I wasn’t saying that freedom is on/off, I was saying, that wealth or livelihood is not the same thing as freedom. I didn’t say that people either are “free” or “not free”. They can, like you said, be more or less free.

But the thing is, that all the good objectives can’t be achieved at the same time; or at least not fully achieved at the same time. It is naive to think, that all the good things one can imagine are in harmony with the other, and that one can achieve them all at the same time without bargaining of one or other.

So if you think, that everybody has a right to a certain livelihood, even if this means non-voluntary redistribution of the wealth, fine, that can be done, just don’t call “freedom” something that isn’t freedom. I didn’t say, that achieving that livelihood means, that the whole freedom will be lost, but some of it will be.

And the fact that I’m not able to fly doesn’t mean that I’m not free to fly. Freedom means, that nobody prevents you to do something. Nobody prevents me of flying, so I’m free to fly, I just can’t. That’s different.

But it was your refence to the party constitution that made me see red. I’m not a party member, and I don’t think that liberalism is defined by what one party or another says in its constitution, so please don’t try to impress me with the illogical propaganda of your party. I’ll just get discusted of the gibberish what politicans like you call “legitimate use of the word”. Of course it is legal to blurt out the first thing that comes to one’s head, but that doesn’t make it true. And I have the feeling that Isaiah Berlin is a somewhat better authority on the use of the word “freedom” than the constutions of the UK Liberal Democats party.

I thought that members of the Liberal Democrats would have known a bit more theory of liberalism than the party papers. I didn’t expect that Lib Dems would know thoughts of the leading market liberals, but Isaiah Berlin wasn’t a market liberal. He accepted limitations to freedom in order to achieve certain other goals, like securing bread for everybody. But he was intelligent enought to distinguish freedom from bread.

Liberal International arranged a serie of Isaiah Berlin lectures at the National Liberal Club, London. In 2001 the lecturer was Charles Kennedy, then leader of the UK Liberal Democrats. I would have thought, that at least such liberal thinkers as Isaiah Berlin and K. R. Popper, who by no means can be called “market liberals”, would have been better known and accepted among Liberal Democrat membership.

But unortunately I’m afraid that I have overestimated the average Lib Dem activist; they aren’t interested to learn about liberal theory and to develop themselves. Party manifestos are enough for their guidance, and they don’t need to know more. They aren’t any better than the Tory or Labour activists.

Now, enough of this. I’m not a primary school teacher, so if you want to discuss with me, first RTFM. When you have read at least the essay of Isaiah Berlin to which I refered, then we can discuss more, but NOT before that. It is not too much to ask, as the essay is only 52 pages long, and belongs to the basic literature of liberalism.

Freedom is not an absolute binary concept; you can be “more free” or “less free”; you can’t be “not free” or “free”. None of us are completely free.

Complete freedom would mean the ability to perform any action that you can conceive or imagine.

To take your example, if you can’t fly, then you’re not free to fly. It’s a constraint.

And, of course, the fact that the 21st century is richer than every previous one means that it is freer than every previous one.

What you are talking about is part of freedom - political, economic and individual freedom.

“Freedom from poverty” - a direct quote from the preamble to the party constitution - is a perfectly legitimate use of the word. It’s not the same as economic freedom, and indeed, at the limit they contradict one another - ie one cannot simultaneously entirely satify both at once.

Pretending that the freedoms you do not prioritise are not freedoms is utterly nonsensical.

Fine. If the farm has no value, and the farmer can’t gain his living from it, it might be best for him to just abandon it and get a job elsewhere.

But that its completely irrelevant, as the freedom still doesn’t mean the same as wealth or livelihood, no matter how much you spin.

In this case you assume, that the farmer can’t make his living by farming, and therefore he is not free. Well, let’s suppose his the only human in the World, let’s call him Adam. So if he can’t make his living by farming, who is limiting his freedom? According to your definition of freedom it is something, which can be levelled by redistribution.

But what if there is nothing to redistribute? (That’s actually still reality in some poor areas, and if we look at past, it has been reality everywhere at some point.) And if there aren’t other people, from whom you could transfer incomes to Adam? Does it mean, that freedom doesn’t exist? Your “freedom” is dependent on the situation that there is somebody else who can and will give you livelihood, if you are unable to get it yourself. But that’s not what freedom is.

That is comparable to a situation, where you claim that you aren’t free, because you are unable to jump more than ten feet in the air, or cannot read because you are blind. According to your definition people can’t ever actually be truly free, because you cosider any obstacle, even if it because of a law of nature, as a limitation to freedom, and there is always some such obstacles.

The thing many socialists and you among them are actually advocating, is introducing a kind of Doublethink. By depriving the word “Freedom” of its true meaning and replacing it with another, you can actually suppress freedom and pose yourself as a champion of liberty at the same time. Basicly you have an agenda which is in contradiction with freedom, so instead of just admitting, that all right, this agenda limits freedom but you think that it is worth of it, you are actually calling your agenda “freedom”, when it is not.

And BTW, I wouldn’t have taken you for somebody from the Liberator set, I was rather assuming that you come from the Campaign Group. It doesn’t take a hard market liberal to recognise, that freedom and wealth, though both desirable, are two separate things. Those who advocate the opposite view have according my experience been without an exception hard-core socialists. But maybe you are just one of those few naive people, who have been fooled by them. If you claim to be some kind of liberal, I suggest that you read Two Concepts of Liberty by Isaiah Berlin. His argument is much more eloquent and better reasoned than mine. If you really are a liberal, that should convince you not to abuse the word freedom, as you are doing now.

I’m not especially hostile to your position, so all the slurs and insisting you know what I really think (from reading three comments? I certainly am not part of the liberator set!) are really quite unnecessary. Theres no need to respond to a friendly debate with such a tirade, though if tristan wishes his comments to be open only to hard market liberals he is welcome to say.

As Isaiah Berling put it: “Everything is what it is: liberty is liberty, not equality or fairness or justice or culture, or human happiness or a quiet conscience.” Still, as Berlin said, it possibly might be worth to give up some freedom to achieve some other goals, but that doesn’t change the fact, that (some) freedom is lost in the process, and those other goals achieved should not be confused with freedom.