pull down to refresh
43 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 14h \ on: Revisiting "Civil Disobedience" BooksAndArticles
I suspect there is an absolute maximum to freedom but I can’t be sure so I suspect it isn’t always relative at least. Beyond the freedoms taken from us by force, there are freedoms we are competed out of (freedom to use someone else’s property for example) and other freedoms still depending on how we define it. By most common usage I’d say if we are left alone and without competition we are maximally free.
I’m not sure what point I’m making except that freedom is often expressed in relative terms yet I feel like we all can identify the absolute.
I agree in principle. I think there is an objective standard of freedom. transcending physical property, provided by "nature" that we can all likely agree on. This involves minimal intervervention by authority. This I think Thoreau would agree...
there are freedoms we are competed out of (freedom to use someone else’s property for example)
True, but wouldn't unhindered competition inevitably lead to a right-by-might scenario? I haven't thought this through completely, but I believe the libertarian perspective would be that governments play some role here in protecting people from the use of force.