'Freedom' as a word means being able to do what you(nonpossessive

>>2166862
Positive and negative liberty?

>>2166862
If you aren't violating the rights of others to life or property, you aren't restricting their freedom. You should have the freedom to do anything that doesn't restrict the freedom of others, because that would be usurping the sovereignty every individual holds over their body and life.

>>2167419
Freedom is not restrictions thus you can do what you wish no matter how much it hurts others.

>>2167213
Berlin approves of this message.

File: stirner1.png (9KB, 640x400px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 640x400px

>>2167419
>rights of others to life or property

>>2167419
What about forcing people to pay taxes

File: 20Mx1ca.jpg (103KB, 1280x848px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1280x848px

>>2166862
The ideal level is less of a question, particularly at the individual level...

The rub lies in as to how you enforce it en mass, without simultaneously violating it.

>>2167419
What about food or land? What if one person has almost all arable land on earth, and refuses to share it's crops. Does he not violate others rights to life? But them taking it would be violating his right to property. Even that simple statement is not free of possible contradictions.

>>2166862
This definition of freedom wouldn't last long as it is. You cannot apply it without context or bounds.

I think the answer you are looking for does not exist. You cannot talk about freedom in a vacuum, there is no contextfree perfect balance.

I think this phrasing is also part of a lot of misunderstanding. For example, should I be free to live a gay or queer or w/e lifestyle? But then my neighbour is no longer able to live their life free of homosexual/queer/w/e experiences. Every sort of behaviour treads on some kind of freedom.

Freedom is like traffic. Everyone's perfectly happy with their freedom until all the other cars come into play.

>>2170301
http://is.4chan.org/wsg/1481830174840.webm

>>2170163
Theft
>>2170269
Retarded hypothetical set in a world where people don't act in their self interest

>>2170541
>Maximizing one's power at the expense of others isn't in one's self interest.

>>2170541
>Theft
And Security needs something to fund it. So basically, security & freedom are at direct odds.

>>2171512
You only retain your freedom so long as it is secure against those who would exercise their own over yours, which requires impeding on the freedom of others in turn, so yes, you've hit the core of the conundrum of all of history right there - competing interests.

Nobel peace prize for ya, if you figure a working solution, other than the current one, ie. a constantly re-balancing tug of war.