Monday, December 06, 2021

Liberty > life

I recently had a self-revelation. In every case I've been able to think of, I value liberty over life if there's a conflict (real or imagined) between the two.

Life, liberty, and property are all important. If I were forced to rank them, though, I would rank them this way: liberty > life > property. And I think property and life are almost interchangeable-- property is what helps you hang on to life.

I get that some people reverse the order and value life more than liberty. Many people seem to value one or the other more depending on the specific issue. I don't think the issue matters at all to the equation. Liberty (to me) is always more important than life.

But which one is really more important? The question is meaningless.

Value is always subjective.

Liberty is why I will always support the absolute natural right to own and to carry weapons. Regardless of whether someone believes-- rightly or wrongly-- that doing so puts lives in danger. I'm pro-liberty.

It's why I'm going to side with the woman on the topic of abortion, even though I don't like abortion and think it is generally a sign of irresponsibility. I'm pro-liberty.

It's why I support the right of addicts to use drugs without being attacked by state goons. I'm pro-liberty.

It's why I am not a supporter of government borders, of cops, of Covid mandates, or of the safety nazis. I'm pro-liberty.

It's about liberty, even over and above life. Liberty is my priority.

Yes, you have to be alive to enjoy liberty. A corpse can't enjoy liberty. However, a life without liberty (or at least the hope of liberty to come) is worse than death in my opinion. I believe liberty is worth dying to protect and promote.


If you appreciate what I do, consider expressing it.


  1. I have a problem with drugs/chemicals. A friend (aquaintance and long-time friend of a neighbor) who died in a head-on with a multi-convicted drunk. The folks who "do" drugs and booze are not rational. They inflict their disability on children and innocent victims. If they wanted to "shoot-up" in the privacy of their own home, I probably wouldn't care. But the demented bastards always want to go out for a drive, abandoning their children while they go out to kill an innocent. Those screaming off in a daze from Meth, PCP, ketamine, "bath salts" are typically no longer rational. They are flat out lethally dangerous. I have seen the remains of an Emergency Room after one of them has arrived.

    Don't waste your time with "rational" logic on those people. They will "yes" you to death and then run off to destroy someone else's life. Better they get prison time and the "innocent" victim survive. Remember, drugs cause personality and brain changes. The drug is all they desire, nothing or no one else matters.

    1. Every choice you make has an impact on others. And everyone can claim that anything they don't like is lethally dangerous (because everything can be) as a way to justify government violence against it. And prison victimizes the victim (or their survivors) again, by forced "taxation" to keep the prisons open-- and by helping those imprisoned learn more criminal skills from others there.

      As some of my readers are aware, my older daughter was killed 6 years ago by a driver on drugs. I still stand my my opinion.

      If you start making exceptions based on personal pain, even if you can make a good case, then others can make an exception based on their own "good reasons" against gun ownership, for Covid mandates, or anything else when they want you to "think of the children". Before long, liberty is a privilege that doesn't exist in the real world.

  2. Your approach assumes a certain minimum level of rationality in others. And that they care even a little for others in the world. It is always a tricky business, but there are some who should be locked away to protect the innocent. Then there are the "perfectly rational" ones who don't give a "damn" about the consequences of their actions on others. It is always, "Not my problem". I don't know of a way to adopt rules that can cover all the complexities of life, but I can live with some limitations at the fringes since those limitations theoretically limit "official" intrusions. With DUIs, everyone gets a "free-be". After that, I have no sympathy for fools who will not or can not learn. I don't want to spend the rest of my life in a wheel chair or have a family member live that way because some dummy can't figure the problem out. For them who don't learn, enjoy the ride in the car with the blinky lights. And, by the way, my preference is Tequilla, when I don't have to drive. Then "she" has the keys and knows not to drink at those times. In my experience the vast majority of those who take "recreational" drigs, can't regulate their input or regulate their behavior. That puts me at risk and makes me rather cranky. There are few "curbside" tests for "recreational" drugs and no accepted standard for "intoxication", so a blanket prohibition makes sense.

    Obviously, any law can be abused. I really don't care if you get high at home. I care if you get high and then try to kill me. Figure out a way to keep the drugged idiots out of my life and I'll listen.

  3. "Life, liberty, and property are all important. If I were forced to rank them, though,"
    See, I can't do that. For me, the three are inextricably tied together. Deprive me of one: you steal away the other two as well. Take 'property', for example: my first, best property is 'myself'. Without it (myself), I have no life, no liberty. -Henry

    1. That's a perfectly valid view. It's how I nearly always see it.

      It's only when statists see a conflict between them, and try to impose government violence on others using that supposed conflict as justification, that I feel "forced" to choose. In that case, telling them that liberty comes before even life can short-circuit their "justification" and take away their weapon. As with the examples above.