The terms "freedom" and "liberty" have become clichés in modern political parlance. Because these words are invoked so much by politicians and their ilk, their meanings are almost synonymous and used interchangeably. That's confusing – and can be dangerous – because their definitions are actually quite different.

"Freedom" is predominantly an internal construct. Viktor Frankl, the legendary Holocaust survivor who wrote Man's Search For Meaning, said it well: "Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way (in how he approaches his circumstances)."

In other words, to be free is to take ownership of what goes on between your ears, to be autonomous in thoughts first and actions second. Your freedom to act a certain way can be taken away from you – but your attitude about your circumstances cannot – making one's freedom predominantly an internal construct.

On the other hand, "liberty" is predominantly an external construct. It's the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views. The ancient Stoics knew this (more on that in a minute). So did the Founding Fathers, who wisely noted the distinction between negative and positive liberties, and codified that difference in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The distinction between negative and positive liberties is particularly important, because an understanding of each helps us understand these seminal American documents (plus it explains why so many other countries have copied them). The Bill of Rights is a charter of negative liberties – it says what the state cannot do to you. However, it does not say what the state must do on your behalf. This would be a positive liberty, an obligation imposed upon you by the state.

Thus in keeping with what the late Murray Rothbard said above, the liberty of the individual is the necessary condition for the flowering of all the other "goods" that mankind cherishes. Living in liberty allows each of us to fully enjoy our freedoms. And how these two terms developed and complement one another is important for anyone desiring to better understand what it means to be truly free.

Etymology of Freedom and Liberty

To better understand what freedom and liberty mean, it's helpful to look at the respective etymologies of these words, digging into their histories and how they developed.

Freedom comes from Old English, meaning "power of self-determination, state of free will; emancipation from slavery, deliverance." There were similar variants in Old Frisian such as "fridom," the Dutch "vrijdom," and Middle Low German "vridom."

Liberty comes from the Latin "libertatem" (nominative libertas), which means "civil or political freedom, condition of a free man; absence of restraint, permission." It's important to note that the Old French variant liberte, "free will," has also shaped liberty's meaning. In fact, William R. Greg's essay France in January 1852 notes that the French notion of liberty is political equality, whereas the English notion is rooted in personal independence.

In an interview with Lew Rockwell, Professor Butler Shaffer makes some interesting distinctions between freedom and liberty. Shaffer argues that freedom is the "condition that exists within your mind, within my mind. It's that inner sense of integrity. It's an inner sense of living without conflict, without contradiction, without various divisions and so forth."

This point of view is in line with the philosophy of the Stoics. They believed that a person's body can be physically imprisoned, but not his mind (much like Viktor Frankl famously said in his Man's Search for Meaning). Shaffer adds to the distinction:

"Liberty is a condition that arises from free people living together in society. Liberty is a social condition. Freedom is the inner philosophical and psychological condition."

In short, freedom is inherent to humans. It exists within them by virtue of their humanity. Liberty is a political construct that allows people to enjoy freedoms such as property rights, free speech, freedom of association, etc.

Sadly, liberty has not been the natural state of mankind. History has shown that liberty – particularly of the individual – has been a distinguishing feature of Western societies, especially in the early years of the United States.

Continue reading Freedom vs. Liberty: How Subtle Differences Between These Two Big Ideas Changed Our World at Ammo.com.

Philosophies did it? Europe will do anything to take credit for today, renaissance, colonialism, printing press, anything, sailing... USA was an early inferior nation, what did Freedom and Liberty do? I'd be curious with modern supply and infrastructure what exactly could be an idea that goes horribly wrong, anyway?

Are these two posters a tandem?

I'm just making a post not lonely, if that's the question... That it successfully differentiated Freedom or Liberty or that America was the exceptional place for it, I'm not too sure. You know what America scores is Individualism, get your truck, make something. You would sit on a place, the Homestead Act said ok that land is your place. People stuffed themselves on freerange turkey 1620 to 1800, common diet, full of meat, what a rich country, move anywhere, Irish potato famine , one crop, 2 million people move to America. It'll have to "Fit" in the world eventually, its a stationary, communicating, entity with other entities, with equivalencies.

Quote from: MikeDwight on October 07, 2020, 05:35:34 AM
I'm just making a post not lonely, if that's the question... That it successfully differentiated Freedom or Liberty or that America was the exceptional place for it, I'm not too sure. You know what America scores is Individualism, get your truck, make something. You would sit on a place, the Homestead Act said ok that land is your place. People stuffed themselves on freerange turkey 1620 to 1800, common diet, full of meat, what a rich country, move anywhere, Irish potato famine , one crop, 2 million people move to America. It'll have to "Fit" in the world eventually, its a stationary, communicating, entity with other entities, with equivalencies.

Take your meds. You talk like a broken wannabe philosopher who just lost an imaginary lover to the other voice in his head.
Move on, she was always a harlot!

You've taken three unreserved attacks at all three posts I made about 8 hours ago which forces a pointed reply to all three of those? That itself seems like some sort of problem in communication is happening.

Did you search engine the "individualism scores by country", that's college level scholastic material surveys to read about societal values, it comes up several times, I find it more interesting than distinguishing "Freedom" and "Liberty" in the English Language for American cultural value...

I can rephrase better. I said I Only replied because I Was the First reply and it was a lonely article I wasnted to show I had read it.

Quote from: MikeDwight on October 07, 2020, 02:06:46 PM
You've taken three unreserved attacks at all three posts I made about 8 hours ago which forces a pointed reply to all three of those? That itself seems like some sort of problem in communication is happening.

Did you search engine the "individualism scores by country", that's college level scholastic material surveys to read about societal values, it comes up several times, I find it more interesting than distinguishing "Freedom" and "Liberty" in the English Language for American cultural value...

I can rephrase better. I said I Only replied because I Was the First reply and it was a lonely article I wasnted to show I had read it.

You talk in riddles, you attempt to make a point, but never explain the point you're trying to make. In other words, you're boring.