Many in Washington and Whitehall would do well do remember this.
Sadly, they don't.
I think that liberty is a tool by which we can seek our happiness in this world. to be free to do something is what we usually want, or sometimes it is put as freedom from an intrusive law. Having liberty does not make you happy, but having a goal, and being free to achieve your goal, does bring happiness.
Freedom from attack from other people - from having them violate either your body or your goods.
Of course government does not promise this freedom - if you are attacked you have no legal case against the police for failing to prevent the attack (no matter how much money you are forced to pay in taxes).
A just government (yes I know "a unicorn") confines itself to trying to defend the bodies and goods of people (the principle of justice - see Bastiat's "The Law"), but even a just government will not always succeed in this protection, or in punishing violators.
Nor should "its the government's job" mean that people should not defend themselves and their familes (by an means necessary) or that they should not come to the aid of other people who are underattack. Or not seek the punishment of criminals have have violated people.
Even if someone is a total stranger the punishment of their murderers is still a moral duty.
In a city this may be best done by reporting them to the police and testifying against them in a court of law.
But out in the wilds (where is, in practice, no government - in various times and places) one may have to hunt down the robbers and murderers one's self (with what allies one can gather).
Not so "Wild West" as one might guess.
Indeed up to 1856 there were counties in England that had no government police - the magistrate (unpaid himself) would call upon ordinary people to help him hunt down the guilty and bring them to justice.
And even in the early 20th century it was normal for British people to own firearms - and for the police NOT to have them.
There are several cases of police (even in London) facing armed criminals and calling upon armed members of the public (who happened to have been passing by) to help them.
Without freedom the moral development of society is crushed.
People remain infants - forbidden to bare arms and looking to government to meet all their needs.
For a very long time, I thought Freedom was the desirable state of being, every-one desired. Now based upon the huge tolerance for socialism, I!m wondering just how many of the 300 million plus in this country, really want to be free. Obviously a large number prefer the socialist nanny state to the self-responsibility of personal freedom and private property Rights.
Thanks
Anne Cleveland
octogenariansblog.com
It may sound strange, but may I recommend reading Herzen on the Immediate value of liberty.
OOPS: Clicked too soon
There is also Isaiah Berlin's Four Essays on Liberty (Oxford Press- 1969) which includes his rather well known Two Concepts of Liberty (his Oxford inaugeral address of 1958);
positive and negative liberty (simplified as "Freedom from and Freedom to").
I think Anne Cleveland has it about right. Most people would be happy if their "freedom" extended only as far as choosing whether to watch professional wrestling or Monday Night Football. Real freedom terrifies them; they want someone to tell them what to do and when to do it. Which is why democratic self-government is likely to prove a relatively short-lived experiment; we are currently proving that, as a species, we can't handle it.