Equal Freedom: The Principle of Equal Freedom and Noncoercive Government

Equal Freedom. The Principle of Equal Freedom and Noncoercive Government. Jerome L. Wright. A Principled Basis for Free Societies.
Table of contents

Agorism Anarchism Anarcho-capitalism Autarchism Christian libertarianism Collectivist anarchism Consequentialist libertarianism Free-market anarchism Fusionism Geolibertarianism Georgism Green anarchism Green libertarianism Individualist anarchism Insurrectionary anarchism Left-libertarianism Left-wing market anarchism Libertarian communism Libertarian Marxism Libertarian socialism Libertarian transhumanism Minarchism Mutualism Natural-rights libertarianism Paleolibertarianism Panarchism Right-libertarianism Social anarchism Voluntaryism.

Austrian School of economics Civil libertarianism Constitutionalism Economic liberalism Libertarian conservatism Libertarian Democrat Libertarian hip hop Libertarian Republican Libertarian science fiction Libertarian transhumanism Libertarianism in the United States Objectivism Public choice theory Small government Technolibertarianism. Age of Enlightenment , History of liberalism , and French Revolution. Anarchism Libertarianism Left-libertarianism Marxism Socialism.

Libertarianism in the United States. Anarchism Anarcho-capitalism Autarchism Christian libertarianism Consequentialist libertarianism Free-market anarchism Fusionism Georgism Green libertarianism Individualist anarchism Left-libertarianism Libertarian transhumanism Minarchism Natural-rights libertarianism Paleolibertarianism Panarchism Right-libertarianism Voluntaryism.

Navigation menu

Neil Schulman Thomas Woods. Austrian School of economics Bleeding-heart libertarianism Civil libertarianism Constitutionalism Economic liberalism Libertarian conservatism Libertarian Democrat Neo-libertarianism Libertarian hip hop Libertarian Republican Libertarian science fiction Libertarian transhumanism Objectivism Public choice theory Small government Technolibertarianism.

Libertarianism portal Anarchism portal. Beltway libertarianism Bleeding-heart libertarianism Fusionism Green libertarianism Libertarian conservatism Libertarian feminism Libertarian liberalism disambiguation List of libertarian political ideologies Neo-libertarianism Taxation as theft. A History of Anarchism.

Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition".

There is a complex debate within this tradition between those like Robert Nozick, who advocate a 'minimal state', and those like Rothbard who want to do away with the state altogether and allow all transactions to be governed by the market alone. From an anarchist perspective, however, both positions—the minimal state minarchist and the no-state 'anarchist' positions—neglect the problem of economic domination; in other words, they neglect the hierarchies, oppressions, and forms of exploitation that would inevitably arise in a laissez-faire 'free' market. The individual freedom invoked by right-wing libertarians is only a narrow economic freedom within the constraints of a capitalist market, which, as anarchists show, is no freedom at all".

Retrieved February 21, Retrieved 25 January Institute for Humane Studies. Retrieved 16 February I mean all three of these very different movements. It might be protested that LibCap ["libertarian capitalism"], LibSoc [" libertarian socialism "] and LibPop [" libertarian populism ] are too different from one another to be treated as aspects of a single point of view.

But they do share a common—or at least an overlapping—intellectual ancestry. In Miller, Wilburn R. A Collection of Revolutionary Writings. It attacks not only capital, but also the main sources of the power of capitalism: In Carlos Peregrin Otero. Noam Chomsky book author 3rd ed. Carlos Peregrin Otero, ed.

Radical priorities 3rd ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Spring ed. Retrieved 5 March Libertarianism is committed to full self-ownership. Facts on File Inc. In the modern world, political ideologies are largely defined by their attitude towards capitalism. Marxists want to overthrow it, liberals to curtail it extensively, conservatives to curtail it moderately. Those who maintain that capitalism is a excellent economic system, unfairly maligned, with little or no need for corrective government policy, are generally known as libertarians.

The Betrayal of the American Right. Ludwig von Mises Institute. One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy The History of a Movement. Life and Times of Stein: Or Germany and Prussia in the Napoleonic Age. The term originally denoted a person who upheld the doctrine of the freedom of the will; in this sense, Godwin was not a 'libertarian', but a 'necessitarian'. It came however to be applied to anyone who approved of liberty in general.

At the end of the last century, the anarchist Sebastien Faure took up the word, to stress the difference between anarchists and authoritarian socialists. A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas. From Anarchy to Anarchism CE— A Short History of Anarchism. A Very Short Introduction , Oxford: Oxford University Press , p. The celebrated anarchist journal Le Libertaire was founded in However, much more recently the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers Retrieved 21 November The term libertarian as used in the US means something quite different from what it meant historically and still means in the rest of the world.

Historically, the libertarian movement has been the anti-statist wing of the socialist movement. Socialist anarchism was libertarian socialism. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. According to them, these parties are united by their 'critique of the statist and bureaucratic tendencies of modern welfare states The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Rothbard and Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'.

It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition. Depending on the context, libertarianism can be seen as either the contemporary name for classical liberalism, adopted to avoid confusion in those countries where liberalism is widely understood to denote advocacy of expansive government powers, or as a more radical version of classical liberalism.

Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another. The Politics of Postanarchism. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists. Little Prayers and Finite Experience. The Future of Freedom Foundation. Retrieved 27 January Archived from the original on 31 December Retrieved 20 September Retrieved 11 October Making Speech Free, — Archived from the original on 18 December Retrieved 6 June Retrieved 12 July History of Education Quarterly.

History of Education Society. Archived from the original on 7 August Danto writes that Reich offered a mixture of "psychoanalytic counseling, Marxist advice and contraceptives," and argued for a sexual permissiveness, including for young people and the unmarried, that unsettled other psychoanalysts and the political left. The clinics were immediately overcrowded by people seeking help.

Danto, Elizabeth Ann Retrieved 29 January Unnecessary but Inevitable" PDF. Archived from the original PDF on 5 July The Market for Liberty , p. Namely, these resources must be treated as collective property that is made available on an egalitarian basis. Left libertarians embrace the view that all natural resources, land, oil, gold, trees, and so on should be held collectively. To the extent that individuals make use of these commonly owned goods, they must do so only with the permission of society, a permission granted only under the provision that a certain payment for their use be made to society at large.

In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 26 December Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School. The term is not without its critics, as Roediger b , p. Their challenge was mercilessly concrete. Douglass, who tried out speeches in work places before giving them in halls, was far from unable to speak to or hear white workers, but he and William Wells Brown did challenge metaphors regarding white slavery sharply. They noted, for example, that their escapes from slavery had left job openings and wondered if any white workers wanted to take the jobs.

This Marxist objection is what motivated Nelson's essay, which argues that labur is not, in fact, a commodity. Emphasis in the original. This incessant reproduction, this perpetuation of the worker, is the absolutely necessary condition for capitalist production.

Beyonce Vibes? Freetress Equal Freedom Part 101

In Gaus, Gerald F. The Murray Bookchin Reader. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. It combines the libertarian assumption that each person possesses a natural right of self-ownership over his person with the egalitarian premise that natural resources should be shared equally. Right-wing libertarians argue that the right of self-ownership entails the right to appropriate unequal parts of the external world, such as unequal amounts of land.

However, according to left-libertarians the world's natural resources were initially unowned, or belonged equally to all, and it is illegitimate for anyone to claim exclusive private ownership of these resources to the detriment of others. Such private appropriation is legitimate only if everyone can appropriate an equal amount, or if those who appropriate more are taxed to compensate those who are thereby excluded from what was once common property.

In Miller, Wilbur R. The social history of crime and punishment in America. Namely, these resources must be treated as collective property that is made available on an egalitarian basis". Left libertarians regard each of us as full self-owners. However, they differ from what we generally understand by the term libertarian in denying the right to private property. We own ourselves, but we do not own nature, at least not as individuals. To the extent that individuals make use of these commonly owned goods, they must do so only with the permission of society, a permission granted only under the proviso that a certain payment for their use be made to society at large.

The Oxford Companion to Philosophy: Retrieved 13 June Left-libertarians, by contrast, hold that natural resources e. Reprinted at Cato Institute. Archived 16 July at the Wayback Machine. Religion, Virtue, Liberty , ProQuest, , p. Pioneers of American Freedom: Origin of Liberal and Radical Thought in America. That is why they did not want to see the state become a terrestrial Providence which in its infallibility would make on its own every decision, thereby not only blocking the road to higher forms of social development, but also crippling the natural sense of responsibility of the people which is the essential condition for every prosperous society.

They believe that 'the best government is that which governs least,' and that that which governs least is no government at all. Two Cheers for Anarchism: At the other end of this continuum lies, perhaps, some ideal version of Jeffersonian democracy composed of independent, self-reliant, self-respecting, landowning farmers, managers of their own small enterprises, answerable to themselves, free of debt, and more generally with no institutional reason for servility or deference.

Such free-standing farmers, Jefferson thought, were the basis of a vigorous and independent public sphere where citizens could speak their mind without fear or favor. Somewhere in between these two poles lies the contemporary situation of most citizens of Western democracies: Social Philosophy and Policy. The Libertarian Manifesto , ; published at LewRockwell. University of California Press. Hoffman, "Paine and Prejudice: Making the Declaration of Independence New York: Knopf, , pp. Thomas Paine's Rights of Man. Thomas Paine's Theory of Property Rights". The Public School Monopoly: Pacific Institute for Public Policy Research, In Zalta, Edward N.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Manchester University Press, Retrieved 11 August I mean by individualism the moral doctrine which, relying on no dogma, no tradition, no external determination, appeals only to the individual conscience. To say that the sovereignty of the individual is conditioned by Liberty is simply another way of saying that it is conditioned by itself.

Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow. Liverpool University Press, , p. A Library of Universal Knowledge. The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought. Archived from the original PDF on 7 December Retrieved 1 September Karl Marx and the Anarchists. Archived from the original on 15 February Retrieved 4 December What do anarchists want from us?

Archived from the original PDF on 4 February Retrieved 17 June Individualist Anarchism and Reaction". Archived 23 July at the Wayback Machine. Su portavoz es L'Internazionale con sede en Ancona. Archived 8 September at the Wayback Machine.. Doug Imrie published by Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed. Theory and Practice — The Anarchist Library". In Drachkovitch, Milorad M. The Revolutionary Internationals, Retrieved 24 October The Italian factory occupations — Biennio Rosso" on Libcom.

A History of Anarchism , , p. Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism, and the State: Later, they spread throughout the whole of Spain until they came to represent the third branch of the great libertarian family The FIJL had agreed upon the following statement of principles: The Spanish Civil War: A Modern Tragedy , Routledge, Felix Morga, Alcalde de Najera Retrieved 19 January W L Morison memorial site.

Retrieved 13 May Anarchosyndicalist Ideas and Discussion. Libertarian Labor Review, Woodhull and Claflin's Weekly. The First American Anarchist". The COST consists of the amount of labor bestowed on the mineral or natural wealth, in converting it into metals Bogus Anarchy — The Anarchist Library". Journal of the History of Ideas. Muchos han visto en Thoreau a uno de los precursores del ecologismo y del anarquismo primitivista representado en la actualidad por Jonh Zerzan. Readings And Reflections" — via Amazon. The Puritan Influence in America Literature. Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences.

Taxes upon the Rent of Houses". The Wealth of Nations, Book V. Ashgate — via Google Books. Archived from the original on 17 March Retrieved 12 January Journal of Moral Philosophy. Retrieved 14 March It can also invoke Geoism, a philosophical tradition encompassing the views of John Locke and Henry George Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia Archived from the original on 31 October Archived 24 May at the Wayback Machine.. In Journal of Libertarian Studies. In The Libertarian Forum. An Anthology of Liberty — A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements.

Men against the State: The Expositors of Individualist Anarchism in America. An Oral History of Anarchism in America. Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called "hippies of the right," who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism.

The Radical Mind of Leonard Read. The original officers were David M. Goodrich, chairman of the Board he was then also chairman of the board of the B. Fairchild, professor of economics at Yale University, secretary; and Claude Robinson, president of the Opinion Research Institute, treasurer. Mullendore, president of the Southern California Edison Company.

Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus. An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. The American as Anarchist: Reflections on Indigenous Radicalism. Johns Hopkins University Press. Most had not evolved consciously from this tradition; they had been a rather automatic product of the American environment. An Economist's View ". Journal of Libertarian Studies. Anarchism in America DVD. When I read Emma Goldman, it was as though everything I had hoped that the Republican Party would stand for suddenly came out—crystallized—in this magnificently clear statement.

Archived from the original on Rothbard, letter to David Bergland, June 5, , qtd. Rothbard emphasized that this was relevant as a matter of strategy: Toward a Dialectical Anarchism. Is a Government Part of a Free Country? In Long, Roderick T. Spangler, Brad 15 September The New Libertarian Manifesto. Archived 5 June at the Wayback Machine. Sheldon Richman 3 February Free-market anti-capitalism, the unknown ideal. Sciabarra, Chris Matthew Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism. Pennsylvania State University Press. Economic Justice and Natural Law.

The Libertarian Party's 30th Anniversary Year: The New York Sun. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Apocalyptic Environmentalism and Libertarian Political Culture. The diffusion of American Conservatism in Europe and Beyond". In Steinmo, Sven Growing Apart?: America and Europe in the Twenty-First Century. Young militants finding their way to anarchism, often from the anti-bomb and anti-Vietnam war movements, linked up with an earlier generation of activists, largely outside the ossified structures of 'official' anarchism.

Anarchist tactics embraced demonstrations, direct action such as industrial militancy and squatting, protest bombings like those of the First of May Group and Angry Brigade—and a spree of publishing activity. Simian, Cienfuegos, Refract and their support network" by John Patten". Archived from the original on 4 June He explains that their pacifism, anarchism, and commitment to the downtrodden were one of the important models and inspirations for the 60s. As Farrell puts it, "Catholic Workers identified the issues of the sixties before the Sixties began, and they offered models of protest long before the protest decade.

Within the nascent women's movement, anarchist principles became so widespread that a political science professor denounced what she saw as "The Tyranny of Structurelessness. But the movements of the sixties were driven by concerns that were more compatible with an expressive style of politics, with hostility to authority in general and state power in particular By the late sixties, political protest was intertwined with cultural radicalism based on a critique of all authority and all hierarchies of power.


  • Cheap But Impressive Christmas Gifts Anyone Can Make For A Girl.
  • Libertarianism.
  • Violin Sonata No. 1 - Violin;
  • Introducing Revit Architecture 2009: BIM for Beginners.
  • The Kassandra Complex (The DIAHEPTARON: Book 3).

Anarchism circulated within the movement along with other radical ideologies. The influence of anarchism was strongest among radical feminists, in the commune movement, and probably in the Weather Underground and elsewhere in the violent fringe of the anti-war movement. Globalization and International Political Economy. Dialogues with the far-left. Libertarianism What Everyone Needs to Know. Is the Tea Party libertarian? Overall, the Tea Party movement is not libertarian, though it has many libertarian elements, and many libertarians are Tea Partiers. However, Tea Party members are predominantly populist, nationalist, social conservatives rather than libertarians.

Polls indicate that most Tea Partiers believe government should have an active role in promoting traditional "family values" or conservative Judeo-Christian values. Many of them oppose free trade and open immigration. They tend to favor less government intervention in the domestic economy but more government intervention in international trade.

Archived from the original on 17 April Michelle Boorstein 5 October Peter Wallsten, Danny Yadron 29 September The Wall Street Journal. Barstow, David 16 February The New York Times. Fineman, Howard 6 April Retrieved 13 August Retrieved 7 November Retrieved 9 November Retrieved 2 November Retrieved 6 November State of Their Own". Retrieved 26 May The Trouble with Canada: A Citizen Speaks Out. The first, we would call "libertarianism" today. Nearly years after the founding of civilization, no large-scale society has yet been established based on full freedom for the individual.

The essays comprising Cato's Letters were widely available in the American colonies, and were read by many of the founders of America. Unfortunately, nothing like the above was placed into the US Constitution. There is nothing more important to the individual than having the freedom to make what he can and will of his life.

To lack the freedom to make the most of one's existence, and thereby lose the enjoyment of that existence, is the greatest evil that can be brought against intelligent life outside of death itself. We have had years of kings, priests, and armies all wearing the trappings of civilization. Except for a few brief moments here and there, the kings, priests, and armies have not allowed people to have freedom. However, there is a long-term trend spanning millennia toward greater freedom for the individual. It might eventually take us to a civilization based on full freedom and responsibility of the individual.

Progress has typically come initially as an intellectual effort showing that change is needed, possible, and of benefit to people. The Principle of Equal Freedom is one of those intellectual advances. It still resides only on the pages of a few books and in the minds of a few freedom-seeking people. Many people like to state their admiration of the principle. I think far too many spout the words and then return to their convictions that coercion is the way things should be.

The fact that this principle, stated in various forms, has been held for centuries as both an ideal and a principle to live by, yet has never been implemented, makes a strong and ominous statement about human psychology. Those who want to see freedom implemented understand that they face a most arduous task. We can someday develop both the technology and the will to end the long list of tyrants, and even the milder deniers of freedom.

Of those two factors, the technology is by far the easiest to come by. The foundation of that technology is the Principle of Equal Freedom. The Principle of Equal Freedom is a specific concept of personal freedom that, taken in its fullest implications, determines a social structure allowing the greatest possible expressions of individual freedom. The implementation of such a social structure allows the greatest possible safety, wealth, and personal development for the individual, along with the greatest potential for development of the society itself. Stating it simply, without rigor, the principle says that every person shall have the freedom to live his life as he wishes, as long as he respects that same right for others.

This does more than give every person the same degree of freedom — it gives total freedom from coercion. It is deceptively simple in this statement, for it leads to far-reaching implications. Few people in contemporary society are willing to support those implications. This leaves the principle as one widely admired and endorsed with the spoken word, but one that only a very small part of the population really wants to support. From its beginning, the principle has been a guide to the interactions between people.

Seemingly, most people want to control the lives of others, and it has been this way throughout known history. Controlling others, on scales great and small, directly and indirectly, has been a favorite activity throughout human civilization. Many who defiantly want to live according to their own conscience are not also willing to allow others the same right and freedom, instead wanting all others to live by the one's perceived best manner. This seems to come from convictions arising from the belief of the correctness of one's own mode of existence: If one is correct, then one is justified in seeing to it that everyone else also lives in that same correct manner.

After centuries of horrors arising from this self-righteous certitude, we have taken most such powers away from organized churchesbut not all. In the area of political governments, only the most excessive impositions have been limited, but even then not always.

The individual should be the goal. Celebrate his existence; celebrate his freedom; allow him his own life as he wishes to live itprovided he honors the same freedom for others. Do not seek to control your neighbor, not through your direct action nor through an intermediary agency such as church or government. Allow him to seek his own happiness while he allows the same for you. The Principle of Equal Freedom is a code of conduct that can be used as the foundation of a free society.

It appears that the basis for any free society — that is, one that fully respects life, liberty, and property — is necessarily equivalent to this principle. The principle is also a foundation for a theoretical system of societal functioning and organization. The principle, its corollaries, and all of its other derivatives form a theoretical construct against which the structure and functioning of any free society must remain compatible.

Some might like to interpret equal freedom to mean that freedom can be restricted as long as it is restricted the same for all, so that every person has the same degree of freedom or the same loss of freedom. However, this cannot be compatible with the Principle of Equal Freedom, because, first and foremost, it is a principle regarding the interaction among individuals. A person has a right to his freedom provided he allows all other morally-acting people to have their freedom. Anyone who wilfully compromises another's freedom is not acting morally and has lost his right to his own freedom while he compromises others.

Thus anyone, whether he is deemed a government officer or not, who coerces another has no right to his own freedom and should suffer reprobation and restrictions. It follows then that every member of a coercive government who is acting coercively is in violation of the principle. It also follows that any government, organization, or group that acts coercively has violated the principle even if the degree of coercion is claimed to be equally and justly applied to all. Any and all coercion violates the conditional clause of the Principle of Equal Freedom, whether coming from a person, an organization, a government, or any other source.

Freedom exists when one has full, unabridged control of his life, liberty, and properties of every kind. Any other condition is an absence of freedom. The philosophical basis that must be appealed to for the justification of freedom is this: People can be free when they seize and hold their own freedom, without a justifying appeal to any purported source for that freedom beyond their own want. Natural law and natural rights have been subjects of intellectual study and arguments for many centuries. Until only a few centuries ago, natural law was taken as a self-evident subject.

Natural law was thought to be indistinguishable from the will of God, then it was thought it should be a subject of rational thought, independent of religious concepts. More recently, some argue that the concept is best discarded and ignored. Lysander Spooner addressed the subject in his treatise Natural Law , where he discusses law, justice, rights, liberty, and society. His concept of natural law is what humanity has almost universally agreed upon as the source of justice and peace. This universal obligation, as he calls it, is the essential obligation that people must adhere to in securing freedom for all.

Stated in different words, with the same meaning, it is the conditional clause of the Principle of Equal Freedom. Physicists can discover fundamental laws of physics by peering deep into an atom. Biologists can discover fundamental laws of biology by peering into a cell. There is no place in the cosmos to find the concepts of natural laws and natural rights except in the minds of intelligent beings. The human mind mixes its capacity for rational thought with prejudice and self-deception, making it suspect as a source of fundamental knowledge, which is why scientists require evidence existing outside of the mind in their search for truth.

The truth is that the cosmos, whether we call it nature or Nature, does not tell us how societies of intelligent beings should be structured. This leaves it to the intelligent beings to decide upon the form of society in which they want to live. Unfortunately, this opens the game to opportunists and fools. People can choose to have their societies based upon coercion, fraud, expediency, the greatest good for the greatest number even though none are competent to make those measurements , or upon principle. We can make some qualitative observations of societies that have been created by humans.

What we can observe is that lack of freedom constrains the individual, leaving him unable to make the most that he can of his life, and often forced into a miserable existence. We can observe that when people have freedom, the individual tends to prosper and attain happiness, and society benefits from the creativity and industriousness of the free individual. This is an observable condition, and is perhaps the closest we can come at present to finding a fundamental law of society.

Law of equal liberty

The State exists to control its domain and its people through coercion. To Nock, then, government is not the same as the State: Government is what secures rights, including property, to the individual. Some governments, always including the State, are coercive in nature, but there is no law of nature or society that says government must be coercive to secure those rights for the individual — there can be noncoercive government.

Many have argued that man does or does not have an innate nature, and that, if it exists, it is or is not theological. What is meant here by man's nature is what is scientific, that is, what is observable and repeatable. People respect their neighbor's property and right to exist, they defend him from thieves, and they rob him when they can. Individuals fit into these behavioral categories, not necessarily into all, and certainly not all people fit into all of those categories. Most people fit into one or both of the first; only a few fit into the latter. This is an aspect of man's nature that can be observed across nearly all cultures.

People are susceptible to indoctrination when young, which influences the rest of a person's life and his values. This is an aspect of man's nature. Most people historically and contemporarily believe in the supernatural and the existence of some god s. This is also an aspect of man's nature. This is not to say that God does or does not exist, only that the prevalence of beliefs is there.

People can be generous and tolerant, and they can be callous and bigots. A particular individual can exhibit the first pair of characteristics at times, and at other times exhibit the second characteristics. People seek their own happiness; they often seek security and acceptance by others. These are more aspects of man's nature. When people aggregate into societies, these innate natures strongly influence the characteristics of their societies.

This influence is not a simple summation of the tendencies of the individuals, because people in groups mutually influence one another, suppressing some behaviors and enhancing others, yet another aspect of man's nature. The objective of the study of natural law has been to determine what is good, and therefore what human laws and rules should be based upon. What is good is the subject of a multitude of opinions, but those that are generally and broadly agreed upon do span nearly all human cultures. No one, however, is likely to compose a list of the most fundamental good principles that all people would agree upon.

I offer a simple list of good ends and means which I think is consistent with the Principle of Equal Freedom and which underlies this book:. Many might want to add continuance of one's tribe or nation. These can be admirable goals, but are also ones that are used to justify many crimes against other peoples, so I do not include them — they are too often coupled with intolerance and war.

Piety is notably absent from the list. Not too long ago, nearly all would have deemed this an essential element to include — many today would agree. However, when society insists on piety, injustice and intolerance are certain to follow. It appears to me that in adopting a social principle, such as the Principle of Equal Freedom, as a code of conduct and adhering to the principle and its corollaries, the need for a concept such as natural law is weakened or simply goes away. My list of good ends and means is derived from principle, but I think it is also compatible with what many would say they derive from rational studies of ethics and natural law.

This rule provides no guidance as to what should be acceptable and what is not. Anyone willing to get hit in the face could go around hitting others in the face at will. History has also shown the ineffectiveness of the rule among people who profess to abide by it. More importantly, the Golden Rule applies between people.


  • Upcoming Events?
  • Supply Chain Structures: Coordination, Information and Optimization (International Series in Operati.
  • Mystic Witch.
  • Harpsichord Pieces, Book 2, Suite 7, No.2: Les Petits Âges, 1. La Muse naissante, 2. LEnfantine, 3.;
  • Performance Coaching For Dummies;

It says nothing about the relationship between people and government or society in general, a failure that is corrected by the Principle of Equal Freedom. The rule does not explicitly protect life, liberty, or property, which is an important shortcoming. The Golden Rule is an inadequate guide for people and society because of its logical limitations. While it could be used as a basis for a society, it would not be satisfactory by itself for a free society.

If a society were founded upon the rule, there could arise within the society numerous people wanting to live under a political government. They could get together, create a political government, and impose that government upon all who live within the society. It would be pointed out to objectors that the implementors are willing to have a State over them, and so, fully within the terms of the Golden Rule, they can impose a State upon all others — since they are willing to have a State imposed upon themselves, they are logically allowed to impose a State upon others.

This is the fatal flaw of the rule with respect to a free society — the rule does not assure freedom. Only the Principle of Equal Freedom as stated herein, or some logically equivalent construct, can assure freedom when the principle is followed. It is only this principle that implies that wherever it is the foundation for a society, that society will be a free society and will have no State.

The Golden Rule does not exclude the tax collector who believes in what he is doing, therefore it does not imply or require the existence of freedom. The Golden Rule allows one who believes in the application of taxes to strive to implement taxes upon others — by taking away property, he also takes away freedom. The Principle of Equal Freedom disallows this. Logically, one has to conclude there can be no stable freedom found in following the Golden Rule alone. Reciprocity is a natural part of civilized life, and should be widespread within a free society, but it is not adequate by itself.

The Golden Rule is different from the principle.

Navigation menu

It can — and generally should — be interpreted as a social rule to look after each other. Thus it is social in nature, while the principle is more societal. Which is why the rule is not adequate for determining societal form and function. The Golden Rule has a long history within religious teachings, and so has acquired many people who espouse the rule, however poorly they might actually live by it or understand it.

The more complete Principle of Equal Freedom has not been included in religious teachings, at least not in any substantial manner few indeed are the religious leaders who believe in real freedom , and it therefore has a much smaller following. Condensing the principle does not result in anything like: Do toward others as you would have them do toward you.

Law of equal liberty - Wikipedia

If it must the condensed for assimilation, it would be much better done as: Live and let live. It should be recognized that the let live part is a crucial part to be taken quite seriously. Coercion and fraud are actions that limit or destroy freedom. The State, Church, various organizations, groups, and individuals are sources of these acts. The acts can limit or remove the individual's choices, control, and properties — the individual loses control of his own life under these acts. The ultimate coercion is loss of life for the victim. Coercion and fraud exist everywhere on Earth, in every society, as the dominant factors shaping contemporary social life.

The Basics of Properties A person's properties, in their broadest definition, include life, liberty, health, intangible properties, tangible properties, and estate. Life includes biological existence, body, name, social identity, and reputation. Estate includes monies and equivalents, creations, land, land use, land improvements, and contractual entitlements. Life and liberty are typically considered separate from other properties because of their innate, generally nontransferable nature.

Coercion and fraud are the means by which property is improperly taken from a person, or by which he is restrained from taking a moral action or forced to take an action against his wishes. John Locke maintained that a person's life is his own property. He wrote, "Every man has a property in his own person; this nobody has a right to but himself. Tangible properties, including land holdings, have been recognized as a person's own, at least until his death, by custom and common law. States, warlords, religious leaders, thieves, and many others have transgressed these property rights for many millennia.

Herbert Spencer stated that a person's intellectual property is his own, to do with as he wishes, not to be compromised by the States' patent laws. The States' patent laws enforce coercive monopolies and deny independent inventors the right to use their own inventions. Lysander Spooner held that a person's ownership and interest in his intellectual properties continues without end, beyond his own life. The creator bears responsibility for the use of his intellectual properties. The totality of properties is life and the tangible and intangible things that properly belong to a person.

Locke summarized them as life, liberty, and estate. Ownership of non-life properties means holding proper, moral title to properties, whether or not in immediate possession of the properties, and whether or not title is formally recorded. An estate is the entirety of a person's possessions and entitlements, tangible and intangible, exclusive of his life and liberty. It is what a person accumulates during his life. The estate continues on beyond the life of the person unless that person declares his estate dissolved, with the properties then fully disposed of. An estate could be established as an incorporated entity by the person prior to his death or interment into some form of suspended animation, including cryopreservation.