Overlooking the Basics: The Philosophy of Liberty

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

These are one of the good videos in the liberty library and looking around youtube it looks like the several Philosophy of Liberty videos have maybe a combined viewing audience of several hundred thousand. It is such a simple video and conveys a powerful message. We can't do a campaign to get this sucker to millions of views?

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

[Sentient Void]

Ah, yes - great video. This is one of the first videos on libertarian philosophy I saw right when I was introduced tithe Ron Paul campaign. I've spread it around on facebook, myspace, etc.

[Stary Hickory]

Can't see the video but I like this one( I have seen it before) once you realize violent interaction is the root cause of all societall ills you really never think the same way. In every instance when voluntary association is replaced by violent or coerced association all of society suffers.

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of property and liberty. It's a simple concpet and true to it's very core.

[someperson]

+1 to this idea :)

[erowe1]

Not a big fan of the idea of self-ownership.

[Stary Hickory]

Not a big fan of the idea of self-ownership.

Who would you rather own you then?

[Sentient Void]

Who would you rather own you then?

Me. So I can make him my bitch and slap him around when it feels good. ;)

[dr. hfn]

we should organize some kind of campaign to spread this...

[erowe1]

Who would you rather own you then?

It doesn't matter what I would rather. It matters what's right and wrong.

My wife and kids own property in me. I have duties to them that come from being a husband and father that I have no right to neglect. In the case of my wife it could be argued that these duties came about by a voluntarily entered contract, which is true in my case (though not in all cases). But that couldn't be said of my kids. I have obligations to them, whether I agreed to those obligations or not. Similarly, they have obligations to me, whether they agreed to them or not.

[Stary Hickory]

It doesn't matter what I would rather. It matters what's right and wrong.

My wife and kids own property in me. I have duties to them that come from being a husband and father that I have no right to neglect. In the case of my wife it could be argued that these duties came about by a voluntarily entered contract, which is true in my case (though not in all cases). But that couldn't be said of my kids. I have obligations to them, whether I agreed to those obligations or not. Similarly, they have obligations to me, whether they agreed to them or not.

I don't buy into that logic, you are you and they are they. If you love one another and feel commitment because of it that is natural and a good thing..but they do not own you...that is not love.

[erowe1]

I don't buy into that logic, you are you and they are they. If you love one another and feel commitment because of it that is natural and a good thing..but they do not own you...that is not love.

I know a lot of libertarians think that. And maybe you can't be a libertarian if you don't. But I don't.

I have obligations to them, and in the case of my kids, those obligations have existed since the moment of their conception, and I would have no right to neglect them even if I didn't love them and didn't choose to take on those duties. Similarly, if someone kidnapped my kids from me, and they then declared that they wanted to live with the kidnapper and not me, it wouldn't matter, I'd still be in my rights to keep them because I'm their dad. I have property in them that comes from that relationship, regardless of any choice.

[Stary Hickory]

I know a lot of libertarians think that. And maybe you can't be a libertarian if you don't. But I don't. I have obligations to them, and in the case of my kids, those obligations have existed since the moment of their conception, and I would have no right to neglect them even if I didn't love them and didn't choose to take on those duties. Similarly, if someone kidnapped them from me, and they then declared that they wanted to live with the kidnapper and not me, it wouldn't matter, I'd still be in my rights to keep them because I'm their dad. I have property in them that comes from that relationship, regardless of any choice.

If your children do not want to live with you they can and will leave. Are you going to lock them in a room? Place them under surveillance? If children feel that way about their parents they run away.

[erowe1]

If your children do not want to live with you they can and will leave. Are you going to lock them in a room? Place them under surveillance? If children feel that way about their parents they run away.

There will be a time when I have to let my kids make all their own decisions. But there's also a period when I am in my rights to make decisions for them, whether they would make those same decisions or not, and to use force to make sure my decisions are implemented.

But the other part of what I was saying also holds. I have duties to them irrespective of any consent I gave to taking on those duties. When a girl gives birth in a public restroom and leaves the baby there to die, that girl is doing something she has no right to do because she has inherent obligations to that baby, regardless of her consent in the matter, which is another way of saying that her baby has property in her. This fact does not comport with the doctrine of pure self-ownership (which exponents of that doctrine know well, as can be seen in the section on abortion in Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty).

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Since property (which is derived from self ownership) and justice are cornerstones of libertarian thought, what philosophy of property do you offer as an alternative to self ownership?

After all we are talking about the foundation of a philosophy Ron Paul advocates.

[erowe1]

Since property (which is derived from self ownership) and justice are cornerstones of libertarian thought, what philosophy of property do you offer as an alternative to self ownership?

After all we are talking about the foundation of a philosophy Ron Paul advocates.

I don't know if Ron Paul advocates this or not. I haven't heard him address it. Judging from what I've heard him say about abortion, it would not surprise me if he does not. He at least isn't on board with what Rothbard writes about abortion, which is a pretty cut and dry corollary to the doctrine of self-ownership.

I'm really not interested in whether or not my beliefs line up with what is supposed to be "libertarian thought." But ultimately, all morality comes from God. So what he says goes. Property rights derive from Him saying, "Thou shalt not steal." The right not to be murdered come from his prohibition of murder. The right not to be kidnapped come from His prohibition of kidnapping. The rights and duties that I and my wife and our kids all have toward one another derive from His establishment of those rights and duties.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

On a side note I think it's sad you feel you have a right to use force on your kids. Not that I didn't get my ass whooped on occasion as a kid but I will give the old man credit on one thing. He did point out where the door was if I felt I was ready to fend for myself and had any objection to his punishment.

On another side note... I did take him up on it once and left. I failed miserably. Sometimes you just have to learn shit on your own.

[erowe1]

On a side note I think it's sad you feel you have a right to use force on your kids. Not that I didn't get my ass whooped on occasion as a kid but I will give the old man credit on one thing. He did point out where the door was if I felt I was ready to fend for myself and had any objection to his punishment.

On another side note... I did take him up on it once and left. I failed miserably. Sometimes you just have to learn shit on your own.

My oldest is 2, if that makes a difference. If I say it's time for bed, then it's time for bed. I don't have any guilty feelings about that. But I do admit that parenting as I know it does not comport with the doctrine of self-ownership or the non-aggression principle.

I agree with you that sometimes you have to learn on your own, and good parenting can involve letting kids make mistakes. I just don't think I am obligated to do that 100% of the time.

[Stary Hickory]

My oldest is 2, if that makes a difference. If I say it's time for bed, then it's time for bed. I don't have any guilty feelings about that. But I do admit that parenting as I know it does not comport with the doctrine of self-ownership or the non-aggression principle.

Your defense still does make people the property of others. The right to free is also the right to self ownership. Arguing that a non fully developed human should not be perfectly free does not justify saying people do not own themselves.

To be free you must own yourself. You are saying that children should have their freedoms limited until they are the proper age....this is totally different than saying people do not own themselves.

[erowe1]

Your defense still does make people the property of others.

That's correct. That's what I mean when I say I don't believe in self-ownership.

[Theocrat]

Since property (which is derived from self ownership) and justice are cornerstones of libertarian thought, what philosophy of property do you offer as an alternative to self ownership?

After all we are talking about the foundation of a philosophy Ron Paul advocates.

How about self-stewardship? I, like erowe1, reject the notion of self-ownership. No one truly owns his body, for no one asked to exist. Our lives were given to us outside of our decision to own ourselves. In addition to that, we all are subject to natural laws as well as civil/moral laws.

[Stary Hickory]

That's correct. That's what I mean when I say I don't believe in self-ownership.

Well...sorta...I don't think you see it the same way. Owning yourself is necessary for liberty because when ownership comes up it's important. Owning yourself means having control over your physical body and it's actions.

Maybe its semantics....but describing this as self ownership is very consistent with a philosophy of liberty.

[erowe1]

The right to free is also the right to self ownership. Arguing that a non fully developed human should not be perfectly free does not justify saying people do not own themselves.


Yes it does. If I (and not you, or the state, or my kids themselves) have the right to make decisions for my kids, then if we are to express this in terms of property rights, it would be the same as to say that I own property in my kids.

Conversely, if I have obligations to them, whether I consent to those obligations or not, then they own property in me.

[erowe1]

but describing this as self ownership is very consistent with a philosophy of liberty.

I never said that self-ownership wasn't compatible with a philosophy of liberty. I just said that I don't believe in it. Like I said, I don't really care if my beliefs line up with what's supposed to be "the philosophy of liberty" or not.

[Stary Hickory]

I never said that self-ownership wasn't compatible with a philosophy of liberty. I just said that I don't believe in it. Like I said, I don't really care if my beliefs line up with what's supposed to be "the philosophy of liberty" or not.

Well as long as you stick to this "you don't believe you own yourself" and do not feel the need to force that view on others(not saying you would) that is fine by me. The only people I get into tiffs with is those that want to claim ownership to my body or my productive efforts.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

How about self-stewardship? I, like erowe1, reject the notion of self-ownership. No one truly owns his body, for no one asked to exist. Our lives were given to us outside of our decision to own ourselves. In addition to that, we all are subject to natural laws as well as civil/moral laws.

Theo seriously,

Have you even taken an interest in the philosophy enough to comment on it? You have self labeled theocrat and your have one of the most appropriate user names because you surely advocate initiating force against people you don't like and have no problem intervening in the lives of others who are not your children.

Self ownership does not mean you own your body in the sense you can will your body to no longer desire food. Self ownership is about who is in control of your actions and who ought to be in control of your actions.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

My oldest is 2, if that makes a difference. If I say it's time for bed, then it's time for bed. I don't have any guilty feelings about that. But I do admit that parenting as I know it does not comport with the doctrine of self-ownership or the non-aggression principle.

I agree with you that sometimes you have to learn on your own, and good parenting can involve letting kids make mistakes. I just don't think I am obligated to do that 100% of the time.

I have a side question if you feel like indulging it with a reply. Would you agree or disagree there is evidence of self awareness when a young individual asks their first queston?

[Theocrat]

Theo seriously,

Have you even taken an interest in the philosophy enough to comment on it? You have self labeled theocrat and your have one of the most appropriate user names because you surely advocate initiating force against people you don't like and have no problem intervening in the lives of others who are not your children.

Self ownership does not mean you own your body in the sense you can will your body to no longer desire food. Self ownership is about who is in control of your actions and who ought to be in control of your actions.

Yes, I've taken a vested interest in studying the philosophy of liberty, and I agree with much that is said in the video, provided it's qualified properly. The problem is we don't all agree on the nature and terms of what liberty is. Subsequently, I don't believe any of my views as a theocrat involve initiating force against people I don't like, so I don't know where you're getting that from.

When you define "self-ownership" as you've done above, you make it difficult for people with kids to exercise parental discipline. In effect, a parent who tells his child that she cannot go out with her friends because she failed math is now mysteriously in violation of his child's "self-ownership" because he is refusing her liberty to do what she wants. That is one place where I see how the notion of self-ownership falls apart.

Anyone with kids knows that self-ownership is a myth when it comes to raising children. As erowe1 has alluded to, sometimes you will have to control the actions of your children against their will, in hopes of disciplining them. Yet, that would be in violation of your definition of "self-ownership," Live_Free. It's just not practical. Obedience is more important in the family than any notion of self-ownership.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Yes, I've taken a vested interest in studying the philosophy of liberty, and I agree with much that is said in the video, provided it's qualified properly. The problem is we don't all agree on the nature and terms of what liberty is. Subsequently, I don't believe any of my views as a theocrat involve initiating force against people I don't like, so I don't know where you're getting that from.

When you define "self-ownership" as you've done above, you make it difficult for people with kids to exercise parental discipline. In effect, a parent who tells his child that she cannot go out with her friends because she failed math is now mysteriously in violation of his child's "self-ownership" because he is refusing her liberty to do what she wants. That is one place where I see how the notion of self-ownership falls apart.

Anyone with kids knows that self-ownership is a myth when it comes to raising children. As erowe1 has alluded to, sometimes you will have to control the actions of your children against their will, in hopes of disciplining them. Yet, that would be in violation of your definition of "self-ownership," Live_Free. It's just not practical. Obedience is more important in the family than any notion of self-ownership.

To me, the kids argument is like abortion or when does life begin. No easy majority consensus. And considering at the end of the day a majority of force is the only thing that counts the issue continues to be debated.

But is there any disagreement that is how it ought to be? Is there any disagreement the principle is worth striving for? What parent wants to inflict violence on their children? When I got my ass beat the first time the old man was quick to point out how much this was going to hurt him more than it hurts me. But that is the fallacy isn't it?

I think self awareness is a concept that is going to evolve in matters of law regardless of whether we are talking about a voluntary society framework or a statist society framework.

I do see the human race evolving beyond the barbaric collective age qualifier that presently exists to be considered competent. Each individual develops their ability to reason differently. Each individual accumulates different experiences.

Despite a minor disagreement with young individuals Erowe does indicate a respect for self ownership among all consenting adults and that is a major agreement.

[erowe1]

I have a side question if you feel like indulging it with a reply. Would you agree or disagree there is evidence of self awareness when a young individual asks their first queston?

I guess so. My impression is that my kids had self awareness (though I'm not completely sure what that is--it sounds like mumbo jumbo some psychologist came up with) long before that. My daughter is 10 months old and can't say a word, but unless self-awareness refers to something other than what it sounds like, I'm pretty sure she has it.