I have explained to you what I meant by "economic liberty" so there's no fallacy there, as I have defined my terms and you have defined yours. The true debate should be over why we believe economic liberty is what it is.
Yes that is quite literally the entire point I have been trying to make: our own interpretations of "economic liberty" are entirely subjective, and even largely antithetical to each other's, hence why it is not a useful term to claim categorizes left and right-wing ideological thought. We could both have logically sound reasons as to why we believe the definitions and categorical metrics that we hold true, while still ultimately having two different conclusions, because we clearly each have differing core values with which we premise our entire perception of reason and morality.
If you want to explain WHY you believe "economic liberty" should be defined by the extensive policy list you gave,
By economic liberty, I mean a laissez-faire (from French Laissez Nous Faire, or Leave Us Alone) system wherein individuals are free to make economic transactions and trade with one another without any regulation, or any form of plunder, legal (taxation) or illegal (theft), with a system of written property deeds and land titles, a Gold-backed, uninflatible currency, no central banking, and enforcement of the terms of contracts.
then by all means feel free. Personally, I think your description has excessively turned a basic concept into a hyper-specific set of rules and organizational means for structuring an economic/political system. I mean, you're even describing a specific monetary system that requires "gold-backed, uniflatable currency", which is an entirely unrelated thing to the concept of economic liberty. Like, are you implying that economic liberty is impossible under a monetary system backed by silver? Why is that relevant? Why does having economic liberty rely on whether your system has a central bank or not? Your criteria for "economic libe… Read more
Be the first to reply to this comment.