Morals vs. Liberty

clipped from mises.org It is well to remind ourselves at this point that liberty as I have defined it is not a synonym for good; that any act of liberty may be either “good” or “evil” as another person judges it. This will be true until and unless infinite wisdom and universal perfection of conscience guide every act of every person in such a way as to be ap­proved by every other person. But universal agreement is far from a descrip­tion of real life; it is no more than a direction toward which to strive. And that fact is precisely why there is any problem of liberty at all. The concern of morals is to judge acts as either good or evil, right or wrong—“moral” or “immoral,” as we say in appraising them. Such a judgment has neither place nor meaning except for acts of choice. It follows, then, that no problem of morals can ever be resolved by removing liberty, in a degree either large or small.

Thomas Davidson expressed it this way: “That which is not free is not responsible, and that which is not responsible is not moral. In other words, freedom is the condition of morality.”
A interesting perspective that morality inevitably reduces liberty, yet without the liberty to choose, one cannot be moral.

More and more I believe the fundamental understanding of liberty is lost. This is brilliant clip but I think foreign to many if not most. As is the concept of fascism.