 right up through the end of WWII—hit a wall where they were forced to roll out social programs. They had no choice... it was inevitable. They ended up expanding that whole "minimal state" liberal concept just because they had to. So, calling the concept flawed isn't just my opinion—it's an *a posteriori* fact... it actually happened.

Honestly, you’re pretty far off here—libertarianism, by this modern definition, is actually a relatively recent addition to political theory. You could argue that the real starting point for modern libertarianism was Murray Rothbard's manifesto "for a New Liberty" back in 1973... that's where he breaks down the core concepts that really separate libertarianism from classical liberalism. First off, it comes down to the philosophical foundation. Classical liberalism is essentially built on utilitarian philosophy. Those guys argue that capitalism and individual freedom are good mainly because they produce the best results compared to other ideologies. Libertarianism, though? It's based on two moral pillars—individual sovereignty and the non-aggression principle. In plain English: libertarianism pushes for individual freedom because it's the most moral position to take, whereas classical liberalism just sees it as the most useful one. That's a massive distinction...

Before the whole "state-run education" thing took over, honestly, hardly anyone even went to school. Back in Europe, literacy rates were sitting somewhere between 1% and maybe 10% at most in some developed areas. Whatever schooling actually existed was tied directly to the Church—which, let’s be real, is about as far from a libertarian institution as you can get...

Look, your whole argument completely ignores the fact that the 19th century was the era of the Industrial Revolution. Before that kicked in, most people were illiterate simply because they were stuck doing backbreaking labor every single day—they didn't have the time or the capacity to even think about sending kids to school. Farm kids—who made up basically everyone back then—were out in the fields working alongside their parents instead of sitting in a classroom. It was the Industrial Revolution itself, which massively spiked productivity, that finally allowed kids from poor families to actually get an education instead of spending their entire lives working the land. For example, look at the stats in the US... between 1850 and 1900, literacy rates shot up from 20% to 95% in a tiny window of time, and that was BEFORE public schooling even existed. In fact, once public schools were actually introduced, literacy rates actually DROPPED by a few percentage points and just stayed stuck there ever since...

I already laid out my basic objections—like how people insist that all personal wealth is just the direct result of one's own labor. It’s obviously not... anyone sitting on capital can hire others and profit from their work—that’s literally the core of capitalism. Honestly, it'd be pretty funny to see some libertarian party actually fight to abolish inheritance rights based on that principle, just so some kid doesn't get a head start in life thanks to their ancestors' hard work.

This is pure socialist logic. Seriously, do you even know how to define what capital actually is or where it comes from? What are people without capital supposed to do to get some? Is labor itself a form of capital? Since you're throwing these questions around, maybe try defining your terms properly before we keep going.