[mcguire]

This is, to my mind, a very libertarian stance, and I think it demonstrates the fundamental sketchiness of libertarianism.

The three major questions are, what do you mean by "violence" (which you have answered), and what do you mean by "legitimate", and what do you mean by "freedom"?

What if, say, your employer in cooperation with others were to blackball you so that the only employment you could get were as an unskilled laborer? That clearly wouldn't be violence. Would it restrict your freedom? Apparently not?

How about if a group of people arrange to ensure that you can only live in a certain area, purely by economic means? No violence, right? Legitimate? Are you less free? No?

Suppose you live in a society that makes collective decisions by voting. But, you are not allowed to participate in those votes, by virtue of material circumstance, say. Still no violence. Still no less free, right?

What about violence? Can I burn down your house if you don't do what I want? If I make sure no one is injured? Material circumstances are excluded, right?

Now, what makes violence legitimate versus illegitimate? If a group of people kill one of your neighbors for violating some extra-legal rule, that would clearly be a crime, right? But what if the people doing it cannot be identified? Or, if identified, arrested, and prosecuted, they are found to be not guilty. Repeatedly. Clearly, you would feel some pressure to follow said rule although that would not be a restriction on your freedom, right?

Is chattel slavery an imposition on the freedom of the slave, if physical violence is not used?

I suggest that your definition of "freedom" is very far off from the normal, colloquial definition ("the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint" according to the Goog')---there are plenty of restraints on your power to act and speak that do not involve violence. (Thinking? We're working on that.)

You mention insurance schemes, which is always a fun topic because I'm old and can remember when requiring liability insurance for drivers was controversial. Is it legitimate for anyone, especially the state, to force you to be financially responsible for your actions? Would that be a restriction on your freedom? Absolutely! Would it be a legitimate (oooh, there's that word) restriction?

[thegrimmest]

Many of your examples are variants on the same point: the cooperation of others. I contend that no you are not owed the cooperation of your employer, or other members of society, for absolutely anything. Interactions between free people should be strictly voluntary and consensual. This means if your employer wishes to cease employing you, he should be able to do so at his leisure. If he's breached a contract, you can sue for damages.

So yes, if your entire town decides to blackball you, that is an exercise of their freedom. If people decide not to sell you their property, that is likewise their choice. You are just as free as you have always been, no one is using force against you. They are simply refusing to cooperate with you.

In what world does forcing a person to employ another not an impingement of their freedom? Anyone who can use the threat of violence to compel participation is a master, and free people have no masters.

> Suppose you live in a society that makes collective decisions by voting

As long as these decisions cannot be enforced with physical violence then you are no less free by being excluded. Say I run a supper club which votes on where to eat next, are you less free by not being invited?

> If a group of people kill one of your neighbors for violating some extra-legal rule...

This entire paragraph describes corruption, which is inevitable, and does impact your freedom. No human process is immune.

> Is chattel slavery an imposition on the freedom of the slave, if physical violence is not used?

Chattel slavery is defined by the use of violence to confine the slave literally in chains. If the slave can just leave he's not very enslaved is he?

> there are plenty of restraints on your power to act and speak that do not involve violence

Most of these take the form of the threat of withholding cooperation. This is a perfectly legitimate threat to make in a free society, and one I contend has no bearing on your liberty. Living in a free society is merely agreeing to coexist peacefully, not that everyone must cooperate, or be the same team, or be immune from the consequences of failure. In fact, my reading of the article is that it means exactly the opposite - that people are free to cooperate or not as they see fit.

[mcguire]

Actually, all of my examples are (variants in some cases) of the means used to restrict the freedom of groups of people in the recent history of the United States. Not to "cooperate, or be the same team, or be immune from the consequences of failure" but to actually restrict that group's ability to act or speak.

I notice that you ignored the common definition of freedom I quoted. I find your definition of freedom...less than useful. It ignores any other sources of power than "the state" (I wonder how you would deal with the absence of a state.) It leads to irrational consequences; an individual can be perfectly free and yet unable to do anything except starve.

I do have a couple of questions about your response, though.

"> If a group of people kill one of your neighbors for violating some extra-legal rule...

"This entire paragraph describes corruption, which is inevitable, and does impact your freedom. No human process is immune."

Corruption, in this case, does not imply any violence at all---a jury is free to return a verdict of not guilty for any reason, no? How can that possibly impact your freedom?

"Chattel slavery is defined by the use of violence to confine the slave literally in chains. If the slave can just leave he's not very enslaved is he?"

(It's not really defined by violence, but I'll leave that up to you.) My plantation is located in the middle of the desert. You are free to leave at any time. You won't, because you would die, but you are free to do so. So you're really free, right?