Page 1 of 15 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 447

Thread: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

  1. #1

    The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

    Note: I have written a different take on the subject here. Please check it out: The Law of Justice



    And this is the original article:
    The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

    The Science of Liberty



    Liberty is science, and Justice is science. Their laws are Natural Laws, and are not subject to opinions or conjecture of politicians, and can neither be made nor unmade by them, any more than politicians can legislate away the law of gravity, or of electricity, or of mechanics. These Natural Laws of Liberty and Justice are absolute. They determine the proper use of force if liberty is to exist. Discovering these laws and living in harmony with them ensures peace, liberty and prosperity of any society. Violating these laws will inevitably lead to destruction of Liberty, and if unchecked, to the destruction of the society itself.

    The fundamental principles of Liberty and justice are these:

    First and foremost, is the one from which all other principles derive:

    Private Property is not to be violated, it being Justice and Liberty
    .

    Private Property is defined as something that you own, that belongs to you and none else, so that you:

    a) do not have to ask anyone’s permission to use it, but
    b) others must obtain your voluntary permission to use, because it is yours, and
    c) you can do with it whatever you please, as long as you do not violate the property of another.

    A just owner of a property is either:

    i) the first user of it, or
    ii) the recipient of it from the previous owner via voluntary gift, bequest or sale.

    Your Private Property, thus defined, includes, among other things: you, your body, your mind, your ability to make choices, your ability to move, to speak, to act, the fruits of your labor, your natural, unalienable rights, etc. Thus, obviously, the ownership of Private Property is based on your self-ownership, and is the natural extension of it.

    This is why Private Property and Liberty are one and the same. Therefore, you cannot violate or diminish one without violating or diminishing the other.

    It is actually the case, that all rights and virtues derive from the concept of Private Property, and are, in fact, entirely meaningless without it.

    To prove this, let’s look again at Liberty and Justice, for example. What are they?

    They are nothing more or less than Private Property.

    What is justice but Non-Aggression of Private Property, with the implied right to use equal force to offset/neutralize the aggression of another against your property? And what is Liberty if not the right to do with your own property whatever you please as long as you do not violate the property of another? Both Justice and Liberty, therefore, are attributes of Private Property and have exactly ZERO meaning without it. This is why I say that Justice and Liberty are two sides of the same coin, which coin is Private Property; in other words, Justice and Liberty are one and the same as Private Property. You cannot violate or diminish one without violating or diminishing the other. They are the same thing.

    In fact, the definitions of both Justice and Liberty are directly found IN the definition of Private Property itself. And Private Property is found IN the definitions of both Justice and Liberty. Which means these three are inextricably and permanently connected, and in fact, are meaningless and self-contradictory without each-other.

    In the section (c) of the definition of Private Property we find:

    Liberty
    = the right to do with your own property what you will as long as you do not violate the property of another; and
    Justice = non-violation of property of another.

    Thus, both Justice and Liberty are the key subset of the definition of Private Property itself, and do not exist without it. They are inseparably connected, and in fact, are one and the same. Therefore, you can rightly say:

    Private Property IS Liberty and Justice.

    Which is a VERY profound and important thing to realize!


    A Right is nothing more or less than ownership of property.

    And natural, unalienable rights are the rights/ownership everyone are born with. These rights/ownership come to you by the fact of your existence, or in other words, they come from God.

    Example: If you have a right to live, it is because you own your body. The same is true for your right to speak, to move, to think. Now, do you have the right to move across the property of your neighbor? No. Why? Because you do not own it. So, your rights are intrinsically connected to the concept of ownership of property.

    All rights are statements of ownership of property.

    You have a right to travel on a public road because you have an equal claim of ownership in it, etc. Without ownership there are no rights, because rights are nothing more or less than ownership of property.

    And since all rights are derived from OWNERSHIP of property, therefore, you have rights only over the things you OWN, and nothing else.


    Interestingly, the First Fundamental Principle of Liberty is also known as, and is equivalent to, the Non Aggression Principle, because "non-violation" is "non-aggression."

    Significantly, The First Fundamental Principle of Liberty is also exactly equivalent to God’s commandments:

    "Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not steal."

    Thus God reaffirms Life, and the right of Private Property, as well as defines Liberty and Justice.
    From this also, we can see that God is a Libertarian, because he lives by, and is indeed the source of, the central and defining principle of Libertarianism, which is the Non-Aggression Principle.

    These great commandments apply to individuals and to governments. Any society that lives by these two commandments HAS TO BE a strictly VOLUNTARY society, because otherwise, if aggressive violence of coercion is permitted, it would instantly violate these two commandments.

    Incidentally, this is also the very reason why the FIRST plank of Luciferian/Illuminati/Communist Manifesto is to abolish Private Property, because thus they abolish Justice, Liberty, and consequently Life itself through aggressive violence of coercion.

    The opposition here is clear as night and day!

    The very concepts of good and evil themselves, can be defined in terms of, and have the only meaning in context of Private Property:

    Good is private property.
    Evil is a violation of Private Property.

    It is that simple.

    Note:
    Now, Jesus defined Good as “doing unto others as you would have them do to you.” “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” (Matt. 7:12)

    How is that compatible with our definition of good as Non-violation of Private Property?
    Perfectly. In fact, one principle is directly derived from the other:
    Would you like that someone violated your property? No? Then don’t do it to others! Because whatsoever you are doing to others you are doing it to yourself. Thus, the Law of Justice itself is a simple statement of cause and effect, because we are all fundamentally one, and whatsoever you are doing to others, you are, in reality, doing it to yourself!

    Non-violation, or non-aggression principle, i.e. the principle of private property, is the logical consequence of “doing unto others as you would have them do to you.” The two principles are in PERFECT harmony with each other. In fact, as I said, one is directly derived from the other, because they are ONE principle.


    The First Fundamental Principle of Liberty is the only law that governs Private Property in a society. Any other legislation on the subject of private property is completely superfluous and unnecessary, and indeed dangerous, because it is running the risk of violating this Fundamental Natural Law of Liberty. Any legislation that contradicts this Natural Law is immoral and unjust, and if unchecked will lead to the destruction of Liberty and ultimately the destruction of the society itself, because no society can long endure without Liberty and Justice. That’s why it is best that all legislation regarding private property be abolished, and replaced with this ONE law.

    Second Fundamental principle of Liberty (derived from the first):

    Private property is not to be violated by a group.

    If no one, individually, has a right to violate his neighbor’s property, or to initiate force upon him, neither does the group, whatever the size, because the group derives its authority from individuals, and no one can delegate an authority he does not have.

    In other words, if it is unjust for one person to rob an individual, it is also unjust for many persons to rob him. A group being nothing more than a collection of individuals, therefore, if neither of them, individually, has a just claim upon someone’s property, neither does the whole group, no matter how large the group is.

    The same can be stated in terms of delegation of authority:
    If you, as an individual, have no moral right to force your neighbor to do or not to do something, or to violate his property, you cannot rightly hire anybody else to do it for you, because you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.

    And since representative government is nothing more than a group of individuals hired by other individuals to do for them only what they have a natural right to do for themselves and nothing more, therefore, the only proper role of representative government is to do for individuals what they have a natural right to do for themselves, and individually, asked the government to do for them, and nothing more, for none other authority could have been delegated to the government, because no one can delegate an authority he does not have.

    In other words:
    Since a representative government derives all of its legitimate authority by delegation from the governed, and no one can delegate an authority he does not have, the only proper role of such government, is to do for individuals only what they have a natural right to do for themselves, and individually asked the government to do for them, and nothing more.

    Thus with regards to private property of your neighbor, if you have no right to violate it or to use force upon him, you cannot ask your government to do it in your behalf, because the only legitimate authority that the government has is what you delegated to it, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.

    Example: If you, individually have no moral right to point a gun at your neighbor and force him to give money to the poor, you cannot rightly ask the government to do it either, because the ONLY legitimate authority that it has is delegated from YOU, and you CANNOT delegate an authority you do not have. This, among other things, irrefutably proves that ALL public taxation of Private Property is THEFT by definition, and is IMMORAL.

    Thus, participation in any representative government must be strictly voluntary, meaning: you cannot force people to pay for government services if they do not wish to use them, because, again, government is nothing more than a group of individuals hired by other individuals to do a service for them, which they have a natural, unalienable right to do for themselves, (that is to protect their property), and you cannot force anyone to buy services they do not wish to use, for no such authority could have been delegated to the government, because no individual has such authority, therefore he cannot delegate it to the government, because no one can delegate an authority he does not have.

    So, in essence, every individual must be treated as a sovereign country, all associations with which must be on strictly voluntary basis. It’s good to be king (of your domain)!

    This also shows that the principles of Liberty and Justice are intrinsically and inseparably connected: A just society must necessarily be a free and voluntary one (otherwise it would not be just, because any aggressive/coercive social order, is, by definition, unjust); and inversely, a free and voluntary society (in order to exist) must necessarily be a just society. Thus Liberty and Justice are the two sides of the very same coin, which coin is peace, freedom and prosperity, that is Private Property.

    This relationship between voluntarism (non-aggression) and justice can be expressed in a short formula:

    Justice = Voluntary Society
    Voluntary Society = Justice


    Thus all forms of coercion (i.e. aggressive violence) are unjust, by definition. In fact, injustice IS aggressive violence. Thus in the words of Ron Paul: "The only thing we should prohibit is violence." That is the definition of liberty and justice.

    Note: The Second Fundamental Principle of Liberty is also known as the Benson Principle.

    Third Fundamental principle of Liberty is (derived from the first two):

    If there exists public property, that is property to which all who reside within certain geographical area have equal claim of ownership, it can be managed by the voice of the majority, provided that:

    a) everyone is treated equally, since all have equal claim of ownership in it, and


    b) property of no individual is violated.

    This means, among other things, that a majority cannot rightly deprive someone of the use of public property completely without compensating him in some way, because that would violate his share in it, neither can they treat anyone differently in the use of it, since all have equal claim to it.

    These are Natural Fundamental Principles of Liberty, and no society can enjoy Liberty, prosperity and peace if they violate them.

    Application

    To square the United States Constitution with these Fundamental Principles of Liberty (without which Liberty cannot exist and must unavoidably perish), I proposed these seven amendments, the first amendment being the core, and the other six derived from, and amplifying the first.
    1. Justice Constitutional Amendment (JCA)
    2. The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment
    3. Honest Money Constitutional Amendment
    4. Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation
    5. No Judicial Monopoly Constitutional Amendment (NJM)
    6. Nullification - Constitutional Amendment
    7. Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents

    Note: All 7 limit the power of government back to its proper role.

    From these principles it is obvious, that the proper role of government is to manage public property, and perhaps, non-exclusively, protect Private Property, and nothing more!

    Also check out these essays:
    The Correct Principles of Liberty and The Errors of the US Constitution
    The Science of Liberty (A short essay)


    Please check out another take on the same subject here:

    The Law of Justice
    Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 03-01-2017 at 08:23 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Ok, I elaborated it, and derives 2nd and 3rd from the 1st.

    What do you think? Did I get it right?

    Thanks.

  4. #3
    "Liberty is science, and Justice is science. Their laws are Natural Laws, and are not subject to opinions or conjecture of politicians, and cannot be either made nor unmade by them, any more than politicians can legislate away the law of gravity, or of electricity, or of mechanics. These Natural Laws of Liberty and Justice are absolute. They determine the proper use of force if liberty is to exist. Discovering these laws and living in harmony with them ensures peace, liberty and prosperity of any society. Violating these laws will inevitably lead to destruction of Liberty, and if unchecked, to the destruction of the society itself. "

    This is all stated dogmatically, with no supporting argument. You haven't made a case for liberty or justice at all. I could just as easily say the opposite from what you said, and my argument would be just as valid. You also crudely define liberty, with a lot of circular reasoning and bombast, and fail to define justice.

    I commend your philosophic introspection, though. I think you should start by examining what your primary value is, and what ethical principles in turn promote that primary value logically. Following this line of reasoning you might discover an entirely new and more logically defensible argument for liberty and justice, and the political application of those principles.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenophage View Post
    This is all stated dogmatically, with no supporting argument. You haven't made a case for liberty or justice at all. I could just as easily say the opposite from what you said, and my argument would be just as valid.
    Let's take geometry for instance. Is it science? Yes. How does it work? You have Fundamental Principles (a.k.a. Axioms) which are taken as self evident truth needing no proof, from which you derive all other laws (a.k.a. Theorems). The 1st principle I listed is such an axiom; it is self evident and needs no proof. The 2nd principle is logically derived from the 1st one. So is the 3rd. That's why I call it science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xenophage View Post
    You also crudely define liberty
    Really? I think what I gave is the most precise and exact definition of Liberty I have ever seen. Liberty is Private Property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xenophage View Post
    and fail to define justice.
    Justice is the application of the correct natural principles I just stated.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenophage View Post
    I commend your philosophic introspection, though. I think you should start by examining what your primary value is
    I think I have done that. See principle #1.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xenophage View Post
    and what ethical principles in turn promote that primary value logically. Following this line of reasoning you might discover an entirely new and more logically defensible argument for liberty and justice, and the political application of those principles.
    Would you care to elaborate and illustrate your point of view please? Thank you.
    Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 12-27-2011 at 10:40 AM.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Foundation_Of_Liberty View Post
    Ok, I elaborated it, and derives 2nd and 3rd from the 1st.

    What do you think? Did I get it right?

    Thanks.
    I applaud the spirit of the effort, but the structure is lacking and I think your assertions are not quite right or complete.

    In order to build a formally correct corpus of your argument you must begin with a premise. Said premise must be acceptable either on its face (primitive and axiomatic) or it must be acceptable as the result of having been previously proven (complex and axiomatic). In your case, the premise is complex and must therefore be proven before it can be used as the premise to another argument. Your premise may or may not be true. There is no indication either way, though I suspect that it may be lacking in some way - I've not given it close scrutiny. Until you have proven its truth value, the rest of your work remains unsubstantiated.

    Try this as an example, excerpted from http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com...ee-living.html:

    The Canon Of Individual Sovereignty


    The natural and self evident status of each Individual Man is that of a Sovereign Being. This truth is particularly important where questions and considerations of the Individual’s existence with and about his Fellows arise, for if he is alone, there is no other to trespass upon him. Man’s sovereign status derives directly from a single fundamental postulate that is at once elegant and intuitively obvious such that little analytical consideration is required in divining its truth value. Once accepted, this single assumption leads promptly and axiomatically, to the Body of Principles that apodictically demonstrate and enshrine the complete basis by which One arrives at a more complete Truth. This assumption is the Cardinal Postulate (AKA The Postulate Of Equal Claims) and it states:


    0. All men hold equal Just Claims to Life.


    It serves well to note the reference to “Just” Claims. Whereas, Men may endeavor to confabulate all manner of arbitrary claims upon Life that are of an ill-reasoned and therefore unjust and illegitimate nature that at times borders on the idiotic, there exists a small set of Claims to Life that are just and proper, and are shared equally by all People. A Just Claim, being a Right, the equal Just Claims to Life shared be All are otherwise referred to as their Equal Rights.


    From the Cardinal Postulate follow the Cardinal Principles of Just Claim:


    1. Each Individual holds sole and absolute Title to his Life


    This is the Principle of Self Ownership. No man may own or exercise ownership rights over another.


    2. The absolute right to think and act in accord with one's Will


    This is the Principle of Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Action.


    3. The right to acquire, keep, and dispose of Property


    The Principle of Private Property


    The Cardinal Prohibition, the single restriction by which All must abide states:


    -1 No One may initiate force against, or otherwise trespass upon Others


    The Principle of Non-Aggression.


    Thus Endeth the Canon.



    Note how the argument is based on a primitive and axiomatic postulation, "All men hold equal Just Claims to Life." The postulate is intuitively easy to grasp and accept. Anyone with trouble doing so need only assume its converse, "Some men hold superior Claims to life over those of others." Acceptance of the former raises no further question, other than perhaps the trivial, "why?", which is again readily explained by offering the converse and asking the same question. The converse postulation, on the other hand, raises a potentially infinite litany of questions whose answers are necessarily arbitrary. large bodies of issues with arbitrary answers lead to inelegance and gross over-complication, which in turn leads in non-compact, inefficient, abstruse, inferior, and otherwise objectionable results whose truth value is all but guaranteed to predicate to "false".

    The rest of the principles follow directly, simply, elegantly, and intuitively, from the initial postulate in unassailable fashion. The simple act of accepting the Postulate of Equal Claims leads one automatically, axiomatically, and apodictically to the truth. This is simplicity and elegance itself and I assert that the instrumental reasoning is unbreakable.

    Anyone arguing against the Canon is required to demonstrate how and where the reasoning fails. If you can get an opponent to accept the Cardinal Postulate, such a demonstration becomes impossible and you have him by the noots as he will not be able wrest himself free from the jaws of unbreakable logic by any means and maintain a shred of credibility.

    This is how one constructs such bodies of reasoned thought. Keep it as simple as possible without leaving out anything essential. This is especially key in choosing your opening volley, which is your premise. Keep your premises to as few in number as possible and as primitives if possible. If you can keep it down to one as I have here you will have a much stronger structure, all else equal, though greater complexity does not necessarily mean weaker logic, but only greater difficulty in assuring an unassailable foundation.


    Keep it as intuitively clear as possible - not always an easy order.

    Make sense?
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  7. #6
    Osan,


    You are a genius! Your post is superb!

    The only thing I can say is that my system of three principles with last two derived from the first is equivalent to the Canon you cited here. It asserts essentially exactly the same thing.

    Whereas the Canon starts with this axiom:

    "All men hold equal Just Claims to Life;"

    mine starts with:

    "Private property is Liberty and ought not to be violated.

    The owner of a property can do whatever he wants with his property as long as he is not violating the property of others. "


    Both are just as obvious and intuitive. One can ask: Why do all men hold equal just claim to life? Are not some men better than others? etc...

    So, your starting axiom is valid, and I believe it to be true, but I would say it's just as persuasive as mine starting axiom.

    Next, the Canon's principles 1, 2, and 3 are embodied in the notion of Private Property, when it is taken in the broadest sense possible, meaning: Private Property includes you, your body, your mind, your actions, your speech, the fruits of your labor, etc.

    The cardinal prohibition of the Canon, i.e. the principle of Non-Aggression is contained in principles 1 and 2 of my system. "Private property ... ought not to be violated," and "Private property is not to be violated by a group." The principle of non-violation is the principle of non-aggression.

    But, in addition, my system clearly shows the limits of the authority of the group, which is key in combating the lie that is collectivism, the lie that is the core of all our social ills. You know, that lie that says "even though it's not Ok for you individually to do that, it is Ok if the group does it." That lie is directly addressed and soundly terminated by my 2nd principle (derived from the first). I see one of the main benefits of my system in this, plus the simple, un-ambiguous and concise definition of Liberty: "Private Property IS Liberty" appears very valuable to me, because one does not exist without the other, and it is good to know what Liberty exactly is.

    My third principle addresses the proper management of public property, which is also vital in a society.

    So, I think, my system, though in essence of principle exactly equivalent to yours, is better adapted to creating robust legislation that is in harmony with the Natural Principles of Liberty and Justice.

    Thank you for your wonderful post.
    Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 12-28-2011 at 07:55 AM.

  8. #7

    I think that's what you were trying to get at maybe?
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  9. #8
    Brilliant! Great video! Thanks! I especially like this quote of his (in the article you posted State or Private Law Society?, which is an utterly Brilliant article!):

    "Indeed, the solution to the problem of social order has been known for hundreds of years. The solution is the idea of private property."


    Thanks!!!
    Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 12-28-2011 at 08:52 AM.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9

  12. #10

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Foundation_Of_Liberty View Post
    Brilliant! Great video! Thanks! I especially like this quote of his (in the article you posted State or Private Law Society?, which is an utterly Brilliant article!):

    "Indeed, the solution to the problem of social order has been known for hundreds of years. The solution is the idea of private property."


    Thanks!!!
    Hoppe gave a speech on this, too:



    Part2, Part 3, Part4, Part5

  14. #12
    The Non-Aggression Principle



    The Non-Aggression Principle corresponds to the First Fundamental Principle of Liberty. (See the top of the thread).
    Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 04-28-2012 at 01:20 PM.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by noneedtoaggress View Post
    Hoppe gave a speech on this, too:...
    Thanks! Excellent!

  16. #14
    A Private Law Society (by Hans-Hermann Hoppe)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DN_t...eature=related

    State or Private Law Society? (by Hans-Hermann Hoppe)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6V0X...eature=related

    Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis | Hans-Hermann Hoppe - brilliant!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DIFV...eature=related
    PDF http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_5.pdf


    The Failed God: Democracy
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k12te...eature=related


    Freedom vs. Parasitic Government - Judge Napolitano

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ6tD...eature=related
    Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 03-19-2012 at 07:55 AM.

  17. #15
    There are many and contradictory definitions of government:
    One such definition that violates principles of liberty and justice is: Government is a monopoly on the use of force over a given territory. As I said, that violates Fundamental Principles of Liberty including Benson Principle, and I am against such a "government," as it is a usurpation, tyranny, violation of Justice and is a legalized plunder.

    The definition of government that consigns government to its proper role is this one:

    Government is management of public property.

    Such a government is beneficial inasmuch as public property exists. Note: this definition does not signify a monopoly on law-enforcement, neither presumes any control over private property whatsoever, because that would be unjust.

    To summarize:

    Private Property is Liberty.
    Management of public property is government.



    These last two do not have to contradict each-other as long as management of public property obeys the Third Fundamental principle of Liberty: "a) property of no individual is violated and b) everyone is treated equally."
    Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 03-19-2012 at 10:25 AM.

  18. #16
    Brilliant! Just like the earth is spherical and not flat as was believed for hundreds of years, so None Aggression Principle will eventually be acknowledged as the true and correct way to build a society!




  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17

  21. #18
    • Lew Rockwell
    Alex talks with Lew Rockwell and Gary Johnson on the Thursday, June 14 edition of the Alex Jones Show. Lew Rockwell is an anarcho-capitalist, the president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, the editor of LewRockwell.com, and former Ron Paul congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982. He is the author of numerous books, including Speaking of Liberty and The Left, The Right and The State. Gary Johnson is a businessman, a former Governor of New Mexico, and the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States in the 2012 election. Alex continues his exploration of the Rand and Ron Paul firestorm sweeping the patriot movement and also covers other important news stories. Listen Now Windows Media Podcast


    I
    like Lew Rockwell!

  22. #19

  23. #20

  24. #21
    Message to the Voting Cattle - Larken Rose



    If you vote for any politician or for any "law" that violates the Fundamental Principles of Liberty, you are voting for tyranny, enslavement and destruction of the human race, whether you realize it or not.
    Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 08-01-2012 at 01:06 PM.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Foundation_Of_Liberty View Post
    The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
    The Science of Liberty


    Liberty is science, and Justice is science. Their laws are Natural Laws, and are not subject to opinions or conjecture of politicians, and can neither be made nor unmade by them, any more than politicians can legislate away the law of gravity, or of electricity, or of mechanics. These Natural Laws of Liberty and Justice are absolute. They determine the proper use of force if liberty is to exist. Discovering these laws and living in harmony with them ensures peace, liberty and prosperity of any society. Violating these laws will inevitably lead to destruction of Liberty, and if unchecked, to the destruction of the society itself.

    The fundamental principles of Liberty and justice are these:

    First and foremost, is the one from which all other principles derive:

    Private property is Liberty and ought not to be violated.

    The owner of a property can do whatever he wants with his property as long as he is not violating the property of others.

    A just owner of a property is either the first user, or the recipient of it via voluntary gift, bequest or sale.
    This is the only law that governs Private Property in a society. Any other legislation on the subject of private property is completely superfluous and unnecessary, and indeed dangerous, because it is running the risk of violating this Fundamental Natural Law of Liberty. Any legislation that contradicts this Natural Law is immoral and unjust, and if unchecked will lead to the destruction of Liberty and ultimately the destruction of the society itself. That’s why it is best that all legislation regarding private property be abolished, and replaced with this ONE law.

    Private property, of course, is taken in the broadest sense possible: it includes, you, your body, your mind, your actions, your speech, your natural unalienable rights and the fruits of your labor, etc.

    This is why Private Property and Liberty are one and the same. Therefore you cannot violate or diminish one without violating or diminishing the other.

    (This is why the FIRST plank of Communist/Illuminati Manifesto is to ABOLISH PRIVATE PROPERTY, because thus they destroy Liberty!)

    Note: The First Fundamental Principle of Liberty is also known as, and is equivalent to, the Non Aggression Principle.

    Second Fundamental principle of Liberty (derived from the first):

    Private property is not to be violated by a group.

    If no one, individually, has a right to violate his neighbor’s property or to use force upon him, neither does the group, because the group derives its authority from individuals, and no one can delegate an authority he does not have.


    In other words, if it is unjust for one person to rob an individual, it is also unjust for many persons to rob an individual. A group being nothing more than a collection of individuals, therefore, if neither of them, individually, has a just claim upon someone’s property, neither does the whole group.

    The same can be stated in terms of delegation of authority:
    If you, as an individual, have no moral right to force your neighbor to do or not to do something, or to violate his property, you cannot hire anybody else to do it for you, because you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.

    And since representative government is nothing more than a group of individuals hired by other individuals to do for them only what they have a natural right to do for themselves and nothing more, therefore, the only proper role of representative government is to do for individuals what they have a natural right to do for themselves, and individually, asked the government to do for them, and nothing more, for none other authority could have been delegated to the government, because no one can delegate an authority he does not have.

    In other words:
    Since a representative government derives all of its legitimate authority by delegation from the governed, and no one can delegate an authority he does not have, the only proper role of such government, is to do for individuals only what they have a natural right to do for themselves, and individually asked the government to do for them, and nothing more.

    Thus with regards to private property of your neighbor, if you have no right to violate it or to use force upon him, you cannot ask your government to do it in your behalf, because the only legitimate authority that the government has is what you delegated to it, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.

    Thus, participation in any representative government must be strictly voluntary, meaning: you cannot force people to pay for government services if they do not wish to use them, because, again, government is nothing more than a group of individuals hired by other individuals to do a service for them, which they have a natural, unalienable right to do for themselves, (that is to protect their property), and you cannot force anyone to buy services they do not wish to use, for no such authority could have been delegated to the government, because no individual has such authority, therefore he cannot delegate it to the government, because no one can delegate an authority he does not have.

    So, in essence, every individual must be treated as a sovereign country, all associations with which must be on strictly voluntary basis. It’s good to be king (of your domain)!

    Note: The Second Fundamental Principle of Liberty is also known as the Benson Principle.

    Third Fundamental principle of Liberty is (derived from the first two):

    If there exists public property, that is property to which all have equal claim of ownership, it can be managed by the voice of the majority, provided that a) property of no individual is violated and b) everyone is treated equally.


    This means, among other things, that a majority cannot rightly deprive someone of the use of public property completely without compensating him in some way, because that would violate his share in it, neither can they treat anyone differently in the use of it, since all have equal claim to it.

    These are Natural Fundamental Principles of Liberty, and no society can enjoy Liberty, prosperity and peace if they violate them.

    Application

    To square the United States Constitution with these Fundamental Principles of Liberty (without which Liberty cannot exist and must unavoidably perish), I proposed these five amendments:

    From these principles it is obvious, that the proper role of government is to manage public property, and perhaps, non-exclusively, protect Private Property, and nothing more!
    Social communists also mention such high ideas as liberty, the rights of individuals, and of equality; however, they never talk about the Civil Purpose of the people and their quest to seek out a happier life for themselves beyond just the cruel business of survival.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Foundation_Of_Liberty View Post
    Message to the Voting Cattle - Larken Rose



    If you vote for any politician or for any "law" that violates the Fundamental Principles of Liberty, you are voting for tyranny, enslavement and destruction of the human race, whether you realize it or not.
    There is no way you are I can be made into a slave. That is a fallacy. Enslavement happens over a long period of time. When Columbus attempted to enslave the Native Americans in his quest to find gold, they didn't want to do it. So, he gave up on the idea.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Foundation_Of_Liberty View Post
    The Non-Aggression Principle



    The Non-Aggression Principle corresponds to the First Fundamental Principle of Liberty. (See the top of the thread).
    Liberty will never be achieved unless it is viewed as a mere prerequisite of a greater Civil Purpose.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenophage View Post
    "Liberty is science, and Justice is science. Their laws are Natural Laws, and are not subject to opinions or conjecture of politicians, and cannot be either made nor unmade by them, any more than politicians can legislate away the law of gravity, or of electricity, or of mechanics. These Natural Laws of Liberty and Justice are absolute. They determine the proper use of force if liberty is to exist. Discovering these laws and living in harmony with them ensures peace, liberty and prosperity of any society. Violating these laws will inevitably lead to destruction of Liberty, and if unchecked, to the destruction of the society itself. "

    This is all stated dogmatically, with no supporting argument. You haven't made a case for liberty or justice at all. I could just as easily say the opposite from what you said, and my argument would be just as valid. You also crudely define liberty, with a lot of circular reasoning and bombast, and fail to define justice.

    I commend your philosophic introspection, though. I think you should start by examining what your primary value is, and what ethical principles in turn promote that primary value logically. Following this line of reasoning you might discover an entirely new and more logically defensible argument for liberty and justice, and the political application of those principles.
    The power of a natural right not only reduces literally on the physical level, but it also works on the level of the conscience. The problem is getting the message to the drunkard in such a way that it can't be misunderstood, misinterpreted, or misconstrued as just another theory. In regards to this drunkard, I'm speaking of the one who has been intoxicated by the false powers of manipulation. After delivering him or her the message, from that time on, their consciences are held to a higher judgement and to a greater penalty.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Emanuel Watkins View Post
    Liberty will never be achieved unless it is viewed as a mere prerequisite of a greater Civil Purpose.
    Translation, please...

    Liberty is an end in itself, because it is the ONLY thing that produces the purpose of life, which is joy.

    Any "Civil Purpose" that violates Liberty in any way, is not "Civil" at all, but Evil Purpose. Note the difference: similar spelling, but very different meaning.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    I applaud the spirit of the effort, but the structure is lacking and I think your assertions are not quite right or complete.

    In order to build a formally correct corpus of your argument you must begin with a premise. Said premise must be acceptable either on its face (primitive and axiomatic) or it must be acceptable as the result of having been previously proven (complex and axiomatic). In your case, the premise is complex and must therefore be proven before it can be used as the premise to another argument. Your premise may or may not be true. There is no indication either way, though I suspect that it may be lacking in some way - I've not given it close scrutiny. Until you have proven its truth value, the rest of your work remains unsubstantiated.

    Try this as an example, excerpted from http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com...ee-living.html:

    The Canon Of Individual Sovereignty


    The natural and self evident status of each Individual Man is that of a Sovereign Being. This truth is particularly important where questions and considerations of the Individual’s existence with and about his Fellows arise, for if he is alone, there is no other to trespass upon him. Man’s sovereign status derives directly from a single fundamental postulate that is at once elegant and intuitively obvious such that little analytical consideration is required in divining its truth value. Once accepted, this single assumption leads promptly and axiomatically, to the Body of Principles that apodictically demonstrate and enshrine the complete basis by which One arrives at a more complete Truth. This assumption is the Cardinal Postulate (AKA The Postulate Of Equal Claims) and it states:


    0. All men hold equal Just Claims to Life.


    It serves well to note the reference to “Just” Claims. Whereas, Men may endeavor to confabulate all manner of arbitrary claims upon Life that are of an ill-reasoned and therefore unjust and illegitimate nature that at times borders on the idiotic, there exists a small set of Claims to Life that are just and proper, and are shared equally by all People. A Just Claim, being a Right, the equal Just Claims to Life shared be All are otherwise referred to as their Equal Rights.


    From the Cardinal Postulate follow the Cardinal Principles of Just Claim:


    1. Each Individual holds sole and absolute Title to his Life


    This is the Principle of Self Ownership. No man may own or exercise ownership rights over another.


    2. The absolute right to think and act in accord with one's Will


    This is the Principle of Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Action.


    3. The right to acquire, keep, and dispose of Property


    The Principle of Private Property


    The Cardinal Prohibition, the single restriction by which All must abide states:


    -1 No One may initiate force against, or otherwise trespass upon Others


    The Principle of Non-Aggression.


    Thus Endeth the Canon.



    Note how the argument is based on a primitive and axiomatic postulation, "All men hold equal Just Claims to Life." The postulate is intuitively easy to grasp and accept. Anyone with trouble doing so need only assume its converse, "Some men hold superior Claims to life over those of others." Acceptance of the former raises no further question, other than perhaps the trivial, "why?", which is again readily explained by offering the converse and asking the same question. The converse postulation, on the other hand, raises a potentially infinite litany of questions whose answers are necessarily arbitrary. large bodies of issues with arbitrary answers lead to inelegance and gross over-complication, which in turn leads in non-compact, inefficient, abstruse, inferior, and otherwise objectionable results whose truth value is all but guaranteed to predicate to "false".

    The rest of the principles follow directly, simply, elegantly, and intuitively, from the initial postulate in unassailable fashion. The simple act of accepting the Postulate of Equal Claims leads one automatically, axiomatically, and apodictically to the truth. This is simplicity and elegance itself and I assert that the instrumental reasoning is unbreakable.

    Anyone arguing against the Canon is required to demonstrate how and where the reasoning fails. If you can get an opponent to accept the Cardinal Postulate, such a demonstration becomes impossible and you have him by the noots as he will not be able wrest himself free from the jaws of unbreakable logic by any means and maintain a shred of credibility.

    This is how one constructs such bodies of reasoned thought. Keep it as simple as possible without leaving out anything essential. This is especially key in choosing your opening volley, which is your premise. Keep your premises to as few in number as possible and as primitives if possible. If you can keep it down to one as I have here you will have a much stronger structure, all else equal, though greater complexity does not necessarily mean weaker logic, but only greater difficulty in assuring an unassailable foundation.


    Keep it as intuitively clear as possible - not always an easy order.

    Make sense?
    Liberty and justice are not science. Right off the bat, it is very sophist but wrong.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Foundation_Of_Liberty View Post
    Translation, please...

    Liberty is an end in itself, because it is the ONLY thing that produces the purpose of life, which is joy.

    Any "Civil Purpose" that violates Liberty in any way, is not "Civil" at all, but Evil Purpose. Note the difference: similar spelling, but very different meaning.
    A prerequisite is something just assumed. It isn't the prepared dish but just a necessary ingredient involved in the cooking. When you need to add an apple into your dish, the law will legislate that one must aim directly at the apple to achieve it instead of aiming for the higher purpose of the blue sky.
    Ain't no way you will ever shoot an apple out of a tree with an arrow by aiming directly at it. The same is true of liberty. It has to be a prerequisite of a higher Civil Purpose.

  33. #29
    Message to the Voting Cattle - Larken Rose



    If you vote for any politician or for any "law" that violates the Fundamental Principles of Liberty, you are voting for tyranny, enslavement and destruction of the human race, whether you realize it or not.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Emanuel Watkins View Post
    Liberty and justice are not science. Right off the bat, it is very sophist but wrong.
    You provide no evidence or reason to support your assertions, "right off the bat, it is very sophist but wrong."
    Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 08-01-2012 at 01:45 PM.

Page 1 of 15 12311 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Ron Paul - The Principles of Individual Liberty
    By Travlyr in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-15-2012, 12:39 PM
  2. Ron Paul, Romney, or Principles of Liberty?
    By UtahApocalypse in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 08-24-2012, 11:45 AM
  3. The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
    By Foundation_Of_Liberty in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 164
    Last Post: 08-01-2012, 01:09 PM
  4. Principles of Liberty
    By Icymudpuppy in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-30-2012, 09:52 AM
  5. Fred Thompson: The Place to Discuss Our Fundamental Principles
    By Bradley in DC in forum Other Presidential Candidates
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-15-2008, 10:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •