cool Shockwave flash demonstrates the ideas of liberty (isil.org)

[emazur]

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

I like it b/c it's straightforward but artistic, and does a good job of covering the philosophy. Hope this isn't a repost

[fr33domfightr]

That was a kewl flash animation!! Some of the text and/or symbols flash by a little too fast. I caught myself trying to decipher them, then they faded away. I think the display time of some text should be slowed down in a few places.

I like the idea though. Something like this would be a good way to explain basic principles that people don't understand. It would be nice if at the end, it directed the viewer to some website where they can learn more about learning, talking, and taking action. I'd like something like this to go viral.


FF

[emazur]

I'd like something like this to go viral.


FF

Let's give it a go:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Philosophy_of_Liberty_explained_by_cool_flash_anim ation#

[fr33domfightr]

I'd like to see others opinions on this shockwave flash vid.


FF

[Andrew-Austin]

Didn't watch all of it since it was kinda slow, but the ideas/values espoused in this video seem so perfectly obvious to me as to chalk it up to 'common sense'.

And yet if these ideas were commonly held, we wouldn't be in such deep shit. If these ideas are common in some form, then most people must simply fail to put em into words and logically extend them to other arenas of society.

This video might be a good intro to the philosophy of liberty, depending on to whom it is shown.

[Kludge]

It's a ridiculously old flash animation. I'm surprised so few here have watched it. It gave me a lot of trouble justifying the existence of a coercive government for a long time. However, the philosophy starts to fall apart in terms of practicality when you introduce children into the system. To claim anyone has ownership of children, or that children may not enter into contracts is to deny those same rights. The same applies to people with handicaps. Those with physical handicaps (and, in modern times, even those without) are unable to adequately protect themselves from others' attempt to steal property, life, and liberty. They are left unprotected from the force of aristocracy. Those with mental handicaps are unable to adequately protect themselves from others' attempts to steal property, life, and liberty. They are left unprotected from the fraud of aristocracy. The unprotected are indeed, unprotected without government intervention, and thus compromise is needed to create a society which values work instead of chance and heritage (a minarchy probably won't be enough...).

Perhaps donations and volunteer efforts are enough, and if we ever have a chance to try it, we ought to. If we cannot maintain a government which (grants and) secures rights through donations (or user fees, if you can find a service the government can provide at no cost to themselves), force will be required.

[Original_Intent]

Yeah I saw a Youtube of that a while back. I like it though, it's a good tool.

[constitutional]

This is old... Welcome to the movement. :p

Their official website has this movie in many different languages if you are interested -- for free.

[brandon]

However, the philosophy starts to fall apart in terms of practicality when you introduce children into the system. To claim anyone has ownership of children, or that children may not enter into contracts is to deny those same rights. The same applies to people with handicaps. Those with physical handicaps (and, in modern times, even those without) are unable to adequately protect themselves from others' attempt to steal property, life, and liberty. They are left unprotected from the force of aristocracy. Those with mental handicaps are unable to adequately protect themselves from others' attempts to steal property, life, and liberty. They are left unprotected from the fraud of aristocracy. The unprotected are indeed, unprotected without government intervention,

It is not only the "handicapped" and children that are vulnerable to others attempts to aggress against them. Everyone is vulnerable to this to a different degree. Those who cannot protect themselves must seek the protection of others. Why is government a solution to this? Personally, if I were weak I would take protection from my family, friends and community before I would take protection from some faceless government.

It seems really silly to propose creating a huge entity that no one can protect themselves from in order to offer protection to a few.

[Kludge]

It is not only the "handicapped" and children that are vulnerable to others attempts to aggress against them. Everyone is vulnerable to this to a different degree.

True, but the handicapped and children are unable to act in their best interest. While we may be able to secure our own rights and have a dignified life without forceful intervention of others, it simply isn't possible for others.


Personally, if I were weak I would take protection from my family, friends and community before I would take protection from some faceless government.

That assumes they aren't the same people as the aggressors. Especially in the case of children, who protects them from abusive parents? And if everyone has the right to life, liberty, and property, who are we to tell children that they must live with us and by the conditions we set? A local government can be even more tyrannical than a federal government.


It seems really silly to propose creating a huge entity that no one can protect themselves from in order to offer protection to a few.

Indeed, government must be reduced in size and power if people are to be able to change it when they make mistakes (or willfully aggress upon their constituents). There need to be many more mechanisms in place to prevent injustice than what we have now. The Articles of Confederation greatly restricted the government's power. When the Constitution was put in place, states were, for all practical reasoning, denied their right to secede. There have also been other gross disregards for the rights of others, including the draft, the multiple Sedition Acts in America's history, and making fiat notes legal tender and then expanding the monetary supply. Nuclear weapons and standing armies are far more of a threat than security and ought to be abolished.