I have an idea I would like to call a Freedom Test. The idea of this test is to determine if you really value freedom or if you value something else. Many people will claim they are about freedom, but often they either are conflating freedom with another value that is not actually freedom.
One example of the misuse of this term is by those who call for "free healthcare." Whether or not you value this, it is not freedom, but a provision.
The Freedom Test is helpful in determining who is for freedom and who is for "freedom."
The test is this: if we remove government entities from the equation, are you able to get what you want? The answer should be quite clear if you think about this.
For those who want their freedom to have firearms, the government being out of the way would not change your ability to have firearms. But if your "freedom" is paid for by the government ("free" healtchare), then you do not have true freedom.
We can apply this test in multiple facets too. For example, gay marriage.
Whether you like it or not, if there are no restrictions to marriage, then gay marriage would be possible under the value of freedom.
The problems start coming in when the state is involved, such as lawsuits for gay wedding cakes or forcing others to acknowledge their marriage as valid. Many gays fail the freedom test the moment they are confronted with the fact that others do not want to participate.
My inspiration for this Freedom Test comes from a scenario by the fat fuck commie Vaush. He asks if you are in a lawless desert, do you have freedom? The answer he expects you to give is no, because you don't have food or water and cannot live.
The presence of provisions or the lack thereof does not define freedom. So his assertion is retarded and the answer remains yes, you do have freedom. Take the inverse, prison, and even with food and shelter provided, you are not free.
@HouseofTolstoy
There's no marriage without government.
Simply a religious ceremony.
@Zeb That is what marriage is supposed to be. A religious ceremony. The government doing every other action around the marriage makes that part not pass the Freedom Test. But you can have the ceremony and every other aspect of marriage if you remove the government from the equation. In fact, you remove all the bad parts of marriage when you remove the government. Namely, family court bullshit in the event of a divorce.
In anarcho capitalism you can buy a marriage contract and the marriage contract would be enforced by a privatised rights enforcement agency
If there is a dispute between multiple rights enforcement agencies then it can be settled by arbitration
All without government
See the machinery of fteedom posted by bitbutter on youtube to learn about the arbitration process in law without government
Marriage could be defined as a private contract between individuals. The terms and conditions could be set by them, guided by the bounds of private contract law. When it comes to insurance, tax policy, etc. that status could be determined by the individual entities.
The big problem, to me, with the current government based marriage is the state has a monopoly on the terms and conditions, and it can change those terms at any time and retroactively enforce them. Privatize the contract just like any business partnership and it becomes far less controversial.
@midway @HouseofTolstoy
I think it should be that way too: a marriage contract should be treated exactly like a business partnership, with clear terms and conditions and bound by private contract law. Today it would be akin to a general partnership.
This way you receive a business entity that represents your married affairs (company bank account, joint loans, business expenses deductions) and in case of divorce (dissolution in this case), it's clearly stipulated in writing.
Taxpayers being forced to pay health insurance policies for homosexual or heterosexual spouses married to state employees
@shortstories Another good example to use. Without the government, these spouses would not have this provision, thus making it not pass the Freedom Test.
State sponsored firearm ownership just like state sponsored healthcare
The government gives you a free firearm if you are below a certain income level
If you make too much money then you have to buy a firearm but you can opt out and pay a fee for not purchasing a firearm instead
Not everyone is going to be all about genuine freedom. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. But people should not be so quick to proclaim that they are about freedom if they require others to be forced into some action in order to attain their "freedom."
I would not consider myself anarcho-capitalist, but they at least are those that would be genuinely about freedom. But considering we have yet to have an ancap example in the world, that might show that 100% freedom might not be possible.