That is very much based on the definition of freedom. If you only look at it as opposite to regulations it doesn't show, what you are able to do in reality...

Take Somalia for example (the destination people like to send all the ancaps). There is effectively no state and no regulations, but people living there are poor so they can't do much. They are free, but can't do much.

Compare it to Norway, very rich and also quite regulated country. They are not that free, but they can afford almost everything.

Of course there are countries like North Korea where you are not allowed to do anything and you can't afford anything.

So I like to think about practical freedom as a rectangle where the two sides are "what you are allowed to do" and "what you can afford to do."

The bigger the surface of the rectangle the better. But yes, we are all individuals preferring different shapes and sizes of freedom.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Each to their own thoughts and opinions on this 💜

This is very thoughtful. I believe the founders of the US had exactly this duality in mind when forming our government.

The logic flowed something like this:

1. People are not good by nature.

2. Some of those people will not regulate their impulses.

3. This causes the violation of other people’s rights by the unregulated.

4. Some cooperation is required to defend the freedom of everyone else.

5. Government is evil.

6. Ergo, the least amount of government required to protect the rights of the average person is the least possible evil.

Then there is also a need to dissect the difference between freedom from restriction and freedom *of* opportunity. You could have a perfect government with absolute rights, but that doesn’t mean that the past and chance, etc provides you with many opportunities to do much with it.

It certainly takes both to create a prosperous nation.