Broadly speaking, liberty is the ability to do as one pleases. In politics, liberty consists of the social and economic freedoms to which all community members are entitled. In philosophy, liberty involves free will as contrasted with determinism. In theology, liberty is freedom from the effects of "sin, spiritual servitude, worldly ties."Sometimes liberty is differentiated from freedom by using the word "freedom" if not to mean the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do. In this sense, the exercise of liberty is subject to capability and limited by the rights of others, thus liberty entails the responsible use of freedom under the rule of law without depriving anyone else of their freedom. Freedom is more broad in that it represents a total lack of restraint or the unrestrained ability to fulfill one's desires. For example, a person can have the freedom to murder, but not have the liberty to murder, as the latter example deprives others of their right not to be harmed. Liberty can be taken away as a form of punishment.
In many countries, people can be deprived of their liberty. The word "liberty" is used in slogans, such as "life and the pursuit of happiness" or "Liberty, Fraternity". Philosophers from earliest times have considered the question of liberty. Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote: a polity in which there is the same law for all, a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed. According to Thomas Hobbes: a free man is he that in those things which by his strength and wit he is able to do is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do. John Locke rejected that definition of liberty. While not mentioning Hobbes, he attacks Sir Robert Filmer who had the same definition. According to Locke: In the state of nature, liberty consists of being free from any superior power on Earth. People are not under the will or lawmaking authority of others but have only the law of nature for their rule.
In political society, liberty consists of being under no other lawmaking power except that established by consent in the commonwealth. People are free from the dominion of any will or legal restraint apart from that enacted by their own constituted lawmaking power according to the trust put in it. Thus, freedom is not as Sir Robert Filmer defines it:'A liberty for everyone to do what he likes, to live as he pleases, not to be tied by any laws.' Freedom is constrained by laws in both the state of nature and political society. Freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the law of nature. Freedom of people under government is to be under no restraint apart from standing rules to live by that are common to everyone in the society and made by the lawmaking power established in it. Persons have a right or liberty to follow their own will in all things that the law has not prohibited and not be subject to the inconstant, uncertain and arbitrary wills of others. John Stuart Mill, in his work, On Liberty, was the first to recognize the difference between liberty as the freedom to act and liberty as the absence of coercion.
In his book Two Concepts of Liberty, Isaiah Berlin formally framed the differences between these two perspectives as the distinction between two opposite concepts of liberty: positive liberty and negative liberty. The latter designates a negative condition in which an individual is protected from tyranny and the arbitrary exercise of authority, while the former refers to the liberty that comes from self-mastery, the freedom from inner compulsions such as weakness and fear; the modern concept of political liberty has its origins in the Greek concepts of freedom and slavery. To be free, to the Greeks, was not to have a master, to be independent from a master; that was the original Greek concept of freedom. It is linked with the concept of democracy, as Aristotle put it: "This is one note of liberty which all democrats affirm to be the principle of their state. Another is. This, they say, is the privilege of a freeman, since, on the other hand, not to live as a man likes is the mark of a slave; this is the second characteristic of democracy, whence has arisen the claim of men to be ruled by none, if possible, or, if this is impossible, to rule and be ruled in turns.
In Athens, for instance, women could not vote or hold office and were and dependent on a male relative. The populations of the Persian Empire enjoyed some degree of freedom. Citizens of all religions and ethnic groups were given the same rights and had the same freedom of religion, women had the same rights as men, slavery was abolished. All the palaces of the kings of Persia were built by paid workers in an era when slaves did such work. In the Buddhist Maurya Empire of ancient India, citizens of all religions and ethnic groups had some rights to freedom and equality; the need for tolerance on an egalitarian basis can be found in the Edicts of Ashoka the Great, which emphasize the importance of tolerance in public policy by the government. The slaughter or capture of prisoners of war appears to have been condemned by Ashoka. Slavery appears to have been non-existent in the Maurya Empire. However, according to Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, "Ashoka's orders seem to have been resisted right from the beginning."Roman law
Free-market anarchism, or market anarchism, includes several branches of anarchism that advocate an economic system based on voluntary market interactions without the involvement of the state. A branch of market anarchism is left-wing market anarchism such as mutualists or Gary Chartier and Kevin Carson, who consider themselves anti-capitalists and self identify as part of the socialist movement. On the other hand, people who identify as anarcho-capitalists stress the legitimacy and priority of private property, describing it as an integral component of individual rights and a free-market economy. However, there is a strong current within anarchism which does not consider that anarcho-capitalism can be considered a part of the anarchist movement because anarchism has been an anti-capitalist movement and for definitional reasons which see anarchism incompatible with capitalist forms. Thus, the term may be used to refer to diverse economic and political concepts such as those proposed by individualist anarchists and libertarian socialists like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner, or alternatively anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard and David D. Friedman.
Mutualism began in 18th-century English and French labour movements before taking an anarchist form associated with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in France and others in the United States. Proudhon proposed spontaneous order, whereby organisation emerges without central authority, a "positive anarchy" where order arises when everybody does "what he wishes and only what he wishes" and where "business transactions alone produce the social order", it is important to recognize that Proudhon distinguished between ideal political possibilities and practical governance. For this reason, much in contrast to some of his theoretical statements concerning ultimate spontaneous self-governance, Proudhon was involved in French parliamentary politics and allied himself not with anarchist, but socialist factions of workers movements and in addition to advocating state-protected charters for worker-owned cooperatives he promoted certain nationalization schemes during his life of public service. Mutualist is concerned with reciprocity, free association, voluntary contract and credit and currency reform.
According to the American mutualist William Batchelder Greene, each worker in the mutualist system would receive "just and exact pay for his work. Mutualism has been retrospectively characterised as ideologically situated between individualist and collectivist forms of anarchism. Proudhon first characterised his goal as a "third form of society, the synthesis of communism and property". Murray Rothbard and other natural rights theorists cite the non-aggression axiom as the basis for their libertarian systems while other free-market anarchists such as David D. Friedman favor free-market anarchism based on consequentialist ethical theories. Voluntarists, paleolibertarians and agorists are propertarian market anarchists who consider private property rights to be individual natural rights deriving from the primary right of self-ownership. Market anarchists state diverse views concerning the path to elimination of the state. Rothbard endorses the use of any tactic to bring about market anarchy so long as it does not contradict his libertarian moral principles.
Benjamin Tucker subscribed to the idea of land ownership associated with mutualism, which does not grant that this creates property in land, but holds that when people customarily use given land and in some versions goods other people should respect that use or possession. Unlike with property, ownership is no longer recognized; the mutualist theory holds that the stopping of use or occupying land reverts it to the commons or to an unowned condition, makes it available for anyone that wishes to use it. Therefore, there would be no market in land, not in use. However, Tucker abandoned natural rights theory and said that land ownership is legitimately transferred through force unless specified otherwise by contracts: "Man's only right to land is his might over it. If his neighbor is mightier than he and takes the land from him the land is his neighbor's, until the latter is dispossessed by one mightier still", he expected that individuals would come to the realization that the "occupancy and use" was a "generally trustworthy guiding principle of action" and that individuals would contract to an occupancy and use policy.
Classical liberal John Locke argues that as people apply their labor to unowned resources, they make those resources their property. For Locke, there are only two legitimate ways people can acquire new property, namely by mixing their labor with unowned resources or by voluntary trade for created goods. In accordance with Locke's philosophy, Rothbardian free-market anarchists believe that property may only originate by being the product of labor and that its ownership may only legitimately change as a result of exchange or gift, they derive this homestead principle from. Locke had a proviso which says that the appropriator of resources must leave "enough and as good in common to others", but Rothbard's market anarchist followers do not agree with this proviso, believing instead that the individual may appropriate as much as she wishes through the application of her labor and that property thus acquired remains hers until she chooses otherwise, terming this as neo-Lockean. Anarcho-capitalists see this as consistent with their opposition to initiatory coercion since only land, not owned can be taken without compensation.
If something is unowned, there is no person against whom the original appropri
A voluntary group or union is a group of individuals who enter into an agreement as volunteers, to form a body to accomplish a purpose. Common examples include trade associations, trade unions, learned societies, professional associations, environmental groups. Membership is not voluntary: in order for particular associations to function they might need to be mandatory or at least encouraged, as is common with many teachers unions in the US; because of this, some people use the term common-interest association to describe groups which form out of a common interest, although this term is not used or understood. Voluntary associations may be unincorporated. In the UK, the terms Voluntary Association or Voluntary Organisation cover every type of group from a small local Residents' Association to large Associations with multimillion-pound turnover that run large-scale business operations. In many jurisdictions no formalities are necessary to start an association. In some jurisdictions, there is a minimum for the number of persons starting an association.
Some jurisdictions require that the association register with the police or other official body to inform the public of the association's existence. This could be a tool of political control or intimidation, a way of protecting the economy from fraud. In many such jurisdictions, only a registered association is a juristic person whose members are not responsible for the financial acts of the association. Any group of persons may, of course, work as an informal association, but in such cases, each person making a transaction in the name of the association takes responsibility for that transaction, just as if it were that individual's personal transaction. There are many countries where the formation of independent Voluntary Associations is proscribed by law or where they are theoretically permitted, but in practice are persecuted. Voluntary groups are a broad and original form of nonprofit organizations, have existed since ancient history. In Ancient Greece, for example, there were various organizations ranging from elite clubs of wealthy men to private religious or professional associations.
In preindustrial societies, governmental administrative duties were handled by voluntary associations such as guilds. In medieval Europe, guilds controlled towns. Merchant guilds enforced contracts through embargoes and sanctions on their members, adjudicated disputes. However, by the 1800s, merchant guilds had disappeared. Economic historians have debated the precise role that merchant guilds played in premodern society and economic growth. In the United Kingdom, craft guilds were more successful than merchant guilds and formed livery companies which exerted significant influence on society. A standard definition of an unincorporated association was given by Lord Justice Lawton in the English trust law case Conservative and Unionist Central Office v Burrell: "unincorporated association" two or more persons bound together for one or more common purposes, not being business purposes, by mutual undertakings, each having mutual duties and obligations, in an organisation which has rules which identify in whom control of it and its funds rests and upon what terms and which can be joined or left at will.
In most countries, an unincorporated association does not have separate legal personality, few members of the association enjoy limited liability. However, in some countries they are treated as having separate legal personality for tax purposes. However, because of their lack of legal personality, legacies to unincorporated associations are sometimes subject to general common law prohibitions against purpose trusts. Associations that are organized for profit or financial gain are called partnerships. A special kind of partnership is a co-operative, founded on one person—one vote principle and distributes its profits according to the amount of goods produced or bought by the members. Associations may take the form of a non-profit organization or they may be not-for-profit corporations. Most associations have some kind of document or documents that regulate the way in which the body meets and operates; such an instrument is called the organization's bylaws, regulations, or agreement of association.
Under English law, an unincorporated association consists of two or more members bound by the rules of a society which has at some point in time, been founded. Several theories have been proposed as to the way. A transfer may be considered to have been made to the association's members directly as joint tenants or tenants in common. Alternatively, the funds transferred may be considered to have been under the terms of a private purpose trust. Many purpose trusts fail for want of a beneficiary and this may therefore may result in the gift failing. However, some purpose trusts are valid, accordingly, some cases have decided that the rights associated with unincorporated associations are held on this basis; the dominant theory, however, is that the rights are transferred to the members or officers perhaps on trust for the members, but
Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and school of anarchist thought that advocates the elimination of centralized state dictum in favor of self-ownership, private property and free markets. Anarcho-capitalists hold that in the absence of statute, society tends to contractually self-regulate and civilize through the spontaneous and organic discipline of the free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement and all other security services would be operated by funded competitors selected by consumers rather than centrally through confiscatory taxation. Money, along with all other goods and services, would be and competitively provided in an open market. Personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would therefore be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract law, rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment under political monopolies, which tend to become corrupt in proportion to their monopolization.
Business regulations, such as corporate standards, public relations, product labels, rules for consumer protection and labor relations would be regulated voluntarily via the use of competitive trade associations, professional societies, standards bodies. Various theorists have espoused legal philosophies similar to anarcho-capitalism. However, the first person to use the term was Murray Rothbard who, in the mid-20th century, synthesized elements from the Austrian School of economics, classical liberalism and 19th-century American individualist anarchists Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker. A Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist society would operate under a mutually agreed-upon libertarian "legal code which would be accepted, which the courts would pledge themselves to follow"; this pact would recognize self-ownership, property and tort law, in keeping with the universal non-aggression principle. Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from minarchists, who advocate a small Jeffersonian night-watchman state limited to protecting individuals and their properties from foreign and domestic aggression.
Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based on the voluntary trade of private property and services in order to minimize conflict while maximizing individual liberty and prosperity. However, they recognize charity and communal arrangements as part of the same voluntary ethic. Although anarcho-capitalists are known for asserting a right to private property, some propose that non-state public or community property can exist in an anarcho-capitalist society. For them, what is important is that it is acquired and transferred without help or hindrance from the compulsory state. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that the only just and most economically beneficial way to acquire property is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud. Anarcho-capitalists see free market capitalism as the basis for a prosperous society. Murray Rothbard said that the difference between free market capitalism and "state capitalism" is the difference between "peaceful, voluntary exchange" and a collusive partnership between business and government that uses coercion to subvert the free market.
"Capitalism", as anarcho-capitalists employ the term, is not to be confused with state monopoly capitalism, crony capitalism, corporatism, or contemporary mixed economies, wherein market incentives and disincentives may be altered by state action. They therefore reject the state, seeing it as an entity which steals property, initiates aggression, has a compulsory monopoly on the use of force, uses its coercive powers to benefit some businesses and individuals at the expense of others, creates artificial monopolies, restricts trade and restricts personal freedoms via drug laws, compulsory education, laws on food and morality and the like. Many anarchists view capitalism as an inherently authoritarian and hierarchical system and seek the expropriation of private property. There is disagreement between these left anarchists and laissez-faire anarcho-capitalists as the former rejects anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism and considers anarcho-capitalism an oxymoron, while the latter holds that such expropriation is counterproductive to order and would require a state.
On the Nolan chart, anarcho-capitalists are located at the extreme edge of the libertarian quadrant since they reject state involvement in both economic and personal affairs. Anarcho-capitalists argue that the state relies on initiating force because force can be used against those who have not stolen private property, vandalized private property, assaulted anyone, or committed fraud. Many argue that subsidized monopolies tend to be corrupt and inefficient. Murray Rothbard argued that all government services, including
Natural and legal rights
Natural and legal rights are two types of rights. Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, so are universal and inalienable Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system; the concept of natural law is related to the concept of natural rights. Natural law first appeared in ancient Greek philosophy, was referred to by Roman philosopher Cicero, it was subsequently alluded to in the Bible, developed in the Middle Ages by Catholic philosophers such as Albert the Great and his pupil Thomas Aquinas. During the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of natural laws was used to challenge the divine right of kings, became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, government – and thus legal rights – in the form of classical republicanism. Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by others to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments; the idea of human rights is closely related to that of natural rights: some acknowledge no difference between the two, regarding them as synonymous, while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights.
Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss. The 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an important legal instrument enshrining one conception of natural rights into international soft law. Natural rights were traditionally viewed as negative rights, whereas human rights comprise positive rights. On a natural rights conception of human rights, the two terms may not be synonymous; the proposition that animals have natural rights is one that gained the interest of philosophers and legal scholars in the 20th century and into the 21st. The idea that certain rights are natural or inalienable has a history dating back at least to the Stoics of late Antiquity and Catholic law of the early Middle Ages, descending through the Protestant Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment to today; the existence of natural rights has been asserted by different individuals on different premises, such as a priori philosophical reasoning or religious principles.
For example, Immanuel Kant claimed to derive natural rights through reason alone. The United States Declaration of Independence, meanwhile, is based upon the "self-evident" truth that "all men are … endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Different philosophers and statesmen have designed different lists of what they believe to be natural rights. H. L. A. Hart argued that if there are any rights at all, there must be the right to liberty, for all the others would depend upon this. T. H. Green argued that “if there are such things as rights at all there must be a right to life and liberty, or, to put it more properly to free life.” John Locke emphasized "life and property" as primary. However, despite Locke's influential defense of the right of revolution, Thomas Jefferson substituted "pursuit of happiness" in place of "property" in the United States Declaration of Independence. Stephen Kinzer, a veteran journalist for The New York Times and the author of the book All The Shah's Men, writes in the latter that: The Zoroastrian religion taught Iranians that citizens have an inalienable right to enlightened leadership and that the duty of subjects is not to obey wise kings but to rise up against those who are wicked.
Leaders are seen as representative of God on earth, but they deserve allegiance only as long as they have farr, a kind of divine blessing that they must earn by moral behavior. The Stoics held. Seneca the Younger wrote: It is a mistake to imagine that slavery pervades a man's whole being. Of fundamental importance to the development of the idea of natural rights was the emergence of the idea of natural human equality; as the historian A. J. Carlyle notes: "There is no change in political theory so startling in its completeness as the change from the theory of Aristotle to the philosophical view represented by Cicero and Seneca.... We think that this cannot be better exemplified than with regard to the theory of the equality of human nature." Charles H. McIlwain observes that "the idea of the equality of men is the profoundest contribution of the Stoics to political thought" and that "its greatest influence is in the changed conception of law that in part resulted from it." Cicero argues in De Legibus that "we are born for Justice, that right is based, not upon opinions, but upon Nature."
One of the first Western thinkers to develop the contemporary idea of natural rights was French theologian Jean Gerson, whose 1402 treatise De Vita Spirituali Animae is considered one of the first attempts to develop what would come to be called modern natural rights theory. Centuries the Stoic doctrine that the "inner part cannot be delivered into bondage" re-emerged in the Reformation doctrine of liberty of conscience. Martin Luther wrote: Furthermore, every man is responsible for his own faith, he must see it for hi
Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded. Free will is linked to the concepts of responsibility, guilt and other judgements which apply only to actions that are chosen, it is connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion and prohibition. Traditionally, only actions that are willed are seen as deserving credit or blame. There are numerous different concerns about threats to the possibility of free will, varying by how it is conceived, a matter of some debate; some conceive free will to be the capacity to make choices in which the outcome has not been determined by past events. Determinism suggests that only one course of events is possible, inconsistent with the existence of free will thus conceived; this problem has been identified in ancient Greek philosophy and remains a major focus of philosophical debate. This view that conceives free will to be incompatible with determinism is called incompatibilism and encompasses both metaphysical libertarianism, the claim that determinism is false and thus free will is at least possible, hard determinism, the claim that determinism is true and thus free will is not possible.
It encompasses hard incompatibilism, which holds not only determinism but its negation to be incompatible with free will and thus free will to be impossible whatever the case may be regarding determinism. In contrast, compatibilists hold; some compatibilists hold that determinism is necessary for free will, arguing that choice involves preference for one course of action over another, requiring a sense of how choices will turn out. Compatibilists thus consider the debate between libertarians and hard determinists over free will vs determinism a false dilemma. Different compatibilists offer different definitions of what "free will" means and find different types of constraints to be relevant to the issue. Classical compatibilists considered free will nothing more than freedom of action, considering one free of will if, had one counterfactually wanted to do otherwise, one could have done otherwise without physical impediment. Contemporary compatibilists instead identify free will as a psychological capacity, such as to direct one's behavior in a way responsive to reason, there are still further different conceptions of free will, each with their own concerns, sharing only the common feature of not finding the possibility of determinism a threat to the possibility of free will.
The underlying questions are whether we have control over our actions, if so, what sort of control, to what extent. These questions predate the early Greek stoics, some modern philosophers lament the lack of progress over all these centuries. On one hand, humans have a strong sense of freedom, which leads us to believe that we have free will. On the other hand, an intuitive feeling of free will could be mistaken, it is difficult to reconcile the intuitive evidence that conscious decisions are causally effective with the view that the physical world can be explained to operate by physical law. The conflict between intuitively felt freedom and natural law arises when either causal closure or physical determinism is asserted. With causal closure, no physical event has a cause outside the physical domain, with physical determinism, the future is determined by preceding events; the puzzle of reconciling'free will' with a deterministic universe is known as the problem of free will or sometimes referred to as the dilemma of determinism.
This dilemma leads to a moral dilemma as well: the question of how to assign responsibility for actions if they are caused by past events. Compatibilists maintain. Classical compatibilists have addressed the dilemma of free will by arguing that free will holds as long as we are not externally constrained or coerced. Modern compatibilists make a distinction between freedom of will and freedom of action, that is, separating freedom of choice from the freedom to enact it. Given that humans all experience a sense of free will, some modern compatibilists think it is necessary to accommodate this intuition. Compatibilists associate freedom of will with the ability to make rational decisions. A different approach to the dilemma is that of incompatibilists, that if the world is deterministic our feeling that we are free to choose an action is an illusion. Metaphysical libertarianism is the form of incompatibilism which posits that determinism is false and free will is possible; this view is associated with non-materialist constructions, including both traditional dualism, as well as models supporting more minimal criteria.
Yet with physical indeterminism, arguments have been made against libertarianism in that it is difficult to assign Origination. Free will here is predominantly treated with respect to physical determinism in the strict sense of nomological determinism, although other forms of determinism are relevant to free will. For example and theological determinism challenge metaphysical libertarianism with ideas of destiny and fate, biological and psychological determinism feed the development of compatibilist models. Separate classes of compatibilism and incompatibilism may be formed to represent these. Below are the classic arguments bearing upon its underpinnings. Incompatibilism is the position that free will and determinism are logically incomp
Economic freedom or economic liberty is the ability of people of a society to take economic actions. This is a term used in economic and policy debates as well as in the philosophy of economics. One approach to economic freedom comes from classical liberal and libertarian traditions emphasizing free markets, free trade, private property under free enterprise. Another approach to economic freedom extends the welfare economics study of individual choice, with greater economic freedom coming from a "larger" set of possible choices. Other conceptions of economic freedom include freedom from want and the freedom to engage in collective bargaining; the free market viewpoint defines economic liberty as the freedom to produce and consume any goods and services acquired without the use of force, fraud or theft. This is embodied in the rule of law, property rights and freedom of contract, characterized by external and internal openness of the markets, the protection of property rights and freedom of economic initiative.
There are several indices of economic freedom. Based on these rankings correlative studies have found higher economic growth to be correlated with higher scores on the country rankings. With regards to other measures, such as equality, corruption and social violence and their correlation to economic freedom it has been argued that the economic freedom indices conflate unrelated policies and policy outcomes to conceal negative correlations between economic growth and economic freedom in some subcomponents. According to the free market view, a secure system of private property rights is an essential part of economic freedom; such systems include two main rights: the right to control and benefit from property and the right to transfer property by voluntary means. These rights offer people the possibility of autonomy and self-determination according to their personal values and goals. Economist Milton Friedman sees property rights as "the most basic of human rights and an essential foundation for other human rights."
With property rights protected, people are free to choose the use of their property, earn on it, transfer it to anyone else, as long as they do it on a voluntary basis and do not resort to force, fraud or theft. In such conditions most people can achieve much greater personal freedom and development than under a regime of government coercion. A secure system of property rights reduces uncertainty and encourages investments, creating favorable conditions for an economy to be successful. Empirical evidence suggests that countries with strong property rights systems have economic growth rates twice as high as those of countries with weak property rights systems, that a market system with significant private property rights is an essential condition for democracy. According to Hernando de Soto, much of the poverty in the Third World countries is caused by the lack of Western systems of laws and well-defined and universally recognized property rights. De Soto argues that because of the legal barriers poor people in those countries can not utilize their assets to produce more wealth.
One thinker to question private property was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a socialist and anarchist, who argued that property is both theft and freedom. Freedom of contract is the right to choose one's contracting parties and to trade with them on any terms and conditions one sees fit. Contracts permit individuals to create their own enforceable legal rules, adapted to their unique situations. However, not all contracts need to be enforced by the state. For example, in the United States there is a large number of third-party arbitration tribunals which resolve disputes under private commercial law. Negatively understood, freedom of contract is freedom from government interference and from imposed value judgments of fairness; the notion of "freedom of contract" was given one of its most famous legal expressions in 1875 by Sir George Jessel MR: f there is one thing more than another public policy requires it is that men of full age and competent understanding shall have the utmost liberty of contracting, that their contracts when entered into and voluntarily shall be held sacred and shall be enforced by courts of justice.
Therefore, you have this paramount public policy to consider – that you are not to interfere with this freedom of contract. The doctrine of freedom of contract received one of its strongest expressions in the US Supreme Court case of Lochner v New York which struck down legal restrictions on the working hours of bakers. Critics of the classical view of freedom of contract argue that this freedom is illusory when the bargaining power of the parties is unequal, most notably in the case of contracts between employers and workers; as in the case of restrictions on working hours, workers as a group may benefit from legal protections that prevent individuals agreeing to contracts that require long working hours. In its West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish decision in 1937, overturning Lochner, the Supreme Court cited an earlier decisions From this point on, the Lochner view of freedom of contract has been rejected by US courts; some free market advocates argue that political and civil liberties have expanded with market-based economies, present empirical evidence to support the claim that economic and political freedoms are linked.
In Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman further developed Friedrich Hayek's argument that economic freedom, while itself an important component of total freedom, is a necessary condition for political freedom. He commented that centralized control of economic activities was always accompanied with political repression. In his view, voluntary character of all transactions in a free