Voltaire's Definition of Liberty as: 'Only the Power of Acting' is Self-Contradictory and Subservient to Aggression

By not distinguishing between freedom-for-aggression and freedom-from-aggression, the above definition places itself outside of politics as the ethics of aggression; failing to acknowledge any difference, ethical or essentially political, between the constraint on aggression and desirable liberty. At the same time and in the same respect, though, the definition given by Voltaire and others since, is meant to be political. Therefore, such a definition is self- contradictory. Beyond that is the subservience to aggression shown by including it within the definition of liberty which is to be desired in the political realm. Locke says: 'to have only the law of nature for his rule', and this is very different from the approach of Voltaire, which, by placing aggression on a plane of equality with non-aggression, leads to the explosion of mass-murder, reigns of terror growing ever-larger, even for centuries, which has resulted from multiplying the worship of aggression through the government schools.
Added 7-9-08 Comparing American 18th century founding ideas:
How Did America Come To Have So Much More Freedom From Official Aggression?
This was the one country where the very smartest people believed, and would even conspire to establish it as the basic law that:"all men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree", as said James Madison July 11, 1787. Elsewhere and later, the idea was that power could be entrusted, if one had the brightest urging the theory that needed only to be forced one time. The founders here did not value openness to the gratification of power-greed, but were at pains to close openings by which it might enter.