Do you care about human liberty or about human freedom?
No, this is not a trick question. However, confusion regarding the two concepts (that are sometimes indirectly related) has allowed a lot of nefarious people to trick those who have not critically reflected on these concepts.
The core philosophical principle underlying the idea of liberty (libertarianism) is the idea of law or lawfulness (the opposite of the order of liberty is the order of government or lawlessness -- and the whole world today is a lawless world). I will say more on this in the following paragraphs, but, first, an important clarification. Many people assume liberty has something to do with "freedom". It does not (at least, not directly). Freedom is subjective and depends on one's will, abilities and resources. Freedom, ironically, can also be unlawful and anti-libertarian -- for e.g., look at Fauci and Gates -- they have tremendous practical freedom to hurt a lot of people, even if they are not (lawfully) at liberty to do so.
On the flip side, the fact that one enjoys liberty does not mean that one also enjoys the freedom to do as one pleases (even if one desires perfectly lawful actions). For example, a physically handicapped person has the (lawful) liberty to climb a mountain, but may not have the freedom to do so. Likewise, a poor person has the (lawful) liberty to start a business but may not have the access to capital to do so. Going further, a person may have the resources (time and money) to engage in productive activities like exercise or virtuous activities like serving the poor, but may lack the will power or motivation and, therefore, the practical freedom to do these things. Or, consider this oft-parroted refrain from conservatives -- we cannot allow people the freedom to engage in vices. Well, in a society or culture where vices are frowned upon or open practitioners thereof are shunned and ostracized and peacefully excluded from all social and economic transactions (all of which happen to be legitimate actions that do not require liberty violation), a person may have the theoretical liberty to practice a vice openly, but may lack the socio-economic freedom of actually doing so, due to the risk of others disassociating to the detriment of their livelihood.
So, what is liberty? It is best to think of it as "negative freedom" or as an objective limit on the freedom of all others. What is this limit? This limit is the fact that no human being may gain a lawful special privilege or justification to use or dispose of the property of another person, for any reason, in any circumstance. Consider this for a while -- in simplest terms, it says that there is no law that justifies theft (including, murder, rape and fraud). This provides an absolute right of property to that which is one's property (their life and material property). This excludes the possibility of government or an outside final arbiter of how one may use one's life and property. It treats the idea of property, theft and law (which we should call The Law) as objective and not contingent on human opinion. Now, granted, there are many rules imposed by power structures called States and these rules are called "laws", but, almost always, these rules violate The Law. Even in the cases where these rules superficially resemble The Law, they still institutionalize and legalize other acts of theft.
The entirety of The Law is simply the recognition of the objective fact that theft (inclusive of its special cases of murder, rape and fraud), and theft alone, is unlawful. On its face, this does not seem challenging. Most people might say that they agree with it. However, what people don't recognize is that any additions or exceptions or exemptions to The Law detract from it. As such, The Law puts all human beings in a perfectly symmetric relationship with each other, with respect to theft (no one is allowed to steal from another). The moment one makes an exception (for any reason) or an exemption (for some person(s)), they have opposed it altogether and they have advocated for unlawfulness to be re-labeled as "law".
The main example of creating exemptions to The Law is the act of creating or supporting a State. This is the most pervasive action by which our species finds itself in the current necessary state of lawlessness. And, both logic and history will show that lawlessness will never lead to justice and peace.
So, for those desiring justice and peace, there is only one answer. That answer is not "freedom". That answer is 'liberty'. And that's just another way of saying that that answer is 'law'.
#LibertyIsLaw
#GovernmentIsLawlessness
Here is yet another attempt at a formulation.
[Freedom] Freedom is the state of existence where one is effectually able to do (what one wills/desires to do or) what one considers to be what they ought to do. Every person possesses freedom to different degrees, in different areas of life. (There may be valid disagreement on whether the clause in parentheses should be removed or not.).
[Liberty] Liberty is the state of a society where the individuals therein, by and large, reject law-violation/property-violation/aggression-initiation (e.g. theft/murder/rape/fraud) as ever being legitimate.
Equivalently, liberty is the state of existence where no one else violently resists whatever lawful actions one (wills/desires to do or) considers to be what they ought to do, where "lawful" is defined as property-right respecting actions or actions that do not initiate aggression. Liberty is not present in degrees -- it either exists or does not.
