This here is a PM I got on a forum I frequent.. I asked for both sides of an arguement to give me their views on/version of how a free society should be setup up/work.. Here's what one of the sides said. Names have been replaced with {full freedom side} and {partial freedom side} .. Don't put too much into the names tho.. my name isn't censored so to speak.

// indicates start and ending of the msg..

here's the edited copy paste of the PM..:

//

Sure, HiQ, i can do that.

one of the common misconceptions about freedom, is that there is a point where too much is anarchistic, this is based on a false or incorrect use of the word freedom. freedom is a legal idea as well as a philosophical idea.

this {partial freedom side} chap would suggest that freedom is there to be abused, that the more freedom you allow, the more heinous crimes against humanity will be, however if you think this through, he is saying people should give up some of their rights to another entity (government) to be more secure etc those who would give up a essential liberties for a little temporary security, deserve neither and will loose both.

ive already gone through this in that thread, so i will move on to some more practical examples of how free society should work.

so first, the ground rules. we have the individual right to life and property, thus creating an equality throughout society, as i cant take your life, just as you cant take mine, and i cant steal your property, just as you cant steal mine, and i cant use fraud to trick you, just as you cant trick me etc this is the principle of self-ownership.

now we have a basis for identifying society, we need a system in which those individuals can operate, without breaking or infringing these rights we have as a groundwork. this is done through the principle of mutual consent, which allows for individuals to share and exchange property.

in order to feel secure in their homes and in their persons, consent is given to government to PROTECT these rights and to PROMOTE the conditions required for there use. all law is based on rights, if something is unlawful it is said to go against the fundamental right in question. this is different from legal, as something can be legal but at the same time be unlawful. the intention here is that individuals should be able to feel secure in their rights, and that society is set up with that in mind.

now, the argument {partial freedom side} uses is not only morally hypocritical but it is impractical also, for instance if we take the example of murder, say by gunshot, {partial freedom side}'s answer would be to ban the gun, then the criminal gets a knife, so he would ban the knife, then the other side is to say the criminal is influenced by a corrupt society and so we have to ban all the guns on the news and in video games etc are you starting to see a pattern here? a socialist by definition will always look to ban something or create a law against it, when it has been the needless creation of restrictions and regulations that caused the corruption in the first place.

so in order to understand how a free society works, you need to understand the principle of self-ownership, mutual consent, and the rule of law. many books have been written on the subject, ron paul has written a few that are easily readable, but there are many more.

so that is the framework of a free society, it can go into more detail, but the principles of self-ownership, mutual consent, and rule of law remain the same. if you want to ask a more specific question, maybe on mutual consent or the rule of law, please do, i always have the time to answer a serious question.

hope thats what you were after,

{full freedom side}


//

So this is all in all a very nice bit on how a free and fair society should work/be put up..

I hope the other side will give his/her (Im guessing his but you know, you never know, you know? ^^)

also do a utube search for 'philosophy of freedom' and watch the long version to get an easier understanding of principles of freedom and principles of self-ownership ..