No, anarchy is not Liberty. In anarchy, might makes right. In Liberty, the right to swing my fist ends at your nose.
-----
There's a third choice there, if one is willing to accept it.
LOL! Trying to create your own definition of Liberty is not a third choice
A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice.
Thomas Paine
-----
That doesn't change your proposition, it just adds an extra layer of complexity.
LOL! There is really nothing complex about it.
Tell us, ansell, what do you think the source is for all legitimate power of government?
I wasn't paying as close attention as I should, and this is a very old argument with some pretty regular participants.
I really should know better than to post on FR while trying to bake a batch of honey oatmeal raisin cookies at the same time, anyway.
Again, my apologies.
-----
But the question in the previous post remains. :-)
I am not creating my own definition of liberty. Straight from the dictionary the definition on liberty is "freedom from control". So pure liberty is pure freedom from control of any sort...anarchy. No getting around it, no matter how nuanced you are trying to be.
You completely missed the point of a third choice,. The government doesn't own your body. If you believe in the ultimate sovereignty of the Almighty, then neither do you. Choice one; "the government owns a person's body" (no private ownership). Choice two;"I own my body"(private property, defined by man). Choice three; "I submit to the sovereignty of God" (private property though natural rights).
The problem with the first choice is obvious; it turns people into chattel. The problem with he second choice is that it is defined by man, like the first one, and can hence be redefined by man; usually by forcing the first choice upon the unwilling. The third one places the basis of ownership on a plain above man. As such men can still come take your stuff, they can throw you in bondage; they can never "own" you, though.
Following the course above, the legitimate source of power in our government comes from men exercising the natural rights granted to them by God. The brilliant men who founded this country believed that so much that they wrote it in to the Constitution. They believed in the concept so much that they risked and, in many cases, lost their fortunes and lives over it. I'm not going to argue with them, or the Power above.
In the end, you are right, though. If you believe in God, it's not too terribly complex. If you are secular, then it really is more complex. That's because you have to wrap your head around the fact someone believes that you are not the end all be all arbitrator of what is right and wrong, and that there are a set of rules above that of man that guide the universe.
As an aside, you don't have to be a Christian to reap the benefits of a system based on the belief in the sovereignty of God. If the government (derived from the people by and large) becomes divorced from that belief, though, everyone suffers. Look at the state of the nation at the moment as an example.