Rights and violent aggression.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Clearly there is much conceptual overlap in this area. I like to make the following distinctions which may or may not be standard usage:

Liberty is the lack of others' interference with one's actions. Freedom is the ability to act within that sphere of non-interference. Freedom and liberty are different with respect to the nature of the constraints upon them. Liberties are constrained only by other people whereas freedoms can be constrained by other people but also by limiting circumstances. You can have liberties without having freedom, but you cannot have freedoms without liberties.

So for example, if I am in the wilderness and no one is there to stop me, I have liberty to shout-out whatever I like, eat what I want, and travel in whatever direction I choose. However, liberty does not shield me from consequences. So while I have these liberties, circumstances could limit my freedom. If there is a wolf pack nearby I am not free to shout. If all that surrounds me are poison berries I am not free to eat. Or alternatively, if no one is there to stop me and if I am wise I could build myself a nice little cabin and live out my days quite peacefully fishing.

I lose liberty the minute another person interferes. That lose could be violent, like if he threatens to shoot me or it could be voluntary, if we agree to keep to our part of the woods in quiet enjoyment. In some instances the loss of some liberties can result in greater freedom, like if we build a fence around our part of the woods to keep out wolves. Now we enjoy greater freedom of movement within the fenced area at the cost of some liberty to use my time and resources as I like by my own authority. (Notice here that I can gain that freedom as the result of cooperation but I could just has well have gained that freedom after my neighbor made me build the fence by threatening to beat me up or kill me.)

Libertarianism is a legal philosophy based on the idea of self-ownership. In essence you own your life, not only in the present, but also your past in the form of the products of your life and your future in the form of the prospects for your life. To steal is to take the past life of another, to restrain or threaten is to take someone’s present life, and to murder is to take his future life.

This is a sharp break from the primary alternative theory of law of Western democracies, legal positivism, in which the lives of the governed were under the authority of the State, secured either by force or by circumstantial inclusion in a prior social structure, like a tribe.

For example, the American Revolution was not simply a change of government; it was the adoption of a completely different legal theory. Of the main concerns of monarchists was that if the colonies severed their relationship with England then what would be the basis for the Law if not the authority of the Crown? The answer, the Founding Father believed, was that the legitimacy of the State was based neither on the “general will” of a social collective or by command of a policing authority; but rather, on informed consent. After the Revolution, Americans ceased to be “Subjects” and became “Citizens”.

Of course the devil is always in the details and I doubt very much that libertarian ideals, no matter how desirable, can be put into practice except as guiding principles. How does a society deal with people who, for whatever reason, cannot give consent? Must consent always be explicit or is there a role for tacit acceptance. How do rights and obligations transfer from one individual to another? Etc. etc.

Many political positions IMHO generally express where people stand with respect to the degree to which they believe in self-ownership.