General

Re: Is Liberty Always the Absence of Government?

Nielsio — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:22:14 GMT

limitgov:

i like the sound of it....

perhaps some bumper stickers are in order.

A government is a class with the special privilege to take your liberty. It's also possible for a disorganized people to regard themselves as having that privilege. Anarcho-communism would be like that.

Re: Is Liberty Always the Absence of Government?

Autolykos — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 15:57:00 GMT

limitgov:
"No. The Absence of Government is usually Chaos."

Lol. I believe it is the other way around. It is governments that cause chaos.

Actually, it depends on the definition of "government" that's being used. A lot of people define "government" in a non-aggressive way, such as "the legitimate use of coercion to enforce order". In that case, why must that legitimate use of coercion be monopolized over a given area of land or over a given group of people? To answer that question, one must investigate the concept of legitimacy.

Re: Is Liberty Always the Absence of Government?

boniek — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 15:45:12 GMT

Well he is right in a sense that there is correlation between chaos and lack of government in the same sense as there is correlation between my alarm clock going off and sunrise. Does that necessarily mean that my alarm clock forces sun to rise?

Re: Is Liberty Always the Absence of Government?

limitgov — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 15:21:45 GMT

"No. The Absence of Government is usually Chaos."

Lol. I believe it is the other way around. It is governments that cause chaos.

Re: Is Liberty Always the Absence of Government?

boniek — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 13:48:39 GMT

Correlation does not imply causation.

Re: Is Liberty Always the Absence of Government?

boniek — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 13:47:33 GMT

Thats too vague to my tastes. Define threat.

Re: Is Liberty Always the Absence of Government?

scineram — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 13:17:19 GMT

No. The Absence of Government is usually Chaos.

Re: Is Liberty Always the Absence of Government?

boniek — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 11:21:47 GMT

Absence of property rights leads necessarily to poverty (as compared to situation where they are present). Poverty does not neccesarily lead to loss of freedom. So no property rights do not necessarily equal liberty/freedom. I though the whole idea of voluntarism was based on subjectivity of value - including choosing society with or without property rights. Is it really loss of freedom if you voluntarily choose socialistic system and are happy with its outcome?

Re: Is Liberty Always the Absence of Government?

Prateek Sanjay — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 11:07:16 GMT

It could also be the absence of property rights. See the commons on which the poorest in the world concentrate and live in squalor.

Re: Is Liberty Always the Absence of Government?

Stephen Adkins — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 04:44:43 GMT

"Government is essentially the negation of liberty." - Mises

Re: Is Liberty Always the Absence of Government?

Stranger — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 04:37:43 GMT

No. Liberty is the absence of threats.

Is Liberty Always the Absence of Government?

limitgov — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 04:31:16 GMT

i like the sound of it....

perhaps some bumper stickers are in order.