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.
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.
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.
