Nice flash liberty presentation

[Danke]

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

[Conza88]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
The Philosophy of Liberty

This deserves, literally 10million views.
Spread the message!

It's how I found out about Ron Paul! :D


When you hear Ron Paul say that he stands for the Philosophy of Liberty, this is what he means.

The philosophy of liberty is based on self-ownership. This simple but elegant and hard-hitting animation will explain exactly what that means. It's a great tool anyone can use to educate children and adults about our right to life, liberty, and the property we create - and our responsibility to think, speak and act.

For more info and/or to download a free DVD version of this video, see:

www.philosophyofliberty.blogspot.com


CREDITS

AUTHOR: Ken Schoolland schoolak001@hawaii.rr.com
PRODUCER: Kerry Pearson (aka Lux Lucre)
MUSIC: Music2Hues www.music2hues.com
WEBSITE: www.jonathangullible.com
SUPPORT: The Jonathan Gullible fund www.isil.org/tools/jonathan-gullible.htm l
COPYRIGHT: www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-n c/1.0/

[soapmistress]

I've had that video on my Myspace for months. It is my first video, followed by RP videos after it. I remember the first time I saw it - it was so cool that I had to rewind and pause several parts just to sit and think about them.

The part that is hardest to wrap your brain around (at least if you are kind of deprogramming yourself from years of assumptions) is that you cannot give another person a right which you do not possess yourself. The implications of this still move me to examine many facets of society like citizen's arrest and imprisonment and stop-loss military decisions and really all areas of life. This video had a huge impact on me personally. More than any other perhaps.

[davereckoning]

I would be very disappointed if I learned that Ron Paul, whom I admire greatly, subscribed to the premise of this presentation on "Self ownership". To base Liberty upon self-ownership is a fatal mistake, and is to play into the hands of those who would bring back slavery. To anyone with an open mind not chained to secular humanist dogmas, I will prove this claim with simple logic.

You say you own yourself. I could ask, "Where is your proof? Did you make or purchase youself, or did a previous owner give you to yourself?" Like, where's your Bill of Sale? But we will leave that aside for now.

What is the ultimate test of ownership? If you truly own something, you have an inalienable right to protect or destroy or use or modify it. You also have the right to rent, loan, swap, or sell it. If you do not have the right to do any or all of the above with what you think you own, then YOU DO NOT OWN IT. Your relationship with the item under discussion would then be something other than ownership.

Now, back to the question: DO YOU OWN YOURSELF? Let's get to the heart of the Freedom issue: Can you sell yourself? And, if so, how much do you want me to pay for the privilege of owning you? Let's visualize the following conversation:

Attractive woman (AW): I own myself. Nobody can tell me what to do or think. I have a right to do whatever I want with my own body."

Fabulously Rich man (FRM): Hey, great! I'm with you all the way on that. And I like you a lot, in fact I'd like to own you. I'm fabulously wealthy, and able and willing to pay whatever you are asking. (Gets out check book) How much do you want?

AW: Y-you want to BUY me? B-but that would be slavery!

FRM: So? Self-ownership has consequences. If you own yourself, you can sell yourself. So, how much?

AW: But I don't CHOOSE to sell myself...

FRM: But you claim the RIGHT to do so by your claim of self-ownership. And if you have the right to sell, I have a right to make an offer to buy.

AW: You just don't get it, do you? I'm NOT FOR SALE!

FRM: No, YOU don't get it! That's what a guy told me last week about his car. It was a beaut, and I wanted it. He told me it wasn't for sale. I just kept upping my offer until he caved in and sold. I'd say you are easily worth, let's say 50 million bucks. What do you say? Deal? (He makes as if to write a check)

AW: NO!

FRM: Okay, how about 100 million? You'd be lots of fun to have around. I like your spirit.

AW: Go away!

FRM: 200 million. No-- let's make it a whole billion! How about it?

AW: Get lost or I'll have you arrested!

FRM: For what? Negotiating a deal between free and consenting adults, in a place where I have just as much right to be as you do??

AW: I am NOT CONSENTING!

FRM: That's just because I haven't named your price yet. But I will, sooner or later...

The woman in the story above has principles. High ones. She is not for sale. The man in the above skit certainly has none. To him, everything has a price, and can be his. And a less wise, less principled woman would have sold herself. Would she have had that right? Some "Libertarians", taking the self-ownership dogma to its logical conclusion, insist that she does indeed have the right to sell herself into slavery if she chooses. Some ancient pagan civilizations also believed this, and that is how the institution of slavery began. Is this really what all freedom- loving people want?

There is no one on this forum who prizes freedom more than I do. That is why I am taking the time to explain why the ruling class and its media mouthpieces are in basic agreement with the "Libertarians" on this self-ownership issue; why they keep telling women that they have a right to do what they want with their bodies, including the right to submit the bodies of their unborn babies to the abortionist's knife, and to be carved up for spare parts to sell for big money to the ultra rich. It's because the ruling class has the money to be the buyers of those slaves. Only they don't call them slaves-- yet.

The fact is, we do NOT own ourselves. Whatever we legitimately own has been either made by us, or given, sold, or swapped to us by a previous owner.

And we are all in agreement, I hope, that the State does not own us.

So, are we owned?

Yes, and in this ownership we find the origin of our rights and our freedoms. For we are owned by our Maker, God. As our Owner, this God has Rights over us. He has given us ten Commandments, which define our duties toward Him, and our duties toward our fellow creatures, who are also His property. It is these DUTIES which define our RIGHTS. We have the right to life because our Maker has forbidden us to murder one another. We have the right to property because our Creator has commanded that we must not steal from our fellow-men. Etc. Every right that human beings have can be traced to these Commandments. And they bind ALL men, even government officials.

Now, if any of you atheist-type Libertarians reading this were ever puzzled as to why the tyrannical ruling class wants to banish the Ten Commandments you hate so much from public memory, wonder no more. They recognize, even if you do not, that public recognition of these Commandments is a barrier to absolute tyranny. They do not want themselves to be subject to a higher authority, even if they want you to be subject to them.

Liberty is a means to a higher end, and not an end in itself. It is the means by which God makes it possible for us to CHOOSE to love and serve Him, that we may achieve eternal happiness with Him.

Those who treat Liberty as an end in itself will inevitably sell themselves into slavery. The sellout has already begun, in the form of those who blindly vote for whatever political machine promises the biggest handouts.

Beware! Self-ownership is the key to slavery, not freedom.

Anyone who understands the arguments presented here are welcome to copy and paste this text and spread it around. In the meantime I hope to design a presentation that graphically refutes the Flash presentation under discussion on this page. I invite whoever created it to read and consider these words and perhaps design one himself. God bless you.

Dave Reckoning

[Kludge]

Of course we should be able to sell ourselves into slavery.

That said, no one can own another person without consent. You cannot sell/buy/steal children.

"With great power comes great responsibility."

I am not going to argue over God's existence, it's a dirty and unrelenting argument that never dies and makes pure libertarianism incompatible with all known religions.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

[illogical crap]
http://assassaindolphin.files.wordpress.com/8852/09/palm.jpg

[Carehn]

I would be very disappointed if I learned that Ron Paul, whom I admire greatly, subscribed to the premise of this presentation on "Self ownership". To base Liberty upon self-ownership is a fatal mistake, and is to play into the hands of those who would bring back slavery. To anyone with an open mind not chained to secular humanist dogmas, I will prove this claim with simple logic.

You say you own yourself. I could ask, "Where is your proof? Did you make or purchase youself, or did a previous owner give you to yourself?" Like, where's your Bill of Sale? But we will leave that aside for now.

What is the ultimate test of ownership? If you truly own something, you have an inalienable right to protect or destroy or use or modify it. You also have the right to rent, loan, swap, or sell it. If you do not have the right to do any or all of the above with what you think you own, then YOU DO NOT OWN IT. Your relationship with the item under discussion would then be something other than ownership.

Now, back to the question: DO YOU OWN YOURSELF? Let's get to the heart of the Freedom issue: Can you sell yourself? And, if so, how much do you want me to pay for the privilege of owning you? Let's visualize the following conversation:

Attractive woman (AW): I own myself. Nobody can tell me what to do or think. I have a right to do whatever I want with my own body."

Fabulously Rich man (FRM): Hey, great! I'm with you all the way on that. And I like you a lot, in fact I'd like to own you. I'm fabulously wealthy, and able and willing to pay whatever you are asking. (Gets out check book) How much do you want?

AW: Y-you want to BUY me? B-but that would be slavery!

FRM: So? Self-ownership has consequences. If you own yourself, you can sell yourself. So, how much?

AW: But I don't CHOOSE to sell myself...

FRM: But you claim the RIGHT to do so by your claim of self-ownership. And if you have the right to sell, I have a right to make an offer to buy.

AW: You just don't get it, do you? I'm NOT FOR SALE!

FRM: No, YOU don't get it! That's what a guy told me last week about his car. It was a beaut, and I wanted it. He told me it wasn't for sale. I just kept upping my offer until he caved in and sold. I'd say you are easily worth, let's say 50 million bucks. What do you say? Deal? (He makes as if to write a check)

AW: NO!

FRM: Okay, how about 100 million? You'd be lots of fun to have around. I like your spirit.

AW: Go away!

FRM: 200 million. No-- let's make it a whole billion! How about it?

AW: Get lost or I'll have you arrested!

FRM: For what? Negotiating a deal between free and consenting adults, in a place where I have just as much right to be as you do??

AW: I am NOT CONSENTING!

FRM: That's just because I haven't named your price yet. But I will, sooner or later...

The woman in the story above has principles. High ones. She is not for sale. The man in the above skit certainly has none. To him, everything has a price, and can be his. And a less wise, less principled woman would have sold herself. Would she have had that right? Some "Libertarians", taking the self-ownership dogma to its logical conclusion, insist that she does indeed have the right to sell herself into slavery if she chooses. Some ancient pagan civilizations also believed this, and that is how the institution of slavery began. Is this really what all freedom- loving people want?

There is no one on this forum who prizes freedom more than I do. That is why I am taking the time to explain why the ruling class and its media mouthpieces are in basic agreement with the "Libertarians" on this self-ownership issue; why they keep telling women that they have a right to do what they want with their bodies, including the right to submit the bodies of their unborn babies to the abortionist's knife, and to be carved up for spare parts to sell for big money to the ultra rich. It's because the ruling class has the money to be the buyers of those slaves. Only they don't call them slaves-- yet.

The fact is, we do NOT own ourselves. Whatever we legitimately own has been either made by us, or given, sold, or swapped to us by a previous owner.

And we are all in agreement, I hope, that the State does not own us.

So, are we owned?

Yes, and in this ownership we find the origin of our rights and our freedoms. For we are owned by our Maker, God. As our Owner, this God has Rights over us. He has given us ten Commandments, which define our duties toward Him, and our duties toward our fellow creatures, who are also His property. It is these DUTIES which define our RIGHTS. We have the right to life because our Maker has forbidden us to murder one another. We have the right to property because our Creator has commanded that we must not steal from our fellow-men. Etc. Every right that human beings have can be traced to these Commandments. And they bind ALL men, even government officials.

Now, if any of you atheist-type Libertarians reading this were ever puzzled as to why the tyrannical ruling class wants to banish the Ten Commandments you hate so much from public memory, wonder no more. They recognize, even if you do not, that public recognition of these Commandments is a barrier to absolute tyranny. They do not want themselves to be subject to a higher authority, even if they want you to be subject to them.

Liberty is a means to a higher end, and not an end in itself. It is the means by which God makes it possible for us to CHOOSE to love and serve Him, that we may achieve eternal happiness with Him.

Those who treat Liberty as an end in itself will inevitably sell themselves into slavery. The sellout has already begun, in the form of those who blindly vote for whatever political machine promises the biggest handouts.

Beware! Self-ownership is the key to slavery, not freedom.

Anyone who understands the arguments presented here are welcome to copy and paste this text and spread it around. In the meantime I hope to design a presentation that graphically refutes the Flash presentation under discussion on this page. I invite whoever created it to read and consider these words and perhaps design one himself. God bless you.

Dave Reckoning


I own you! Now get a job and send me the check fool!

[OptionsTrader]

Blah blah blah please add me to your ignore list


OK.

[FindLiberty]

Hopeless... I bet it took many years of gubermint skool to produce that "logic" example.
You can't sway me from seeking Liberty - not for any price!

That flash animation is from the last few pages of a favorite book,
"The adventures of Jonathan Gullible" by Ken Schooland

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/817188444X/sr=8-1/qid=1212882350/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&qid=1212882350&sr=8-1

[yongrel]

snipped

Lurk more.

[davereckoning]

Hopeless... I bet it took many years of gubermint skool to produce that "logic" example.
You can't sway me from seeking Liberty - not for any price!

That flash animation is from the last few pages of a favorite book,
"The adventures of Jonathan Gullible" by Ken Schooland

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/817188444X/sr=8-1/qid=1212882350/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&qid=1212882350&sr=8-1

As I said, no one on this forum loves liberty more than I do. You can't sway me away from it at any price, either. But if you have a right to sell yourself into slavery, as a "pure libertarian" claims above, then your liberty is by definition no longer "inalienable". Only by recognition of our being owned by our Creator can we logically claim our rights are "inalienable".

As for my "many years of gubermint skool", yeah, I had 12 years of that, plus two in a "gubermint" college. They taught me the official statist party line: that God is either nonexistent or irrelevant, and that man is an accident that evolved from nothing that somehow magically became something. After being in the real world for a few years (yeah, I stopped watching TV as well), my mind was able to function again. I observe that of all those making accusations, above, of my arguments being "illogical", not one attempted anything resembling a logical refutation of it. Is it really words that fail, or is it the fact that there is no logical refutation? (hint, hint: That's a challenge.) There is a reason why the argument for the existence of God will never die. It is because all of nature screams out His obvious existence. If the "statists" were able to exterminate in one fell swoop every person on earth who accepted even the possibility of God's existence, and could burn every Bible and church and every other souvenir and relic of man's belief in God, and could purge all languages of all words referring to God, within one generation there would again be people -- highly intelligent people -- who would conclude from the evidence around them the necessity of a Supreme Being with no beginning or end, and would begin to worship Him, even if the penalty for doing so were death.

I repeat: our rights arise solely out of our duties under the Ten Commandments. It is the fact that the Almighty has decreed them that makes them inalienable. Without them, the only "rights" we can claim are the right to eat or be eaten, that is, the law of the jungle. "Survival of the Fittest" is what Darwin called it. No wonder Darwin is so honored by the statists. Hitler (a practical atheist who sought to revive worship of the Norse gods for political reasons) was convinced HE was the "fittest", you know. So do the statists who are even now buying those who today sell their birthright for the proverbial mess of pottage.

"A welfare state is what you get when you let government of the people and for the people buy the people"

If our society buys into the self-ownership myth, there will remain two kinds of people: slaves and slave-owners. This is because, to compete in a world which recognizes a "right" to sell oneself into slavery, a free man will have to own slaves to avoid becoming one.

Those who would defend Liberty cannot do so effectively without recognizing the Author of Liberty. I say all this respectfully, as a friend who wants his friends to have a better chance of saving Liberty for us all.

God bless all on this forum, and God bless America.

[JoshLowry]

snip

How do you decide what substances are allowed in your body if you do not own it?

Water? Aspirin?

Coca-Cola? Marijuana?

edit: ghem, is that you?

[Conza88]

:confused:


http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/royal-fail.jpg

[davereckoning]

[QUOTE=JoshLowry;1507451]How do you decide what substances are allowed in your body if you do not own it?

Water? Aspirin?

Coca-Cola? Marijuana?

The fact that I am not the owner of my body does not relieve me of the responsibility of caring for it. Quite the contrary. God, as owner, has appointed us stewards of His goods. A steward has wide latitude of powers in the administration of his employer's goods, but he is always answerable to the "boss" for any mismanagement that may take place. I may even be "free" to sell myself into slavery, (in the sense that no one will stop me), as many do, but this does not give me, nor anyone else, the RIGHT to do so. There are many who "sell" the Brooklyn Bridge, too, but without any right to do so, for they do not own it.

It is this divinely-imposed obligation (under the commandment "thou shalt not kill") to take care of myself that is the origin of my right to do so, for obligations necessarily imply rights. (To say one has no right to do that which is his duty would be a contradiction.)

Of the above list of substances, I personally avoid ingesting any but the first one (water), based on my knowledge and duties. I have become convinced that the others on the list are harmful. I do not impose the same standards on others. They are responsible to their Maker based on what "lights" He has given them.

Now, while I believe that marijuana is especially harmful, there is a condition under which I would not recommend making it illegal. That condition would be one in which all of human society held each person fully responsible for the consequences of his or her acts (or those of their minor children). In such a society, if someone kills someone as a result of being under the influence of a mind-altering substance he willingly ingested, the verdict could not be "not guilty by reason of insanity", but "first-degree murder". When people are held responsible for their actions, they know ahead of time that they must make reparation for any harm they cause. In such a society, there would be little demand for mind-altering substances, I strongly suspect, and even less demand for laws regulating them.

Unfortunately, present society is far from such a condition. Everyone lives in fear of everyone else because almost no one is held responsible for anything. In a "democracy", responsibility tends to be regarded as collective, meaning, in practice, non-existent. The Government or insurance companies will pay, or make excuses for not paying. In such a climate of fear, the public demand for more laws is almost without limit. And if such drugs were made "legal" in such a society, it would necessarily be done at the cost of creating a new tyrannical bureaucracy to regulate its uses and patch up the consequences thereof, at great cost to the taxpayer.

Again, society's refusal to recognize and abide by God's ten little rules has resulted, as it always must, in people willing to sell themselves to the State in exchange for "security" and pulling down upon themselves billions of crushing regulations.

Thank you for reading, and God bless you.

"Dave Reckoning"

[Conza88]

:rolleyes: You could write a 1000 page essay, but you'll never be able to defeat the logic in that video. Keep wasting your time trying. No skin off my back.