PDA

View Full Version : Philosophy of Liberty ( Simplified )




Truth Warrior
11-15-2008, 11:26 AM
http://sedm.org/LibertyU/PhilosophyOfLiberty.htm (http://sedm.org/LibertyU/PhilosophyOfLiberty.htm)

jeepndesert
11-15-2008, 12:43 PM
notice self-ownership, not the ownership of the land

heavenlyboy34
11-15-2008, 12:47 PM
notice self-ownership, not the ownership of the land

Property rights follow self-ownership rights. A soverign being has the right to property (including land).

Truth Warrior
11-15-2008, 12:47 PM
notice self-ownership, not the ownership of the land I noticed property. ;) Watch it again. :D

jeepndesert
11-16-2008, 01:14 PM
I noticed property. ;) Watch it again. :D

i notice a fool who doesn't understand what libertarianism is because he is blinded by the anarcho-capitalism propaganda and who will never see a Libertarian America because of it.

people should have the right to own land. every american should have a right to own land. every American. that is what you don't get. promise every American a piece of land to own, and you got a Libertarian America.

promise America the ability to own land by being an anarcho-capitalist statist slave for 30 years, and you'll keep getting what you are getting.

jeepndesert
11-16-2008, 01:28 PM
you can't just simply start dividing up the land and give it to everyone. there is already a lot of human labor invested in it, and there are people being born every day who need a share of it too.

the libertarian solution is not a simple anarcho-capital solution. if you actually had a decent education, you'd understand most everything is more complicated than what they teach you in grade school.

i know you are a mental midget who thinks the world is as simple as a dick and jane stick cartoon to have it's meaning warped to fit your narrow anarcho-capitalist view, but it isn't. that is why a majority of even retarded americans reject your ideas because they don't see how it helps them have a place to sleep at night without the fear of a banker coming to terrorize them.

that is where J.S. Mill utilitarianism and Henry George and Thomas Paine geolibertarianism come to the rescue to make libertarianism possible.

open your head up. libertarianism is not a synonym for the free market. reality is not a free market. it involves land and humans, not just human capital. it is the non-coercion principle and the rights of man.

heavenlyboy34
11-16-2008, 01:30 PM
you can't just simply start dividing up the land and give it to everyone. There is already a lot of human labor invested in it, and there are people being born every day who need a share of it too.

The libertarian solution is not a simple anarcho-capital solution. If you actually had a decent education, you'd understand most everything is more complicated than what they teach you in grade school.

That is where j.s. Mill utilitarianism and henry george and thomas paine geolibertarianism come to rescue to make libertarianism possible.

Open your head up. Libertarianism is not a synonym for the free market. Reality is not a free market. It involves land and humans, not just human capital. It is the non-coercion principle and the rights of man.

qft!!

jeepndesert
11-16-2008, 01:59 PM
talking with truth warriors like you, or should i say yelling at a brick wall, makes me want to agree with henry kissinger that most people are dumb animals and believe the new world order is right. we need to thin herd and get rid of 90% of the retarded population so we can have a chance of starting over and doing things right.

Original_Intent
11-16-2008, 02:02 PM
talking with truth warriors like you, or should i say yelling at a brick wall, makes me want to agree with henry kissinger that most people are dumb animals and believe the new world order is right. we need to thin herd and get rid of 90% of the retarded population so we can have a chance of starting over and doing things right.

How bad would it suck to be in the 89.9999999th percentile though? :cool:

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 02:22 PM
i notice a fool who doesn't understand what libertarianism is because he is blinded by the anarcho-capitalism propaganda and who will never see a Libertarian America because of it.

people should have the right to own land. every american should have a right to own land. every American. that is what you don't get. promise every American a piece of land to own, and you got a Libertarian America.

promise America the ability to own land by being an anarcho-capitalist statist slave for 30 years, and you'll keep getting what you are getting.

Get a clue, Goober. :rolleyes: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian) I've most probably been libertarian much longer than YOU have even been alive. :p Are you high on meth?

FindLiberty
11-16-2008, 02:41 PM
That flash animation (OP) was based on the epilog from one of my favorite anti-government pro-freedom books: The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible

sample chapter: http://jonathangullible.com/chapt_2.htm

Here is another chapter that's missing from some versions of this book http://jonathangullible.com/cut.htm

Unfortunately the great unwashed still look to the government to guide and provide from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 02:53 PM
That flash animation (OP) was based on the epilog from one of my favorite anti-government pro-freedom books: The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible

sample chapter: http://jonathangullible.com/chapt_2.htm

Here is another chapter that's missing from some versions of this book http://jonathangullible.com/cut.htm

Unfortunately the great unwashed still look to the government to guide and provide from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Yeah, I thought it seemed familiar. Thanks for the reminder. :) :cool:

nickcoons
11-16-2008, 03:28 PM
anarcho-capitalist statist

Now there's an oxymoron I haven't heard before.

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 03:39 PM
Now there's an oxymoron I haven't heard before. Well Murray DID vote. :rolleyes:

jeepndesert
11-16-2008, 05:30 PM
Property rights follow self-ownership rights. A soverign being has the right to property (including land).

you have the right to your labor. we agree there.

yes, humans have the right to property, including land. that is my point. if God created you, you have the right to the Creator's land.

do you have private property rights to land? yes, especially if you attach labor to it. however, doing so, is taking it away from others, including those who are not born yet.....

thus, you rent it from the Creator and mankind. i'm going to say it, you pay tax on the land you borrow from the Creator and mankind. and those taxes are given directly back to everyone who the Creator created so that they can all afford their own land and natural resources without having to be a slave to buy it from someone born before they were born.

did i say that evil word, tax? omg, i did. i must repent to the anarcho-capitalist gods. hey, i could have said "redistribute wealth," which i did imply.

thus, you are merely a shephard of the land. you rent it from the Creator.

private ownership of human labor is not the same as the private ownership of the land.

The_Orlonater
11-16-2008, 05:35 PM
you have the right to your labor. we agree there.

yes, humans have the right to property, including land. that is my point. if God created you, you have the right to the Creator's land.

do you have private property rights to land? yes, especially if you attach labor to it. however, doing so, is taking it away from others, including those who are not born yet.....

thus, you rent it from the Creator and mankind. i'm going to say it, you pay tax on the land you borrow from the Creator and mankind. and those taxes are given directly back to everyone who the Creator created so that they can all afford their own land and natural resources without having to be a slave to buy it from someone born before they were born.

did i say that evil word, tax? omg, i did. i must repent to the anarcho-capitalist gods. hey, i could have said "redistribute wealth," which i did imply.

thus, you are merely a shephard of the land. you rent it from the Creator.

private ownership of human labor is not the same as the private ownership of the land.


The Creator didn't create me.

heavenlyboy34
11-16-2008, 05:39 PM
yes, humans have the right to property, including land. that is my point. if god created you, you have the right to the creator's land.

you have the right to your labor.

do you have private property rights to land? yes, especially if you attach labor to it. however, doing so, is taking it away from others, including those who are not born yet.....

thus, you rent it from the Creator and mankind. i'm going to say it, you pay tax on the land you borrow from the Creator and mankind. and those taxes are given directly back to everyone who the Creator created so that they can all afford their own land and natural resources without having to be a slave to buy it from someone born before they were born.

did i say that evil word, tax? omg, i did. i must repent to the anarcho-capitalist gods. hey, i could have said "redistribute wealth," which i did imply.

thus, you are merely a shephard of the land. you rent it from the Creator.

private ownership of human labor is not the same as the private ownership of the land.

Since you insist on the "creator" argument...

Genesis 1:28-30

"God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground. Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food."

You fail, jeepndesert.

jeepndesert
11-16-2008, 05:58 PM
Since you insist on the "creator" argument...

Genesis 1:28-30

"God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground. Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food."

You fail, jeepndesert.

your point (from the book in the bible written by man and filled with the most bullshit) makes no sense and doesn't invalidate anything i said.

in your quote, god is giving the fruits of the earth to every man, not to the first man who puts a flag into it and who claims private property ownership of it and to whomever works as a slave and buys it from him using the principles of free market anarcho-capitalism. nope, sorry, god didn't mention that.

you fail. keep masturbating to your same old bullshit. one day, you may understand and become embarassed because you didn't realize the simple truth of what i am saying sooner.

heavenlyboy34
11-16-2008, 06:02 PM
your point (from the book in the bible filled with the most utter bullshit) makes no sense and doesn't invalidate anything i said.

in your quote, god is giving the fruits of the earth to every man, not to the first man who puts a flag into it and who claims private property ownership of it.

I refuted your fallacious point about the land being "rented"(thus, you rent it from the Creator and mankind. i'm going to say it, you pay tax on the land you borrow from the Creator and mankind. and those taxes are given directly back to everyone who the Creator created so that they can all afford their own land and natural resources without having to be a slave to buy it from someone born before they were born.).

This counter "argument" you've provided does not refute me. I only mentioned scripture because you brought that into the discussion. :rolleyes:

jeepndesert
11-16-2008, 06:07 PM
The Creator didn't create me.

i certainly didn't sign a contract to be here either in this failed world full of retarded animals.

jeepndesert
11-16-2008, 06:12 PM
I refuted your fallacious point about the land being "rented" ... This counter "argument" you've provided does not refute me. I only mentioned scripture because you brought that into the discussion. :rolleyes:

I own the Earth and hereby declare you leave my planet.

Because I say it, it doesn't make it true.

Really, I'm trying here to understand the drool and utter nonsense you bring forth, and for some reason, I'm laughing again.

heavenlyboy34
11-16-2008, 06:34 PM
I own the Earth and hereby declare you leave my planet.

Because I say it, it doesn't make it true.

Really, I'm trying here to understand the drool and utter nonsense you bring forth, and for some reason, I'm laughing again.

And I'm reading the tripe you bring forth, and I'm :rolleyes: again.

Danke
11-16-2008, 06:57 PM
I own the Earth and hereby declare you leave my planet.

Because I say it, it doesn't make it true.

Really, I'm trying here to understand the drool and utter nonsense you bring forth, and for some reason, I'm laughing again.

Look jeepndesert. You have some valid points. But why degrade the discussion down with insults? Nobody will listen then.

I have brought this point up before.

My idea is some level of property ownership should be exempt. So one can have a certain level of autonomy and sovereignty.

As an example. A city dweller would have a lot say 50' (1/3 acre?) exempt from taxation. A suburban dweller a bit more. Rural..I don't know 20 or 40 acres? And a farmer much more (provided they are actually farming it). Land that couldn't ever be taken away by taxation.

Yes, any way you slice it, it is arbitrary, but a least one can own property to live on without the fear of it ever being taken away. Isn't that true liberty?

However, we need to address your concerns that those who benefit more form protection of their land pay for such services.

I'm sure the Palestinians would pay some type of tax so the Israelis wouldn't come and bulldoze there homes and take their lands.


Of course, we need to rein in spending and tax as little as possible. For land owners, that tax would only be for protection. (not schools, etc.)

As we know, taxation is way out of control for the services that are provided.

heavenlyboy34
11-16-2008, 07:08 PM
Look jeepndesert. You have some valid points. But why degrade the discussion down with insults? Nobody will listen then.

I have brought this point up before.

My idea is some level of property ownership should be exempt. So one can have a certain level of autonomy and sovereignty.

As an example. A city dweller would have a lot say 50' (1/3 acre?) exempt from taxation. A suburban dweller a bit more. Rural..I don't know 20 or 40 acres? And a farmer much more (provided they are actually farming it). Land that couldn't ever be taken away by taxation.

Yes, any way you slice it, it is arbitrary, but a least one can own property to live on without the fear of it ever being taken away. Isn't that true liberty?

However, we need to address your concerns that those who benefit more form protection of their land pay for such services.

I'm sure the Palestinians would pay some type of tax so the Israelis wouldn't come and bulldoze there homes and take their lands.


Of course, we need to rein in spending and tax as little as possible. For land owners, that tax would only be for protection. (not schools, etc.)

As we know, taxation is way out of control for the services that are provided.


You bring up some good points. However, I maintain that being taxed for "protection" is akin to paying tribute to a king or paying into a protection racket. It seems more logical that if a competitive market for protection services/insurance existed, prices and services would be more likely to reach a practical equilibrium.

Danke
11-16-2008, 07:26 PM
You bring up some good points. However, I maintain that being taxed for "protection" is akin to paying tribute to a king or paying into a protection racket. It seems more logical that if a competitive market for protection services/insurance existed, prices and services would be more likely to reach a practical equilibrium.

Yes, I am still a student in this area. That is why I come to RPFs. Just don't like people coming here saying I'm an idiot (and others) for not seeing their ways.

As an example, folks like Conza88 and TW provide great resources to investigate. I just don't seem to have all the time I wish I had. But I appreciate their contributions. Someday...:)

heavenlyboy34
11-16-2008, 07:30 PM
Yes, I am still a student in this area. That is why I come to RPFs. Just don't like people coming here saying I'm an idiot (and others) for not seeing their ways.

As an example, folks like Conxa88 and TW provide great resources to investigate. I just don't seem to have the all the time I wish I had. But I appreciate their contributions. Someday...:)

Glad to have fellow students aboard the Freedom choo-choo. :D (I have a lot to learn too! :eek:)

jeepndesert
11-16-2008, 07:57 PM
Look jeepndesert. You have some valid points. But why degrade the discussion down with insults? Nobody will listen then.

They aren't listening anyway, mainly because I'm having to fight through countless hours of someone reading anarcho-capitalism material to the point where they can't see anything but that. It is called frustration.


I have brought this point up before.

My idea is some level of property ownership should be exempt. So one can have a certain level of autonomy and sovereignty.

As an example. A city dweller would have a lot say 50' (1/3 acre?) exempt from taxation. A suburban dweller a bit more. Rural..I don't know 20 or 40 acres? And a farmer much more (provided they are actually farming it). Land that couldn't ever be taken away by taxation.

Yes, any way you slice it, it is arbitrary, but a least one can own property to live on without the fear of it ever being taken away. Isn't that true liberty?

So you do recognize that private property rights of labor are different from the private property rights of land?

That is all I ask. If people can see that simple point, we can get into the details of how to make it better.

My proposal for a sales and real estate tax to redistribute back equally is equivalent to the system of exempting a base level of land and natural resource consumption.

It has the added benefit that it discourages excessive consumption of land and natural resources while using that tax "punishment" when it does occur to give everyone their share of the rent for that excessive consumption. it serves as a form of welfare and justified welfare so that everyone can own or rent a piece of land.

Danke
11-16-2008, 08:12 PM
So you do recognize that private property rights of labor are different from the private property rights of land?

That is all I ask. If people can see that simple point, we can get into the details of how to make it better.

My proposal for a sales and real estate tax to redistribute back equally is equivalent to the system of exempting a base level of land and natural resource consumption.

It has the added benefit that it discourages excessive consumption of land and natural resources while using that tax "punishment" when it does occur to give everyone their share of the rent for that excessive consumption. it serves as a form of welfare and justified welfare so that everyone can own or rent a piece of land.

Yes. Implementing it fairly is always up to debate, I guess. It depends on purely private land to live on, and land companies use to exploit for profit.

We already such agencies as the Dept. of the Interior that tax corporations that take from the land. Like mining and oil.

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 08:22 PM
The Philosophy of Ownership (http://americanrevival.org/read/books/ownership.pdf)
Robert LeFevre

jeepndesert
11-16-2008, 08:31 PM
renting land from mankind when speaking in terms of private ownership of land and renting privately owned land can be confusing.

however, when you respect that everyone has equal ownership of the land and natural resources and use the free market principles (which any hard-core anarcho-capitalist should understand) to help distribute that land and natural resources according to needs and wants, you can start to build a fair system.

while you are renting land and natural resources from mankind for what you do grab for yourself and use, you are also receiving an equal share of that rent in the form of a monthly check.

thus, people who only take a baseline of needs from the earth do not have to work for it.

savings is rewarded, only taking a fair share of the earth is rewarded, and labor is rewarded. excessive consumption of natural resources and land is punished.

you are using mankind's rent to fund a fair welfare state because most people will want to consume and own more than $7200-9600/year of the earth (my formulated baseline of basic earthly needs).

if you're going to have a tax system, this is the system you want. you don't want income taxes, and you don't want the government to spend the taxes for you except where it absolutely has to spend it to function.

jeepndesert
11-16-2008, 08:37 PM
Yes. Implementing it fairly is always up to debate, I guess. It depends on purely private land to live on, and land companies use to exploit for profit.

We already such agencies as the Dept. of the Interior that tax corporations that take from the land. Like mining and oil.

yes, the application of concepts are always open to debate if we can even reach an understanding on the validity of basic concepts.

yes, we do it to a certain extent already. however, we don't realize the benefits of such systems because it is lost in the system.

the same is true with state and local government. they use sales taxes and real estate taxes to pay for public education. why don't they just give that tax money back to everyone and let people shop for their own education?

but now i'm starting to regress into commonly accepted libertarian concepts.

yes, i can buy that everyone needs an education so they are smart enough to survive in our fucked up world. but what about the people who are too fucked up to even support themselves? don't those people deserve a little more than just a bridge and a rat to eat as food without begging a state, church, or charity for help?

there is injustice somewhere when you see a college educated man who served in the military homeless on the streets. when they have an irs tax lien, you can probably say poor planning, but you can also probably say the man probably owes more taxes than he has earned since the time he earned the income on which he owes taxes and has given up.

income taxes are just completely fucked up. it should be taxed when it is spent.

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 08:51 PM
"If you want to understand, what's REALLY going on, just follow the money!" :p :rolleyes:

Dreamofunity
11-18-2008, 06:10 AM
Who would you then be paying these renting taxes to?

Who would regulate the spending or even redistribution of these said taxes?

Who/how would you collect these said taxes? Through force?

What would stop them from becoming corrupt?


Your ideas are intriguing, but does it not just set up another statist society based on arbitrary authority? Surely it is a better method of taxation than the current income tax, but I have a problem with who ultimately collects, the term mankind does not do it for me.

Truth Warrior
11-18-2008, 06:19 AM
Who would you then be paying these renting taxes to?

Who would regulate the spending or even redistribution of these said taxes?

Who/how would you collect these said taxes? Through force?

What would stop them from becoming corrupt?


Your ideas are intriguing, but does it not just set up another statist society based on arbitrary authority? Surely it is a better method of taxation than the current income tax, but I have a problem with who ultimately collects, the term mankind does not do it for me. Yep, those are my questions and general take on that authoritarian STATIST-like scheme also. :rolleyes:

Thanks! :)

"Complexity is the essence of the of the con and the hustle."

Keep it simple! ;)

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
11-18-2008, 12:05 PM
http://sedm.org/LibertyU/PhilosophyOfLiberty.htm (http://sedm.org/LibertyU/PhilosophyOfLiberty.htm)

Freedom for the sake of freedom is no better than no freedom whatsoever.
Look.
Life is like an egg. What is within the egg is confusing to those within the egg. It is so confusing that some people as a result will turn to cruelty.
Our founding fathers looked outside the cruel egg at the infinite truth. They ignored cruelty by visioning beyond the deceit of a limited world to declare how truth really manifests itself unalienably in our conscience. This common truth existed as self-evident to every human-soul. To ignore this truth was an offense to God even if that human happened to be ordained with God's authority as was king George. Therefore he was deemed a tyrant and his divine authority divorced in The Declaration of Independence.
That is the philosophy of natural law.
One did not question Newton's self-evident natural laws unless one happened to live outside of England in the nations of France or Germany.
Einstein didn't overturn Newton's laws but he questioned their fullness as being naively universal rather than being more accurately interpreted as relative in reference point.
Yet, Einstein himself concluded with his own metaphysical natural law: God does not play dice!
This natural law challenged Darwin's determination that God did not tend to a garden (design) in the book of Genesis.
Please. Let us drop this European complexity.

Truth Warrior
11-18-2008, 12:15 PM
Freedom for the sake of freedom is no better than no freedom whatsoever.
Look.
Life is like an egg. What is within the egg is confusing to those within the egg. It is so confusing that some people as a result will turn to cruelty.
Our founding fathers looked outside the cruel egg at the infinite truth. They ignored cruelty by visioning beyond the deceit of a limited world to declare how truth really manifests itself unalienably in our conscience. This common truth existed as self-evident to every human-soul. To ignore this truth was an offense to God even if that human happened to be ordained with God's authority as was king George. Therefore he was deemed a tyrant and his divine authority divorced in The Declaration of Independence.
That is the philosophy of natural law.
One did not question Newton's self-evident natural laws unless one happened to live outside of England in the nations of France or Germany.
Einstein didn't overturn Newton's laws but he questioned their fullness as being naively universal rather than being more accurately interpreted as relative in reference point.
Yet, Einstein himself concluded with his own metaphysical natural law: God does not play dice!
This natural law challenged Darwin's determination that God did not tend to a garden (design) in the book of Genesis.
Please. Let us drop this European complexity. Thank YOU for YOUR additional European complexity. :D BTW, the Founders WERE British and British inspired. ;)