Libertarianism and being Jedi

Brenna wrote: Which means that a line would have to be drawn on what you are and are not free to do?

freedom is a relative concept which must be agreed on. A population's general agreement is codified in laws... And the best known laws throughout the world are human right laws.

The political platform speaks to a broad range of freedoms and even the environment, all of which would be ideal for the government to stay out of. .


all of the Jedi believe appear . . .

As far as I can tell, one could certainly correlate these beliefs because to put it simply; a Jedi should be the guardian of freedom and justice.

ren wrote:

Brenna wrote: Which means that a line would have to be drawn on what you are and are not free to do?

freedom is a relative concept which must be agreed on. A population's general agreement is codified in laws... And the best known laws throughout the world are human right laws.

Yes... ok, Im with you up till this point. But here is where I get a bit confused.

If you dont agree with those laws but are forced to comply with them because its the law, is that not an infringement on your freedom? You mentioned the "Maximum amount of freedom". So essentially, people are free to do whatever they like, provided it does not undermine the rights of others.

Maybe im just being thick headed, but I cant help but think that the only way for libertarianism to work is if the whole world agreed to it. As a very basic example, manufacturers in the United states trying to make the greatest amount of profit from a product deciding to take the manufacturing off shore to china or india where it is permissible to pay people well below the minimum wage and keep them in unfit conditions. This happens now because the working conditions and pay of those in America have a legal standard, not so in other countries.

Would that mean that under libertarianism, it would be expected that the manufacturer would have to self govern according to the ethics and not use slave labour or workers who are treated with no regard to human rights, either in America or in other countries?

So now I know the difference between the Libertarian propaganda sites and other types of libertarians; e.g. of the other types:

some focus on one or a few aspects of the platform with communication to the government and educating others.

some libertarians focus on educating individuals by offering as many resource links as possible to live independently as possible from the government.

Yes.

Connor Lidell wrote: Yes.

Was that yes to me or Mareeka?

Brenna wrote:

ren wrote:

Brenna wrote: Which means that a line would have to be drawn on what you are and are not free to do?

freedom is a relative concept which must be agreed on. A population's general agreement is codified in laws... And the best known laws throughout the world are human right laws.

Yes... ok, Im with you up till this point. But here is where I get a bit confused.

If you dont agree with those laws but are forced to comply with them because its the law, is that not an infringement on your freedom? You mentioned the "Maximum amount of freedom". So essentially, people are free to do whatever they like, provided it does not undermine the rights of others.

Maybe im just being thick headed, but I cant help but think that the only way for libertarianism to work is if the whole world agreed to it. As a very basic example, manufacturers in the United states trying to make the greatest amount of profit from a product deciding to take the manufacturing off shore to china or india where it is permissible to pay people well below the minimum wage and keep them in unfit conditions. This happens now because the working conditions and pay of those in America have a legal standard, not so in other countries.

Would that mean that under libertarianism, it would be expected that the manufacturer would have to self govern according to the ethics and not use slave labour or workers who are treated with no regard to human rights, either in America or in other countries?

Not necessarily. the purpose is to have maximum freedom. It's an end, not a mean.

The problem isn't to make people agree on libertarianism (although I'm sure some would prefer theocracy and fascism), but to make people agree on freedom.

There was an argument not so long ago about gun ownership. As a libertarian I am opposed to it. Why? Because it takes away my freedom to walk down the street worry-free, which is a freedom I like far more than the freedom to own a killing toy. Therefore, imo, I have greater freedom in banning guns than I do in owning them.

I must point out, I don't think you'll meet many libertarians like me.

In agreements on freedom, there is more peace. . .a more natural world order versus a new world o. platform

Inoculations and vaccines and the freedom to choose versus being forced to . . .