4 ms·
You misunderstand individual freedom. Freedom, in the context of a "free nation", isn't freedom from consequences or risks (even those out of a person's control
by bhb916 14y ago
You misunderstand individual freedom. Freedom, in the context of a "free nation", isn't freedom from consequences or risks (even those out of a person's control), it's freedom from the imposition of state-sponsored force. This is an important distinction. We all invite a little state-sponsored force into our lives (i.e. the persecution of violent crimes, the civil court system, etc). Your version of "freedom" actually requires state-sponsored force at a fairly low threshold: if someone can't pay for their own health insurance or medical bills you're going to force others to pay it for him. You're not asking for voluntary donations, you're taking with the threat of legal consequences. That can't be congruent with any meaningful definition of freedom.
- _delirium 14y agoIt is you who misunderstands individual freedom. Freedom is not some formalist anarcho-capitalist construct, but meaningful ability to take individual action. That requires, as Hayek argues, that a functioning state exists, which provides basic physical safety, a minimum of economic security, and contract enforcement, within which people can act as individuals. Absent that, in the "state of nature", people are forced to cling to tribalist groupings (religions, extended families/clans, etc.) for security and coverage of the "risks common to all", which is not individual freedom but collectivism.
- vacri 14y agoYou're not really illuminating much by explaining with the contorted libertarian definitions of 'individual freedom'. Seriously, you can't think of a 'meaningful' definition of freedom that includes helping each other? Not necessasrily one you have to agree wtih, just one that is 'meaningful'?