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

Will Automation Make All of the Jobs Disappear?

... No.

There is no reason to suggest that automation will dramatically increase unemployment in the short term, or at all in the long term.

Seriously, it will not.

Do read the links in the order in which they appear please. Finding the right comments in the third link might be quite interesting. They are all by a user called BestTrousers and start with "RI" meaning R1.

The main argument used by HealthcareEconomist3 is to give a survey of several works, while BestTrousers goes for comparative advantage.

Why I Am Not a Historical Materialist

Hopefully you good folks can indulge me by forgiving this post. It is an unfinished mess because I wanted it out there as the anchor for a hyperlink from a Reddit thread.
At the momebt everything below is a jumble of notes, but I will be reworking it bit by bit starting today.
Hopefully this post will be sorted out and typed in full before the end of April 2017.


Historical materialism is the idea that history progresses in stages - slavery, then feudalism, then capitalism, then socialism, then communism - driven by changes in the technologies or techniques of production, and that any human civilisation will exemplify this process.

This makes historical materialism an exercise in both historicism and materialism.

Historicism is the idea that studying the past can reveal history's in-built course or narrative, and so show you the future.

Materialism is the idea that ideas ( and institutions) ultimately* don't matter in determining our destinies, and that therefore only material…

Capital & Labor in the Race to Exploit the Other

The idea that labor exploits capital is equally as plausible, sans assumptions*, as the idea that capital exploits labor. This is only intended as a response to the formal concept, descriptive or normative, of exploitation in Marx's schema from Capital Volume I.

* Assumptions include the power relation whereby capital is just assumed to be above labor hierarchically.

~ Capital exploits labor because... ... Capital earns income from production done by labor that capital didn't perform
~ Labor exploits Capital because... ... Labor earns income from capital that labor didn't buy
Basically in good old formal logic fashion both of those cases above, being factual descriptions, are true at once or are false at once.