Are there exclusions to Individual Liberty?

I have heard quite frequently people saying that they believe in liberty in all forms and continue in their sentence to use the word “but.”  That “but” leads to an exclusion of some kind, and it is this “but” that I want to address.  Using exclusionary words like “but” negates everything that is said before it. Common English use it is to join two ideas and show that they are not the same.

A good example of this comes from a recent conversation I had with a coworker. He said, “It is sad that people die by being blown up by drones BUT…” This makes the statement preceding the “but “ a false statement. To say that you believe it is sad that people are being killed by drones needs no exclusion after it, at least under a moral philosophy. The exception to the statement would only apply if the philosophy of the individual is that killing people in certain circumstances or conditions is acceptable.

“It’s like they say "I believe in Liberty"* some terms and conditions apply.”

This past weekend I attended a conference in Orlando Florida. A man asked a question of a panel of speakers on the issue of rights to own and carry a gun in public and the addition of those who have been adjudicated or judged by doctors to be “mentally incapable” of owning such weaponry. He said, “I believe in the right to carry guns, but what do we do about those who are mentally unstable? That’s why massive public shootings have been prevalent in the recent past.” (Paraphrased as best as I could from recollection.)  The response from one of the panelists was, “How does anyone have the authority over another to determine their right to own anything?” The other panelist didn't give it the same thought saying instead that the rise in violent public mass shootings is something that should be addressed and that the limiting of one’s right to own a gun should be left to the discretion of a qualified doctor. This leaves the questions of Who are these doctors? and How easily could a large percentage of individuals be “lawfully” disarmed due to such a determination? With a constant change in the definition of what constitutes a mental disorder or disease it could lead to the seizure of guns on a massive scale, just as some forms of government and their representatives encourage.

Another attendee said that she would be scared to be on an airplane and to have a person with an UZI sitting next to her and then asked, "How could we restrict people from doing this?" The answer to this question would be "You can’t." The individual airline businesses could restrict the carrying of weapons onto their property which would allow consumers to make a choice to fly with an airline that allows guns or one that does not. Pretty simple if you ask me, but she scoffed at the idea. That is the exclusionary liberty I am talking, it only allows certain freedoms at certain times in certain places, all at the whim of personal choice and at the expense of the liberty of all others.

Selective or Exclusionary Liberty has been warned against for some time. “To restrict the freedom of one, is to restrict the freedom of all.” Or “If one cannot be free, no others are free.”

The issue even comes up in other topics. I noted in the argument on the decriminalization of cannabis and its various forms, that the idea that we can legalize or at least decriminalize the substance and its uses but then add a tax on it is an attack on the freedom to not have wealth stolen from any one. It is a hypocritical stance to allow people to use something but steal their money in order to do so. The other way this is applicable is the stance to legalize one drug or choice but* to limit the use or cultivation of others. Should Methamphetamine be allowed to be consumed by those that wish to? Absolutely, I say. As with every choice, it should be left to the individual. Though I may disagree with the use of it and I would not want to associate myself with those that do use it (at least while they are under its influence), I would not force my opposition to it on others by trying and limit their choices.  

The idea of true individual liberty is not a complex concept or even some Utopian (how I loathe that word) scheme. Rather t is the very basic belief that all people should be free to make decisions for themselves, and that if I am not allowed to make a bad decision then I am not free at all. Only you own yourself and likewise only you can make decisions for yourself, and in turn this means that every individual is free to make their own decisions in life.

Excluding the freedom and liberty of any person is an oppression of those individuals, down to the smallest degree; one person cannot limit the acts, preferences, choices or decisions of another. Democracy even in its smallest instance is a danger to individual liberty.

A democracy of two is just as dangerous to individual freedom as a democracy made up of millions.

The argument against this thought is the right to self-defense and the right of association. The defense of one’s body or property can be applied in cases where the actions or effects of another’s decision directly threatens your own; the same can be said of your property. It is an inherent right to defend what is yours and that includes your own body.  

The second point is the right of and to association. The decision lies with each individual on which associations they make in their lives. If one’s own moral belief or philosophy is offended by the actions of others there is the inherent right of association and likewise disassociation with any other individuals. Everything Voluntary is a phrase that can be applied to this.

The idea that liberty can be separated or restricted by any person is a dangerous notion. It leads to the degradation of the entirety of the philosophy of that liberty. It is by this thought that liberty can be seen as exclusionary and can be lost by the will of the majority. The smallest threat to the individual grows to be a threat to every single person in the end.

There can be no exclusions in the case for liberty and freedom.