The fundamental principle must be "Liberty " not " freedom. Allowing freedom of individuals is an unconditional democracy which leads to Communism. The original Communism is a dictatorship by mobs.
Unlike the concept of Liberty, the concept of Freedom allows or attempts to enable individuals to do whatever they wish to do. I introduce you a really interesting site:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm
This site article explains that all political ideologies support "freedom" for those who support these ideologies. For example, Communism=Socialism=Marxism aspires to enable proletariat to acquire their freedom by sacrificing the freedom of their enemy classes. Another example is that Nazis' plan was to provide strong Germans with freedom with the expense of weak Germans and non-Alien races.
The primitive U.S.A. temporarily suffered from the quasi Communism. French revolution caused such a bloodshed by freeing mobs all the sudden. Japan has been, and still is, in the tyranny by mobs. In a way. I am really sceptical (almost against) offering personal freedom for all. Thus, Liberty requires a certain level of restriction on freedom.
The concept of Liberty is mainly divided into the two categories in the current political philosophical world; "Comprehensive Liberalism" which I support, and "Political Liberalism" which I am highly sceptical about.
Comprehensive Liberalism regards that Personal Liberty is derived from maximising sum of degree of freedom for all individuals i.e. maximising the aggregate level of Liberty. It puts emphasis on the "inevitable" restriction on personal freedom, and the degree of the restriction varies across different individuals owing to their merit, responsibility, and mentality. It is against irrational oppression (E.g. Religious fundamentalism, Racism, and decision derived from superstition) whereas it supports rational oppression (E.g. Financial, Physical, and Social penalties). Thus, it supports repressing freedom for certain individuals in order to guarantee their personal liberty.
By contrast, Political Liberalism supports the view to see providing all individuals with the highest possible freedom for all. It also claims that Personal Liberty is derived from the "equally distributed" high degree of personal freedom. It claims that there is no such an inevitable barrier to provide the full freedom for all. Unlike the former one, it is against any kind of oppression or penalty whatever the reason is. This one regards Personal Freedom is guaranteeing both aggregate and personal freedom.
I support the former one due to the resource availability and I cannot be optimistic about human nature too much like what the latter theory insists. Let's focus on from the point of an individual personal perspective (Inward to outward) rather than a big picture perspective:
Firstly, our primary priority is "self-survival". Family and significant
others are the secondary importance. As same as Mrs. Thatcher said "There are only individuals and their family", we should think the directly related individuals are the almost parts of our body. The family and significant others are only those who can unconditionally trade with us.
Secondly, eventually, "the others" are not much the priority compared to these previous ones. But, we also want them to care for us if it is possible. Then, we need to "trade" with them to buy our right. The cost varies across time, place, and occasion. We can "share" some right=freedom if we share the "common interest". We must find out all those are either friends/allies or enemies. Zero or lower cost if they are friends/allies to trade. Higher or infinite cost if they are enemies to trade.
Thirdly, we had better become a citizen of a "strong civilisation" because this is a community where individuals with the same interests gathers. This is why Roman-Empire and the global capitalism are highly admirable. The superior civilisation provides us with the shared common interests and safety from the enemy invasion, and replace the inefficient traditional superstitious ones which bind us to a serfdom or a weak (unstable) civilisation...
I accept that the very basic right has to be a public good (I.e. Natural Right), but I am against guaranteeing the maximum right for all individuals (I.e. Human Right) because of its cost. The right for individuals should not be given unconditionally like what Political Liberalism suggests. Right and Freedom shall be given "conditionally" depending on the natural environment, each individual's merit (Sum of Pleasure minus Sum of Pain = Sum of Utility), and how powerful the civilisation these individuals belong to.
Furthermore, some individuals' freedom=right has to be restricted owing to their merit. The only condition to apply the restriction on freedom is whether or not its reason is rationally derived enough to think about preventing any displeasing consequence.
* This following article was added on 23rd of Aug. 2013
Capitalism is the terminology used as the antithesis of Socialism by Socialists. Market mechanism is same as the law of gravity so that it inevitably exists as the nature, not as an ideology.
There is no such a political ideology like Capitalism. What we follow is "Liberalism". Liberalism refers to the action Liberating whereas Socialism refers to the abstract norm which in fact does not exist, and will not exist, and is almost impossible to clearly define.
"(Nowadays, the word liberalism was hijacked for socialism or any form of oppressive collectivism." (Milton Friedman)
Nevertheless, as this word Capitalism has already become commonly used to call the political philosophy to refer to the Liberalism which we support, the following note mentions Capitalism as the Liberalism which we support:
I have a big faith in both Anti-socialism and Pro-Global-Capitalism. Laissez-faire Capitalism is like a big two side blade sword which swings both way, benefit and harm, owing to how to use it. Nowadays, many people blame laissez-faire capitalism due to the crisis. It is our biggest challenge to defend our global capitalism to convince people that it is not because of capitalism itself, it is just a matter of how to use it. Your logic sounds like denying the usage of fire because it is dangerous enough to burn us, and deny the huge benefit the usage of fire has brought us since its introduction.
