The beauty of Liberty ('People' vs 'people')

Growing up I heard a lot of Liberty. Maybe it was the was the fact that every movie in the world was made in America during the 80s. They seem to be into their Liberty.

However in the UK, more specifically England, it was a foreign concept.

Growing up I was confronted by two arguments, the left or the right and for many years I was confused by my supposedly paradoxical views. I wanted tough and robust law and order...but the legalisation of recreational drugs, I am against anti-discrimination law but for freedom from/of religion, for some may say draconian law and order but against execution.

Where does that put me?

A few years ago, I realised I was a libertarian.

I called my family and friends to come round, I sat them down and told them. My mother was upset and asked if it was a phase I was going through, my friends couldn't quite look me in the eye....but i had done it. I was out.

I had discovered a term that fitted most if not all of my opinions and view, except the few irrational ones that lingered from years of being English.

I believed in the personal freedom of people, not People mind, people. This is very important as People have become a faceless group which try to override the rights of people. Straight away, of course limitations are abound but only the limitations accepted by every civilisation and culture known to man, they are 'the golden rule'.

You do nothing by force or by fraud. You have the right to live your life how you wish, as long as does not stop others living their lives. If you require someone else's involvement to fulfill your wishes, that person must partake voluntarily.

Some people may say this is selfish and you may agree, this is the herd mentality from the age of picking fleas off each other speaking though.

Let's think of two scenarios, picked due to their shock factor, it involves a millionaire and the state demanding a 50% tax rate and a desert island with ten men and only one woman.

The state says to the millionaire, share your money, its not right to keep it to yourself. Think of others, you're selfish. The many not the few.

The men say to the woman, share your body, its not right to keep it to yourself. Think of others, you're selfish. The many not the few.

In both scenarios the individual caving in to or being forced into the demands of the many might be advantageous to the many, but does it make it right?

There are people that will argue that these two scenarios are miles apart from each other...they will need to, morally.

There is a difference, you know what it is? People covet the money now, not the body of a woman..because they are in abundance but you take away the opposite sex bar one and I predict the same people that agree with scenario one, will start to agree with scenario two. They will dress it up as 'greater good' decision as with all their other nonsense, perhaps it is a duty to rebuild the population and the extinction of the species is too high a risk to not rape?

Let's make it very clear, there is NEVER a good enough reason to infringe upon the liberty of someone who is not first doing it to someone else...NEVER.

For those that argue against personal possessions, these are just an extension of the self, a living embodiment of your past labour, or the labour of someone who wished you to have it. To take it away against your will is to rob you of your past's work, the same as if the very time spent acquiring them was taken.

Each person exists in three states, Past, Present and Future. Your Past is your experience and possessions and fruits of your labour, your Present is your liberty, in mind and body and your Future is your potential.

Everywhere you turn the state will be leeching off of you in the name of the greater good. For example..taxes..Whether it is eating into the inheritance a relative may leave you, which is their labour's fruit to give, your present by crippling taxes that can in some cases mean that half your working life you are working all proceeds to go to the state and your future by penalising savings and the plans you may make for your death.

In employment law...a business owner, that is the person that OWNS the business is not allowed to use their own judgement in who they should hire, or what the job is worth even if the worker is in full agreement.

There are whole hosts of other examples which I won't bleat on about, but it is something very troubling.

There is nothing that can't be regulated by the simple rule, nothing by force or fraud.

If two parties voluntarily agree something, it is obviously mutually beneficial and therefore no business of any mediator or third party.

If one party is offering something not acceptable to the second party, a third party is not to be brought in to force the first party to comply with the others requirements.

This is Liberty. It remains as of the moment a foreign concept, but next time you hear people complaining about HAVING to do something, consider that they may have chosen to do it if they had free will.