Liberty seems to be a central value to achieve for many Americans, however, it seems to me extremely difficult to define in any manner that's both coherent and powerful.
So what does it mean to be free, for you?
1) Being *able* to do what you want?
2) Being *allowed* to do what you want, by others, as long as you don't infringe in their liberties?
3) Or the necessity of your consent for any transaction of your property
I like the first the best, but that does not make "liberty" as a concept very useful, as it simply becomes a roundabout way of expressing utilitarian values. (coherent, but lacks power.)
The second definition leaves room for a lot of ambiguities, in my eyes (exactly where *do* the liberties of the other start - every action you make has an effect on the life of another person, so we need to draw lines, in some places, which can seem to me arbitrary.) I feel calling upon this definition is again simple redefinition of conflict, which doesn't add any pertinent information to its resolution - making decisions no less arbitrary.
The third definition, stemming from early philosophical libertarians, was clearly well thought-out, and upon further reflection, doesn't induce in any major contradictions, while simultaneously providing a lot of information on the the judgment of a situation. However, it's a definition that seems very *artificial*, non-intuitive to me, which does not necessarily respond to human nature in its entirety. I also dislike the fact that it is willing to accept any *current* state of things as morally equivalent - judging only the modifications.
So, how would you define it?Last edited by palou - on 08 February 2018
Bet with PeH:
I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.
Bet with WagnerPaiva:
I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.