preferisco la libertà libertaria, nel senso di anarchica (left-libertarian, s'intende - un altro capolavoro linguistico anglosassone, è aver inventato i rigth-libertarian e l'anarco-capitalismo ...
Che poi, se ci pensi, una logica ce l'ha. Il capitalista è per lo "stato minimo", l'anarco-capitalista, estremizzando il pensiero, è per lo "stato assente".
"la mia libertà inizia dove inizia la tua" (l'ha scritto meglio un "giovane hegeliano", aristocratico russo, che per qualche anno è stato anarchico, tal Bakunin),
Nome che non mi è per niente nuovo, avendone letto in gioventù. Ci perdoneranno gli iscritti per questa digressione sul pensiero bakuniniano. Nel 1866 (mentre l'esercito americano massacrava gli indiani e quello italiano fucilava i "briganti" senza alcuna prova che avessero compiuto "reati efferati"), Bakunin scriveva: 1. The right of every man and woman, from birth to adulthood, to complete upkeep, clothes, food, shelter, care, guidance, education (public schools, primary, secondary, higher education, artistic, industrial, and scientific), all at the expense of society. 2. The equal right of adolescents, while freely choosing their careers, to be helped and to the greatest possible extent supported by society. After this, society will exercise no authority or supervision over them except to respect, and if necessary defend, their freedom and their rights. 3. The freedom of adults of both sexes must be absolute and complete, freedom to come and go, to voice all opinions, to be lazy or active, moral or immoral, in short, to dispose of one’s person or possessions as one pleases, being accountable to no one. Freedom to live, be it honestly, by one’s own labor, even at the expense of individuals who voluntarily tolerate one’s exploitation. 4. Unlimited freedom of propaganda, speech, press, public or private assembly, with no other restraint than the natural salutary power of public opinion. Absolute freedom to organize associations even for allegedly immoral purposes including even those associations which advocate the undermining (or destruction) of individual and public freedom. 5. Freedom can and must be defended only by freedom: to advocate the restriction of freedom on the pretext that it is being defended is a dangerous delusion. As morality has no other source, no other object, no other stimulant than freedom, all restrictions of liberty in order to protect morality have always been to the detriment of the latter. 6. Society cannot, however, leave itself completely defenseless against vicious and parasitic individuals. Work must be the basis of all political rights. The units of society, each within its own jurisdiction, can deprive all such antisocial adults of political rights (except the old, the sick, and those dependent on private or public subsidy) and will be obliged to restore their political rights as soon as they begin to live by their own labor. 7. The liberty of every human being is inalienable and society will never require any individual to surrender his liberty or to sign contracts with other individuals except on the basis of the most complete equality and reciprocity. Society cannot forcibly prevent any man or woman so devoid of personal dignity as to place him- or herself in voluntary servitude to another individual; but it can justly treat such persons as parasites, not entitled to the enjoyment of political liberty, though only for the duration of their servitude. 8. Persons losing their political rights will also lose custody of their children. Persons who violate voluntary agreements, steal, inflict bodily harm, or above all, violate the freedom of any individual, native or foreigner, will be penalized according to the laws of society. Antonio