|
For example, statements by government ministers that X is socially deleterious behviour affect social norms and thereby affect the smooth functioning of society, even though such statements do not have legislative backing. If they do not have legislative backing, then it is not an action of government. It is just the free speech of an individual (who happens to work in the government). Much of it is, at best, based on the threat of violence. True, but pedantic. When libertarians say "violence" they are using it as a short-hand for "violence and coercion". I think you already know this. Yet, even then, much compliance with government legislation is voluntary and does not require even the threat of violence. In which case, the legislation is irrelevant because the behaviour would have happened even without the government. For example, people are happy to obey the government dictate to drive on the left-hand side of the road and would do so even if there were no penalties against breaching this rule. Good. So let's get rid of the penalties. You blood example doesn't prove that freedom v government doesn't hold. A restriction on selling blood only decreases freedom. The benefit of a restriction on sale (if any) are a utilitarian benefit. Not an increase in freedom (understood as the ability to do what you like with what you own -- which is the only definition that is internally consistent). You effectively admit this by using the term "positive freedom"... which has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with utility. If you insist in calling the "freedom to have free education", the "freedom to rape" or the "freedom to give something away" (or any other 'freedom' that is dependent on other people's property) as freedom then fine. While I think your definition is absurd and internally inconsistent... all you have done is show that your definition of freedom is not inconsistent with government. Which is not relevant to libertarians.
| 
