Skip to main content


Oh my god, you like, don't know how wrong I am right now!


Freedom is the condition or situation in which a moral agent, or person, can act upon themselves and their environment without being prevented by outside factors. Different people enjoy different degrees of freedom for many reasons, but to simplify a little, people's own time and property are respected to different degrees depending on the country they're in, the social caste they belong to, and whether they are doing time in prison, on death row, or are a powerful bureaucrat or politician.

How much freedom is too much, and how much is too little? The Liberal tradition gives us a nifty logic from which to defend this crazy thing called Liberty against the Divine Right of Kings.

Too little freedom might be the condition of, say, a worker in North Korea having to submit to forceful re-education, or a Chinese farmer having to give up their land since they are afforded no private property rights over it.

This is to say that too little freedom consists in the restriction of your powers of action over yourself either by imprisonment in a restrictive environment, restraint of your person, theft of your property, or simply being bullied, injured, or killed by others.

What does an excess look like? Is over-empowerment simply the flip-side of the disempowerment above? Is power an excess of freedom? The power to restrain, imprison, bully, injure or kill without thought of retribution or restitution must be a present reality in our world then, considering how often people are killed, maimed, bullied, harassed, stolen from and so on.

It seems that one side creates the other; the excess and dearth of freedom are joined at the hip; a vicious yin and yang of power and seeming helplessness. This is where Liberty comes in.


Liberalism is the political philosophy that society should afford each person complete freedom over themselves, and none over others. This could be described as a condition of Liberty. Liberalism in most forms allows the state the responsibility of enforcing the liberal order with its monopoly over the military, police, courts and statutory lawmaking.

Libertarianism takes the fight against authority a little further, opposing pretty much all political power, redistribution and paternalism. Minarchists seek a reduction of the state through constitutionalism, whereas Anarchists seek to abolish the state itself, effectively handing the reins entirely over to civil society.

Some ultra-Minarchists like myself are in the middle of that, regarding the rightful size of the state as little more than a constitution and a geographical placeholder, with civil society otherwise operating like that envisioned by Anarcho-Capitalists. But regardless of which of these solutions might come to pass, the question remains...


Liberty is the best kind and degree of freedom for society as a whole. If every individual enjoys liberty, then their actions are limited only by concern for the freedom of others. This balance between power (too much) and prostration (too little) is perhaps the most important Aristotelian virtue of all.

It can be said that a society that lives according to this dictum is living in Liberty. as for what that could mean in practice, more another time!


Popular posts from this blog

What Lingos Are Most Similar to English, Though?

Commentaryism - The Death Toll of Capitalism

How many people have died because capitalism exists? How many would still be alive if it had never existed? Let's dig in!

We will take two approaches over the course of this blog post by looking at the the death tolls attributed to the word in its broad popular definition - everything socialists don't like - versus the toll that fits the definition offered previously on this blog.

By the same token I will not lay any outsized figures at any other mode of production's door except where that mode of production demonstrably caused the problem that killed people. It's political ideologies that really matter here, and this is where the first big problem with even trying to lay a specific body count before capitalism runs into problems - there is no political ideology called capitalism.

Now then, Alfonso Gutierrez says in a comment thread that "capitalism and free-markets have murdered billions of people" which is a risky claim at the …

Trickle-down Economics as Economic Theory in Reality

I watched an interview with Deirdre McCloskey on the Youtube channel of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. [1]

After doing so I contributed to a comment thread, recreated in full below, wherein a chappy who claimed to be an economist tried to convince me that trickle-down economics actually is a serious thing after all. This was in response to my posting a link to Thomas Sowell's article The Trickle-Down Lie, and I am so far unconvinced by the tale the economist in question spun for me.

He cited a paper from the 90's as his example, and I entreat you to have a gander at its abstract and compare that to trickle-down as described by David Stockman in his interview with William Greider on supply-side economics. [2][3][4]

Steve Horwitz isn't in love with the phrase, but offers a decent definition;
It’s hard to pin down exactly what that term means, but it seems to be something like the following: “those free market folks believe that if you give tax cuts or subsidies to …