[djrobstep]

Good example of how ideology (and motivated reasoning) really clouds people's thinking.

Personal liberty and free markets are in direct conflict with each other. Free markets require private property, which requires enforcement through violent aggression (or the threat thereof).

Free markets and private property might be justified for any number of (other) reasons, but "personal liberty" isn't one of them.

[waltercool]

You are wrong here. You can't have free markets without personal liberty.

In the same way, personal liberties aren't a thing if are are unable to establish your own business

[tdb7893]

I'm gonna ignore the first part because I've found on the internet people don't agree on what "free markets" mean.

For the second part you don't need a business to be free. As a simple counterexample: I wouldn't say that human ancestors hunting and gathering in the savannah weren't free (they had literally no governmental limits) and it would take an absurd stretch to say they owned a business.

[gcau]

You're misunderstanding or strawmanning. You don't need a business to be free, obviously, and no not everyone that's free has a business (???). But that's different from being forbidden from making one.

[djrobstep]

The concept of a business can only exist within the context of a myriad of laws (property law, contract law, etc) all of which require violent enforcement or the threat thereof, ie reduction in personal liberty.

[djrobstep]

> You can't have free markets without personal liberty

I literally just explained why the exact opposite is true. Not a proactive conversation if you’re not going to engage at all with what I said and just talk past it.

[mempko]

You are right and are being down voted because ideology clouds people's judgement.