Liberty is not equal to Freedom

Britain invented the Equity Law, the Bill of Right, and the strong property right legislation, and the U.S.A. created the Constitution. These events occurred to preserve Liberty from the excess freedom.

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.

Humans have no instinct

Some natural scientists claim that animals can learn to divert from their instinctive way of their life (This article described as a form of evolution) as long as they can
learn in the environment with plenty rich information sets available. I thought that these scientists' way of deduction was very suspicious, and then I became sceptical about what they analyse when I read the part "instincts (survival, killer, selfish, reproductive, numerous emotions, fears and disgusts etc)." It can be still controversial to define, and there are many not only natural scientists but also philosophers think of these actions as "instincts".

By contrast, I strongly disagree with it because human-beings are able to "control" these motives, and "choose" between different qualities even though these choices are sharing a common characteristics. E.g. Good food v.s. Bad food, Good Sex v.s. Bad Sex.

When chicks (Baby birds) are hatched from their egg, they instinctively follow whom they see at the first time just immediately after their hatch. By contrast, human-babies have got a lot of ways to express their emotion unlike animals and plants even the time immediately after they are born.

They mentioned that mammals are closer to human-beings. But, I still disagree with it. During sex, mammal animals just ejacuate as soon as they come as it is their instinct. By contrast, human-beings take ejacuation as a part of their motive based on their will. We try to control when we ejacuate to create a better orgasm as possible. Animals including mammals have orgasm passively, but human-beings "seek" orgasm by having sex.

I would say that all these actions and motivations these scientists mentioned in this article you introduced are "biological reaction for needs" rather than "instincts". As the dictionary defines, instinct is "**fixed**" pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli". So, as long as we can overcome, they should not be called instincts.


God endow all animals with special strength and instincts of using their strength. Birds are endowed with the ability to fly and nice looking feathers, and instinctively decide where to fly, not by their will. Lions and Tigers are endowed
with the enormous strength to hunt, but they do not have their own will to change their habit. By contrast, human-beings are endowed with nothing. Human-beings are such fragile, weak, and colourless. But, God endow human-beings with a special gift which is "will", and emancipated human-beings from the restriction of instincts! Amen...!

Neo-Marxism is a good diagnosis but a bad prescription

Meanwhile I still disagree with major parts of Neo-Marxism, I think highly of its huge improvement from the infant Marxism.

The advantage of Neo-Marxism is that it does not contradict the market mechanism to destroy capitalism: It focuses on reforming capitalism unlike the original Marxism and Marx-Leninism. Neo-Marxism detaches its theory from political construction and the mainstream socialism, and it is far more flexible than any old Marxism.

For example, Antonio Gramsci is the founder of the European Union ideal, and the EU still keeps the attitude to adapt it to the market mechanism (I.e. Remaining capitalism). Do you know that many libertarians adapted Neo-Marxist theory to criticise the state-capitalism monopolised by national government, bureaucracy, and a few number of humongous enterprises?



Nonetheless, I cannot be convinced by Neo-Marxism for many reasons.

In terms of socio-economics, it still sticks to the pure materialism to analyse both the market mechanism and sociological aspects. In addition, its economic theory is not yet updated from a very classical model i.e. It is a pure simple microeconomics without any advanced modern quantitative analyses.

In terms of ethics, the problem of all sorts of Marxism are based on Hegelian ethics and cosmology which regard that the moral code is universal, the future is always better and the past is always worse, the Western world is always advanced from the rest, and hugely ignores the significance of rational egoism driving the market mechanism. All kinds of Marxism are way too idealistic, hypocritic, ignoring the interests of the others as retarded savages, too optimistic about future and over-estimate human-beings, and eventually forcing altruism to individuals.

Furthermore, I am really sceptical about Neo-Marxist globalisation concept. There is a huge possibility that Neo-Marxist idea of federalising the entire would be bad as much as what the Communists attempted to do in during the Cold War if were to be established. Although I support Globalisation, I would like to avoid all idealistic moral-universalist continental European ethics. When we establish some global institute, it is safer to adapt more ethically flexible theories such as those of Hobbes (Useful to analyse political diplomatic geometry in the world), Rousseau (His cultural comparison theory is way far fairer than Hegel=Marx), and Keynes (The person who established the WB and the IMF!)



Any way, Neo-Marxism is a useful tool as a "Diagnosis" to diagnose how individuals and institutions (Never use such a word like "Society"!) are structured, but is a poor or even wrong tool as a "prescription" to cure/reform/operate=revolt the structure.

The Affirmative Action consequences in unfairness and retarding individuals

Well, though I claim all individuals are different and unique regardless of our group cohort such as social class, ethnicity, and gender, I strongly argue that, "in average", there is a significant difference in characteristics and qualities among different social class, ethnicity, and gender. Thus, ethnic and racial differences are inevitable, and we cannot equalise their characteristics while we attempt to keep their quality not going down. What socialists attempt is to equalise characteristics among all social class, gender, and ethnic groups even though it results in a sizable decline in their quality.

"The only fair is laissez-faire"!

All social classes, genders, and ethnic groups have their own unique personality, and this fact makes the world interesting, diverse, and exciting. They have their own advantage in a certain field so they should be specialised in it. What these socialists aspire to do is to penalise our endowed advantages to distribute an artificially created unfair advantages to the supporters of a socialist government! This socialist policy is to make everyone except for the party member equally poor!

Furthermore, many libertarian equal opportunity supporters criticised US Democrats' affirmative action. Its "consequence" is to "actually pernalise" those disadvantaged ethnic groups to discourage them becoming competent. This phenomenon is also seen in the treatment to Aboriginal people in Australia. Australian governments provide such a huge welfare to addict these Aboriginal people to reduce their competence.

Hence, by means of the real fairness, I am against these sorts of affirmative action!

I hate Olympics! ...for my cause of individualism though :)

My anti-Olympics opinion is based on individualism such as Ms. Ayn Rand insists on. She said "Thanks very much for this lovely party, but please do not do it again....... I hate parties...!" (Ref. Movie "The Passion of Ayn Rand")

I hate parties and festivals so that I hate Olympic! It is a form of Groupism where individuals fall into the false rejoice by being integrated into a falsely rejoicing group i.e. throwing individuality away to their day dreaming! Damn...!

I only like parties and festivals as long as they have a very special reason to celebrate such as the birthday party of an individual person and a cause such as liberty and civic republicanism. Individuals have to be royal to and devoted in the cause of these parties and festivals when they participate. Olympic?! Who hell really think of its cause?!! Even all athletes participating into it know it is just a circus!

Greek and Eurozone Fiscal Crisis compared to Water Plumbing and Supply

The Eurozone shares one big primary water pumping engine, and all member countries replaced their old primary water pump from their own well with the auxiliary pumping engine drugging the water from the ECM primary pumping engine. Therefore, they now share only one well of the water.

The Greek plumbing system used to rely on the big but old engine which drains a huge amount of the water from her well. But her pipe, connecting from the pumping engine to those who need the water, has got many geographic barriers (curves, hills, rivers, seas, bays, etc) to run the water faster and many water leakages as well. The Greek water supply system used to cover such a supply inefficiency by the power of her own pumping engine.

Nowadays, as pipes are connected to not only inside Greece but also the other Eurozone. So, the Eurozone nations decided to share one brand water pumping engine supplying the entire Eurozone nations. They only remained their auxiliary pumping engine (Fiscal policy) in their own countries. As Greece has taken her own primary pumping engine, and has to now rely on the water supply coming from the primary pumping engine, the volume of the water she is able to drug up to her people has been lowered since they change the entire water supply system. As the water comes from such a far away, the inefficient Greek pipe system with an old inefficient auxiliary pumping engine cannot make the water reach to the entire parts.

The current Greek problem is that her auxiliary engine is overheated due to the lack of the water reaching to Greece. In order to solve this problem, a well trained professional plumber from the ECB has to conduct to replace the water pipe connecting between the ECB and Greece, and the auxiliary engine has to be replaced rather than repaired. Furthermore, because all the Eurozone nations still use their old auxiliary pumping engine whose is not well compatible with the one new primary water pumping engine. Thus, all the old auxiliary pumping engines should be replaced with the new one compatible with the one shared primary pumping engine, and Greek plumbing has to be replaced with the modern ones (Not only the new tough pipes but also the straightened (digging the whole into hills and mountains and make them strong enough to stretch above and inside river, sea, and bay instead of making a lot of curves) the shape of them)!!