The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

[helmuth_hubener]

Gladly.

Excellent! Hopefully RPF is still here.

No.

Will you, in 2025, then? Along with admitting you were wrong, it would only follow that you should admit that you must not have known the future after all, and that your prediction must have just been a guess. Otherwise, it would have been right instead of wrong. Agreed? Do we have a deal?

[helmuth_hubener]

A torturous decline over ten years, by the way, is not what Ron Paul is predicting in the video above. The clear impression he is trying to give is "any day now!" interest rates will rise and bonds collapse, and certainly not more than a year from now. So if you are right, he is wrong, at least somewhat, at least in the specifics. The specifics that may not be important from a theoretical economic perspective (I think he is basically right on the economics, by the way), but that are the only things that are important from a "will I lose money or make money following this advice" perspective.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Excellent! Hopefully RPF is still here.

Will you, in 2025, then? Along with admitting you were wrong, it would only follow that you should admit that you must not have known the future after all, and that your prediction must have just been a guess. Otherwise, it would have been right instead of wrong. Agreed? Do we have a deal?

Yes.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

A torturous decline over ten years, by the way, is not what Ron Paul is predicting in the video above. The clear impression he is trying to give is "any day now!" interest rates will rise and bonds collapse, and certainly not more than a year from now. So if you are right, he is wrong, at least somewhat, at least in the specifics. The specifics that may not be important from a theoretical economic perspective (I think he is basically right on the economics, by the way), but that are the only things that are important from a "will I lose money or make money following this advice" perspective.

I didn't say it will be even decline. There will be sudden intermediate drops before the final collupse, etc. So both I and Ron could be right.

[helmuth_hubener]

I didn't say it will be even decline. There will be sudden intermediate drops before the final collupse, etc. So both I and Ron could be right.

True.

[helmuth_hubener]

Ayn Rand putting forth the principle of non-initiation of force to Phil Donahue:

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Ayn Rand putting forth the principle of non-initiation of force to Phil Donahue:

Yep. The principle comes from God, except she did not know it then.
Probably does now.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

The Truth About Politics
By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Read full article

...
Our schools and media portray corporations as sinister, and government as benign. But who wouldn’t rather take a sales call from Norwegian Cruise Line than an audit demand from the Internal Revenue Service?

Or imagine if a corporation fabricated a web of untruths, used them as a pretext to launch a violent attack on a people that had never caused Americans any harm, and brought about as many as a million deaths and millions more internal and external refugees. That corporation would be broken up and never heard from again. It would be denounced ceaselessly until the end of time.

Now all those things did happen, but they were carried out by the state. And as we all know, there have been no repercussions for anyone. No one has been punished. In fact, the perpetrators earn six-figure speaking fees. The whole thing is shrugged off as at worst an honest mistake. Some people are still outraged about it, but even they seem to take for granted that there’s really nothing that can be done about behavior like this on the part of the American regime.

Imagine there were a corporation that was somehow so entrenched that despite being responsible for a staggering death toll, it evaded all responsibility and simply carried on as before. The outrage would be deafening and overwhelming.

But so relentless has been the propaganda, ever since all of us were children, about the state’s benign nature that many people simply cannot bring themselves to think as badly about the state as they have been taught to think about corporations – even though the crimes of the state put to shame all the misdeeds of all existing corporations put together. Meanwhile, opponents of the state are routinely portrayed as incorrigible misanthropes, when in fact, in light of the state’s true nature, we are mankind’s greatest advocates.

...

Think for a moment just about this last claim: that government employees are our servants. These people staff an institution that decides how much of our income and wealth to expropriate in order to fund itself. They will imprison us if we do not pay. And we are to believe that these people are our servants?

For those not gullible enough to fall for such a transparent canard, the rationales become mildly more sophisticated. All right, all right, the state may say, it’s not quite right to say that the people govern themselves. But, they hasten to add, we can offer the next best thing: the people will be represented by individuals chosen from among them.

As Gerard Casey has argued, though, the idea of political representation is not meaningful. When an agent represents a business owner in a negotiation, he ensures that the owers’s interests are pursued. If the owners’s interests are defended only weakly, ignored, or downright defied, the owner chooses different representation.

None of this bears any resemblance to political representation. Here, a so-called representative is chosen by some people but actively opposed by others. Yet he is said to “represent” all of them. But how can this be, when he can’t possibly know them all, and even if he did, he’d discover they have mutually exclusive views and priorities?

Even if we focus entirely on those people who did vote for the representative, is their vote supposed to imply consent to his every decision? Some of them may have voted for him not for his positions or merits, but simply because he was less bad than the alternative. Others may have chosen him for one or two of his stances, but may be indifferent or hostile on everything else. How can even these people – who actually voted for the representative – seriously be said to be “represented” by him?

But the idea of political representation, while meaningless, is not without its usefulness to the modern state. It helps to conceal the brute fact that, despite all the talk about “popular rule” and “governing ourselves,” even the “free societies” of the West amount to some people ruling, and others being ruled.

When the results are announced tonight amid cheers and celebration, then, remember what it all represents: the triumph of compulsion over cooperation, coercion over freedom, and propaganda over truth. The civics textbooks may write with breathless awe about the American political system, but this is by far the worst thing about the US. Rather than celebrate the antisocial world of politics, let us raise a glass to the anti-politics of the free market, which has yielded more wealth and prosperity through peace and cooperation than the state and its politicians could with all the coercion in the world.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

What Will Trump Do About the Central-Bank Cartel?

Trump could end global banking tyranny

Thorsten Pollet | Mises.org - February 13, 2017

Of course, change for the better doesn’t come from politics. It comes from better ideas. For it is ideas that determine human action. Whatever these ideas are and wherever they come from: They make humans act. For this reason the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (1881 – 1973) advocates the idea of the “sound money principle” –

“The sound-money principle has two aspects. It is affirmative in approving the market’s choice of a commonly used medium of exchange. It is negative in obstructing the government’s propensity to meddle with the currency system.”

Mises also explains convincingly the importance of the sound money principle for each and every one of us –

“It is impossible to grasp the meaning of the idea of sound money if one does not realize that it was devised as an instrument for the protection of civil liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments. Ideologically it belongs in the same class with political constitutions and bills of right.”

Mises’s sound money principle calls for ending central banking once and for all and opening up a free market in money. Having brought to a halt political globalism for now, the new US administration has now also a once in a lifetime chance to make the world great again — simply by ending the state’s monopoly of money production.

If the US would move in that direction — ending legal tender laws and giving the freedom to the American people to use, say, gold, silver, or bitcoin as their preferred media of exchange — the rest of the world would most likely have to follow the example. That said, Mr. Trump could really make a real change, simply by embracing Mises’s sound money principle.

http://www.infowars.com/what-will-tr...l-bank-cartel/

Full article here.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

The Law of Justice

There is a law of Justice which if understood and applied allows to create a just society and thus preserve and develop liberty and prosperity of the people.

A just social order must be based on the Law of Justice.

What is justice? It is derived from a fundamental principle:

Step 1: The fundamental principle:

Thou shall love your neighbor as yourself.

From this follows:

Step 2: The law of Justice:

Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

From this follows:

Step 3: The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).

How? Simple: as you would not like that someone committed an act of aggression against you and your property, so should you not commit such acts of aggression against others.

From this follows:

Step 4: The Group

Since no one individually has the right to commit acts of aggression against anyone and anyone’s property, neither has a group (no matter the size) the right to commit such acts of aggression, (because no one could rightly delegate a right they do not have).

So, as it is wrong for one person to rob his neighbor, so it is also wrong for many persons to rob him.

From this follows:

Step 5: No Taxation of Other People’s Property

Since no individual has the right to forcibly extract wealth from his neighbor, he cannot delegate such non-existent right to the group.

Therefore public taxation of private property is an act of aggression of the group against individual and his property, and thus is immoral and unjust.

And that which is unjust is evil by definition.

No society based on evil can ever persist, for it will unavoidably self-destruct.

Therefore no society based on public taxation of private property can ever endure, but will unavoidably self-destruct by corruption and violence, because it is BUILT upon aggressive violence of taxation, which is nothing more than legalized plunder, which is nothing more or less than legalized, monopolized, and institutionalized evil, written as law.

Such abomination of evil posing as law must not exist, if the society is ever to survive and prosper!

In general, any violation of the NAP, and any violation of private property is evil and unjust by definition, and any law sanctioning such violation is a legislative crime and an abomination that must not be allowed to exist, if the society is to survive and to prosper.

From which follows:

Step 6: No Regulation of Other People’s Property

Regulation is control. No one has the right to control the property he does not own, neither can one delegate such non-existent right to a group or any third party.

Therefore all public regulation of private property, except one, (that private property be not violated), is immoral and unjust.

What about anti-nuisance laws?

No one has the right to destroy or pollute anyone else’s property: neither by offensive smells, air, water or ground pollution, nor by projecting offensive sounds or images upon his neighbor’s property. So property rights take good care of environment protection and anti-nuisance laws.

What is Liberty?

Liberty is the right to do with your own property what you please, as long as you do not violate the property of another.
In other words, Liberty is anything you wish to do as long as it does not violate the NAP. (See Morality section at the end).

Thus a society built on the Non-Aggression Principle is the only just order possible. It is also the only way to have real Liberty.

Just Government

Then what about government? What is it, and what is its proper role?

To govern is to control. No one has the right to control the property he does not own. Thus any government has the right to govern or control ONLY the property it owns.

Since public representative government owns only public property, it has the right to govern public property only, and nothing else.

What is public property?

It is property to which all citizens of a certain location have equal claim of ownership. Therefore, since the claim of ownership is equal among the citizens, the just government of such public property must be done:

1. By the voice of the majority of the citizens, provided that
2. Every citizen is treated equally (since all have equal claim on the public property), and
3. The property of no individual is violated in the process.

How do you justly finance such public government?

Anything that is just must not violate the Non-Aggression Principle (the NAP).

Therefore the only just way to finance a public representative government is via public property user fees and voluntary contributions. User fee means you pay only if you use the property. If you don’t use it, you do not pay for it.

Again, since all citizens have equal claim of ownership upon public property, the public property user fees to be just must be:

1. Explicitly agreed to by the majority of the citizens.
2. Administered equally among the citizens, and
3. Collection of such fees must not violate the private property of anyone.

What about justice enforcement and courts?

Anyone has an unalienable right to defend themselves and their property. No individual has the right to deprive his neighbor of such right of just self-defense.

Therefore no individual, nor group, has the right to claim exclusive monopoly on justice enforcement, for such claim would be unjust.

This means that justice can rightly be enforced by anyone, as long as such enforcement is just.

Of course, individuals could voluntarily contract with any third parties to provide such just enforcement.

What is Private Property?

Private Property is naturally derived from, and includes the self-ownership of individual. Ownership is just control.

You own you, your body, your mind, the fruits of your labor. No one has a just right to control by force that which belongs to you against your will.

A just owner of a property is either the first user of it, or a recipient of it from the previous owner via voluntary gift, bequest or sale.

What about Information or Intellectual Property?

Property claims (i.e. exclusive just control) are meaningful and non-self-contradictory only with regards to TANGIBLE property. Such claims are entirely meaningless and self-contradictory for intangible objects.

Therefore information, or intellectual property ownership is only meaningful in terms of physical, TANGIBLE copies of information.

To own information is to own a tangible copy of it. Nothing less, nothing more.

Thus every tangible copy of information constitutes a separate intellectual property, even though it might represent exactly the same information.

Thus Intellectual Property is nothing more or less than ownership of a tangible copy of information.

Assigning and enforcing “ownership” to intangible information in general, leads to irreconcilable self-contradictions, and to violations of tangible property rights, and thus is unjust.

Conclusion:

Justice is NAP, that is non-violation of private property, with implied right to use equal force to neutralize/offset the aggression against one's property. To be just, any society must have the NAP (the Non-Aggression Principle) as its core principle.

Anything that does not violate the NAP is just and has the right to exist.

Anything that violates the NAP is immoral and unjust.

What about God, morality and his laws?

The same principle applies. God is the Creator and the Just owner of the world. Therefore all who live upon it are responsible to him to use his property only in the way he approves of. However no-one has the right to presume to speak for God or to enforce his laws without his permission.

Any such usurpation by anyone must be treated for what it is: an act of aggression, and it is just to end all aggression by force, which is the definition of just self-defense.


These are the laws of Justice. Let’s build a world upon these just and holy principles.

Amen.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Updated Step 5 above as follows:

Step 5: No Taxation of Other People’s Property

Since no individual has the right to forcibly extract wealth from his neighbor, he cannot delegate such non-existent right to the group.

Therefore public taxation of private property is an act of aggression of the group against individual and his property, and thus is immoral and unjust.

And that which is unjust is evil by definition.

No society based on evil can ever persist, for it will unavoidably self-destruct.

Therefore no society based on public taxation of private property can ever endure, but will unavoidably self-destruct by corruption and violence, because it is BUILT upon aggressive violence of taxation, which is nothing more than legalized plunder, which is nothing more or less than legalized, monopolized, and institutionalized evil, written as law.

Such abomination of evil posing as law must not exist, if the society is ever to survive and prosper!

In general, any violation of the NAP, and any violation of private property is evil and unjust by definition, and any law sanctioning such violation is a legislative crime and an abomination that must not be allowed to exist, if the society is to survive and to prosper.

From which follows:

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Added this section to the article above:

What is Liberty?
Liberty is the right to do with your own property what you please, as long as you do not violate the property of another.
In other words, Liberty is anything you wish to do as long as it does not violate the NAP. (See Morality section at the end).

Thus a society built on the Non-Aggression Principle is the only just order possible. It is also the only way to have real Liberty.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Edited 1st paragraph of the Conclusion as follows:

Conclusion:

Justice is NAP, that is non-violation of private property, with implied right to use equal force to neutralize/offset the aggression against one's property. To be just, any society must have the NAP (the Non-Aggression Principle) as its core principle.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

This is cute. I like it:

https://phibetaiota.net/2017/02/evan...he-deep-state/

These measures are proper leaves and branches of the root measure, which root is unfortunately not found in the linked article.

The root is points 5 and 6 in the Law of Justice essay. Namely: abolishing all public taxation of private property, and abolishing all public regulation of private property (except one, which is that private property be not violated), as the direct consequence of the Law of Justice and the NAP derived in steps 1-4.

The root gives the power to all branches and leaves. Without the root fix, subordinate problems are bound to return without the underlying doctrinal principle of the Law of Justice.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

The Law of Justice

There is a law of Justice which if understood and applied allows to create a just society and thus preserve and develop liberty and prosperity of the people.

A just social order must be based on the Law of Justice.

What is justice? It is derived from a fundamental principle:

Step 1: The fundamental principle:

Thou shall love your neighbor as yourself.

From this follows:

Step 2: The law of Justice:

Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

From this follows:

Step 3: The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).

How? Simple: as you would not like that someone committed an act of aggression against you and your property, so should you not commit such acts of aggression against others.

From this follows:

Step 4: The Group

Since no one individually has the right to commit acts of aggression against anyone and anyone’s property, neither has a group (no matter the size) the right to commit such acts of aggression, (because no one could rightly delegate a right they do not have).

So, as it is wrong for one person to rob his neighbor, so it is also wrong for many persons to rob him.

From this follows:

Step 5: No Taxation of Other People’s Property

Since no individual has the right to forcibly extract wealth from his neighbor, he cannot delegate such non-existent right to the group.

Therefore public taxation of private property is an act of aggression of the group against individual and his property, and thus is immoral and unjust.

And that which is unjust is evil by definition.

No society based on evil can ever persist, for it will unavoidably self-destruct.

Therefore no society based on public taxation of private property can ever endure, but will unavoidably self-destruct by corruption and violence, because it is BUILT upon aggressive violence of taxation, which is nothing more than legalized plunder, which is nothing more or less than legalized, monopolized, and institutionalized evil, written as law.

Such abomination of evil posing as law must not exist, if the society is ever to survive and prosper!

In general, any violation of the NAP, and any violation of private property is evil and unjust by definition, and any law sanctioning such violation is a legislative crime and an abomination that must not be allowed to exist, if the society is to survive and to prosper.

From which follows:

Step 6: No Regulation of Other People’s Property

Regulation is control. No one has the right to control the property he does not own, neither can one delegate such non-existent right to a group or any third party.

Therefore all public regulation of private property, except one, (that private property be not violated), is immoral and unjust.

What about anti-nuisance laws?

No one has the right to destroy or pollute anyone else’s property: neither by offensive smells, air, water or ground pollution, nor by projecting offensive sounds or images upon his neighbor’s property. So property rights take good care of environment protection and anti-nuisance laws.

What is Liberty?

Liberty is the right to do with your own property what you please, as long as you do not violate the property of another.
In other words, Liberty is anything you wish to do as long as it does not violate the NAP. (See Morality section at the end).

Thus a society built on the Non-Aggression Principle is the only just order possible. It is also the only way to have real Liberty.

Just Government

Then what about government? What is it, and what is its proper role?

To govern is to control. No one has the right to control the property he does not own. Thus any government has the right to govern or control ONLY the property it owns.

Since public representative government owns only public property, it has the right to govern public property only, and nothing else.

What is public property?

It is property to which all citizens of a certain location have equal claim of ownership. Therefore, since the claim of ownership is equal among the citizens, the just government of such public property must be done:

1. By the voice of the majority of the citizens, provided that
2. Every citizen is treated equally (since all have equal claim on the public property), and
3. The property of no individual is violated in the process.

How do you justly finance such public government?

Anything that is just must not violate the Non-Aggression Principle (the NAP).

Therefore the only just way to finance a public representative government is via public property user fees and voluntary contributions. User fee means you pay only if you use the property. If you don’t use it, you do not pay for it.

Again, since all citizens have equal claim of ownership upon public property, the public property user fees to be just must be:

1. Explicitly agreed to by the majority of the citizens.
2. Administered equally among the citizens, and
3. Collection of such fees must not violate the private property of anyone.

What about justice enforcement and courts?

Anyone has an unalienable right to defend themselves and their property. No individual has the right to deprive his neighbor of such right of just self-defense.

Therefore no individual, nor group, has the right to claim exclusive monopoly on justice enforcement, for such claim would be unjust.

This means that justice can rightly be enforced by anyone, as long as such enforcement is just.

Of course, individuals could voluntarily contract with any third parties to provide such just enforcement.

What is Private Property?

Private Property is naturally derived from, and includes the self-ownership of individual. Ownership is just control.

You own you, your body, your mind, the fruits of your labor. No one has a just right to control by force that which belongs to you against your will.

A just owner of a property is either the first user of it, or a recipient of it from the previous owner via voluntary gift, bequest or sale.

What about Information or Intellectual Property?

Property claims (i.e. exclusive just control) are meaningful and non-self-contradictory only with regards to TANGIBLE property. Such claims are entirely meaningless and self-contradictory for intangible objects.

Therefore information, or intellectual property ownership is only meaningful in terms of physical, TANGIBLE copies of information.

To own information is to own a tangible copy of it. Nothing less, nothing more.

Thus every tangible copy of information constitutes a separate intellectual property, even though it might represent exactly the same information.

Thus Intellectual Property is nothing more or less than ownership of a tangible copy of information.

Assigning and enforcing “ownership” to intangible information in general, leads to irreconcilable self-contradictions, and to violations of tangible property rights, and thus is unjust.

Conclusion:

Justice is NAP, that is non-violation of private property, with implied right to use equal force to neutralize/offset the aggression against one's property. To be just, any society must have the NAP (the Non-Aggression Principle) as its core principle.

Anything that does not violate the NAP is just and has the right to exist.

Anything that violates the NAP is immoral and unjust.

What about God, morality and his laws?

The same principle applies. God is the Creator and the Just owner of the world. Therefore all who live upon it are responsible to him to use his property only in the way he approves of. However no-one has the right to presume to speak for God or to enforce his laws without his permission.

Any such usurpation by anyone must be treated for what it is: an act of aggression, and it is just to end all aggression by force, which is the definition of just self-defense.


These are the laws of Justice. Let’s build a world upon these just and holy principles.

Amen.

Trump would likely be immediately assassinated if he ever tried to abolish the fed.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Lew Rockwell: Break Up the USA
Prominent thinker makes case for abandoning leftists

LewRockwell.com - February 21, 2017

"Let my people go" (Exodus 8:1)
Justice demands it.
Remember it didn't go well for the Pharaoh when he refused.





Some of our assumptions are so deeply embedded that we cannot perceive them ourselves.

Case in point: everyone takes for granted that it’s normal for a country of 320 million to be dictated to by a single central authority. The only debate we’re permitted to have is who should be selected to carry out this grotesque and inhumane function.

Here’s the debate we should be having instead: what if we simply abandoned this quixotic mission, and went our separate ways? It’s an idea that’s gaining traction — much too late, to be sure, but better late than never.

For a long time it seemed as if the idea of secession was unlikely to take hold in modern America. Schoolchildren, after all, are told to associate secession with slavery and treason. American journalists treat the idea as if it were self-evidently ridiculous and contemptible (an attitude they curiously do not adopt when faced with US war propaganda, I might add).

And yet all it took was the election of Donald Trump for the alleged toxicity of secession to vanish entirely. The left’s principled opposition to secession and devotion to the holy Union went promptly out the window on November 8, 2016. Today, about one in three Californians polled favors the Golden State’s secession from the Union.

In other words, some people seem to be coming to the conclusion that the whole system is rotten and should be abandoned.

It’s true that most leftists have not come around to this way of thinking. Many have adopted the creepy slogan “not my president” – in other words, I may not want this particular person having the power to intervene in all aspects of life and holding in his hands the ability to destroy the entire earth, but I most certainly do want someone else to have those powers.

Not exactly a head-on challenge to the system, in other words. (That’s what we libertarians are for.) The problem in their view is only that the wrong people are in charge.

Indeed, leftists who once said “small is beautiful” and “question authority” had little trouble embracing large federal bureaucracies in charge of education, health, housing, and pretty much every important thing. And these authorities, of course, you are not to question (unless they are headed by a Trump nominee, in which case they may be temporarily ignored).

Meanwhile, the right wing has been calling for the abolition of the Department of Education practically since its creation in 1979. That hasn’t happened, as you may have noticed. Having the agency in Republican hands became the more urgent task.

Each side pours tremendous resources into trying to take control of the federal apparatus and lord it over the whole country.

How about we call it quits?

No more federal fiefdoms, no more forcing 320 million people into a single mold, no more dictating to everyone from the central state.

Radical, yes, and surely not a perspective we were exposed to as schoolchildren. But is it so unreasonable? Is it not in fact the very height of reason and good sense? And some people, we may reasonably hope, may be prepared to consider these simple and humane questions for the very first time.

Now can we imagine the left actually growing so unhappy as to favor secession as a genuine solution?

Here’s what I know. On the one hand, the left made its long march through the institutions: universities, the media, popular culture. Their intention was to remake American society. The task involved an enormous amount of time and wealth. Secession would amount to abandoning this string of successes, and it’s hard to imagine them giving up in this way after sinking all those resources into the long march.

At the same time, it’s possible that the cultural elite have come to despise the American bourgeoisie so much that they’re willing to treat all of that as a sunk cost, and simply get out.

Whatever the case may be, what we can and should do is encourage all decentralization and secession talk, such that these heretofore forbidden options become live once again.

I can already hear the objections from Beltway libertarians, who are not known for supporting political decentralization. To the contrary, they long for the day when libertarian judges and lawmakers will impose liberty on the entire country. And on a more basic level, they find talk of states’ rights, nullification, and secession – about which they hold the most exquisitely conventional and p.c. views – to be sources of embarrassment.

How are they going to rub elbows with the Fed chairman if they’re associated with ideas like these?

Of course we would like to see liberty flourish everywhere. But it’s foolish not to accept more limited victories and finite goals when these are the only realistic options.

The great libertarians – from Felix Morley and Frank Chodorov to Murray Rothbard and Hans Hoppe — have always favored political decentralization; F.A. Hayek once said that in the future liberty was more likely to flourish in small states. This is surely the way forward for us today, if we want to see tangible changes in our lifetimes.

Thomas Sowell referred to two competing visions that lay at the heart of so much political debate: the constrained and the unconstrained. In the constrained vision, man’s nature is not really malleable, his existence contains an element of tragedy, and there is little that politics can do by way of grandiose schemes to perfect society. In the unconstrained vision, the only limitation to how much society can be remade in the image of its political rulers is how much the rubes are willing to stomach at a given moment.

These competing visions are reaching an endgame vis-a-vis one another. As Angelo Codevilla observes, the left has overplayed its hand. The regular folks have reached the limits of their toleration of leftist intimidation and thought control, and are hitting back.

We can fight it out, or we can go our separate ways.

When I say go our separate ways, I don’t mean “the left” goes one way and “the right” goes another. I mean the left goes one way and everyone else — rather a diverse group indeed — goes another. People who live for moral posturing, to broadcast their superiority over everyone else, and to steamroll differences in the name of “diversity,” should go one way, and everyone who rolls his eyes at all this should go another.

“No people and no part of a people,” said Ludwig von Mises nearly one hundred years ago, “shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want.” So much wisdom in that simple sentiment. And so much conflict and anguish could be avoided if only we’d heed it.

http://www.infowars.com/lew-rockwell-break-up-the-usa/

[osan]

Never has the color blue proven so obscene to the eyes of men of integrity. Unfortunately, red fares only marginally better, most of the time. They are both the colors of technologically enabled tyranny.

Some of our assumptions are so deeply embedded that we cannot perceive them ourselves.

I see Lew has been reading my mad rantings.

“No people and no part of a people,” said Ludwig von Mises nearly one hundred years ago, “shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want.”

I could not agree more, but would tune it to extend that respect to the right of each individual.

So much wisdom in that simple sentiment. And so much conflict and anguish could be avoided if only we’d heed it.

If only that were true in the positive world. This is a normative ideal that cannot be safely taken up in the current global political environment.

Let us assume the fifty states were to politely go their separate ways as sovereign states. There are many, many issues that would have to be resolved, among them being:

1. Resolution of the national debt liabilities in apportionment among the fifty new nation states
2. Resolution of the national asset credits in apportionment among the fifty new nation states
3. Disposition of conventional military assets in apportionment among the fifty new nation states
4. Disposition of nuclear, biological, and chemical weaponry
5. Disposition and apportionment of "black" weapons systems
6. Disposition of other "national security" assets such as those of CIA, NSA, DIA, and so forth.
7. Disposition of privately-held assets now become "transnational" (e.g. network infrastructure)

I am sure the list goes on for quite a bit more, but these issues alone represent an enormous effort of equitable settlements. One does not simply secede and go on his merry way. The tangle of moral questions, not to mention legalities, is staggering to say the least. The secession of even a single state like California would not be as the idealists imagine it.

I would also point out that certain resultant arrangements on the part of any given state stand to give rise to severe concerns on the parts of the others. For example, imagine CA has seceded and decided to become a vassal state of China, surrendering its sovereignty and military facilities to Beijing, upon which the Chinese rapidly established numerous military bases all across the land. Does anyone here actually believe that the rest of the states would not rightly get themselves in a knot over it? Imagine China were to undertake a huge military buildup on the west coast of the former state of California, (now called Qing Tao Beer) regardless of their actual intentions, sending thousands of tanks, artillery, and other assets and personnel right to the physical borders with Nevada, Arizona, and so on. Given the clear testament of human history, such an endeavor would pose abundant valid reason for the remnant of America to become very nervous. The potential for such situations would justify either the prohibition of secession or the imposition of such requirements that would limit the national sovereignty of the seceded state such that they could never come to such arrangements with other foreign powers.

This is not the normative ideal, but it becomes a matter of practical necessity in a world full of predatory neighbors seeking any opportunity of advantage over their rivals.

This is especially probable with a state such as California where the "government" is so abominably feckless in its fumbling ineptitude that they are virtually guaranteed to paint themselves into such a corner with a predator such as China that, once the trap set for them was sprung, they would be left with no choice but to toe the line of their new masters. It is all but absolute in the assurance that this would become the case, leaving the North American continent with the establishment of an enormous "foreign" beach head. Who, pray you tell, with the least shred of sense, would not find this very unsettling? The race of men, since entering the aeon of Empire, have no history of particularly long periods of peaceful coexistence. Now that we are so technologically enabled, the chances of any nation not exercising their advantage in some manner deleterious to others approaches nil. It is the nature of things.

The world is a wicked mess and, denominators being what they are, necessity drives otherwise good men to less than shining behaviors for the sake of not being consumed by the devils that surround them. This is one of the sad realities of a world devoid of virtue and basic sense.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

osan, you make a lot of good points.

However, the ideals and principles of pure truth should never be abandoned on the false alter of practicality. Truth is truth, no matter the circumstance. Justice demands the right of anyone to secede, provided such secession is not a tool of direct aggression. Liberty has no meaning without the right of secession. Self-ownership, the foundation of Liberty and Justice, is defined as the right to secede. If you are not free to secede, you are not truly free, in principle, and that is unjust.

No good can come from violating justice. None. In fact good is defined as justice. And evil is defined as injustice.

Therefore denying secession, except for the reason of direct aggression, is evil, which is no good, by definition. And no good comes from no good.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

The Law of Justice
Love, Justice, and Liberty – the one triumvirate of Truth.

The Law of Justice is the foundation for any just, free, and prosperous society. Therefore it is absolutely imperative to understand what Justice is, and what are its direct, natural and inescapable consequences.

Let’s figure it out.

The principle and the law of Justice is derived from a fundamental principle.

Step 1: The ONE Fundamental Principle

All things are inseparably and most fundamentally connected. We are all a part of one great and indivisible whole. This one great whole is the ONE consciousness, the one self-awareness, the ONE Great I Am, and we all share it. One consciousness, but many minds; it moves the planets and shines the stars, and it gives life and existence to them all.

And because we all share one consciousness, we are all most profoundly and most fundamentally connected, and therefore whatsoever we do to anyone, we are actually and inescapably, and ultimately doing it to ourselves!

Therefore the one and only sane, and non-self-contradictory way of being, that follows, is:

Step 2: Love

Thou shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Because it IS yourself! Anything else would be self-contradictory and self-destructive, because you are all, and all are you, since we are all one.

From which naturally follows:

Step 3: The Law of Justice

Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

Because, in reality, there are no “others,” it is all YOU, and you ARE, actually, doing it to yourself, whether you yet see it or not (but you certainly will); and to do to self what you would not, is a self-contradiction.

A person who does evil to others, is like someone who is unwittingly pounding his own hand with a hammer, (which due to some disorder he does not yet realize, but he definitely will) because he is doing real damage to himself, which he cannot escape any more than he can escape self.

This reality, this truth, though may be temporarily hidden from view, always triumphs in the end to absolute uttermost. Some call it karma. I call it the Eternal Law of Justice. And it is a simple consequence of the fact that we are all one, whether we yet realize it or not.

You can escape this reality no more than you can escape self. It cannot, in principle, be done, because that would be a self-contradiction.

The more intelligent a being is, the sooner he or she realizes this fundamental truth. But, sooner or later, all will be constrained to acknowledge this fact, because again, it is the fundamental reality of all existence, that cannot, in principle, be avoided, at least no more than one can avoid self. And, news flash: self has no end, therefore justice has no end. Time will prove this fact to all.

So from this, directly follows the only sane conclusion:

Step 4: The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).

Which is prohibition on initiation of aggressive violence against anyone and against their property, with the implied right to use equal and opposite force to offset or neutralize the aggression of another.

In scripture the NAP is defined simply as: “Thou shall not kill,” and “Thou shall not steal.” Short, precise and sweet.

So why does NAP follow from the previous step? Because if you would not have acts of aggression committed against you or your property, you yourself should not commit such acts of aggression.

Anything else would be self-contradictory, and therefore false.

From which follows:

Step 5: The Group

Since the group derives all of its legitimate authority by delegation from the individuals comprising the group, and since no individual has the right or authority to commit acts of aggression against anyone, neither has the group (no matter the size) the authority or right to commit such acts of aggression against anyone, because no one can delegate to it an authority they do not have.

In other words, if it is wrong for one person to rob his neighbor, it is also wrong for many persons to rob him. Increasing the number of thieves does not make theft any more legitimate or just.

Which means that the NAP applies to the group, just as much as it applies to an individual.

The famous and deceptive phrase that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” legitimately applies to public property only (see the definition of public property below). It does not, and cannot, in principle, apply to private property. Why? Because if it were not so, any two people would be justified in robbing any one person, which would be a violation of the law of justice, and would be self-contradictory, and therefore wrong by definition.

From which follows:

Step 6: No Taxation of Other People’s Property

Since no individual has the right to forcibly extract wealth from his neighbor, he cannot delegate such authority to the group, because he cannot delegate an authority he does not have.

Therefore public taxation of private property is an act of aggression of the group against individual and his property, and thus is immoral and unjust.

And that which is unjust is evil by definition.

No society based on evil can ever persist, for evil is a self-contradiction, and that which is built upon self-contradiction will unavoidably self-destruct.

Therefore no society based on public taxation of private property can ever endure, but will unavoidably self-destruct by corruption and violence, unsurprisingly so, because it is built upon aggressive violence of taxation, which is nothing more than legalized plunder, which is nothing more or less than legalized, monopolized, and institutionalized evil, written as law.

Such abomination of self-contradiction and evil, posing as law must not exist, if the society is ever to survive and prosper!

In general, any violation of the NAP, and any violation of private property is evil and unjust by definition; and any law sanctioning such violation is a legislative crime and an abomination that must not be allowed to exist, if the society is to survive and to prosper.

From which follows:

Step 7: No Regulation of Other People’s Property

Regulation is control. No one has the right to control the property he does not own, neither can one delegate such non-existent right to a group or any third party.

Therefore all public regulation of private property, except one, (that private property be not violated), is immoral and unjust, because it violates the NAP and is an act of aggressive violence against individual and his property, and therefore is a self-contradiction.

What about anti-nuisance laws?

No one has the right to destroy or pollute anyone else’s property: neither by offensive smells, air, water or ground pollution, nor by projecting offensive sounds or images upon his neighbor’s property. So property rights take good care of environment protection and anti-nuisance laws.

From this non-regulation of other people’s property follows:

Step 8: Liberty

What is Liberty?

Liberty is the right to do with your own property what you please, as long as you do not violate the property of another.

In other words, Liberty is anything you wish to do as long as it does not violate the NAP. (See Morality section at the end).

In general, anything that does not violate justice has the right to exist, and it is unjust to forbid it, which defines Liberty.

Example: Since it does not violate justice that a peaceful person should possess an automatic weapon, it is unjust to forbid such possession.

Thus, denying Liberty is unjust.

From which follows:

Step 9: The Triumvirate of Truth

We have established that Love is to treat others as self, or as you wish to be treated, which is also the definition of Justice, and we have shown that Justice demands Liberty, for denying Liberty is unjust.

Thus we see that these three things: Love, Justice, and Liberty are inseparably and logically connected, and not one of them exists or has any meaning without the other two, because Justice and Liberty are none other than expressions and the definition of Love.

This establishes Love, Justice and Liberty as an indivisible triumvirate, where each part is defined by, and does not exist without the others, — constituting one Truth — a Truth without which no society can survive or prosper.

From which follows:

Step 10: Just Government

Then what about government? What is it, and what is its proper role?

To govern is to control. No one has the right to control the property he does not own. Thus any government has the right to govern or control ONLY the property it owns.

Since public representative government owns only public property, it has the right to govern public property only, and nothing else.

What is public property?

It is property to which all citizens of a certain location have equal claim of ownership. Therefore, since the claim of ownership is equal among the citizens, the just government of such public property must be done:

1. By the voice of the majority of the citizens, provided that
2. Every citizen is treated equally (since all have equal claim on the public property), and
3. The property of no individual is violated in the process.

How do you justly finance such public government?

Anything that is just must not violate the Non-Aggression Principle (the NAP).

Therefore the only just way to finance a public representative government is via public property user fees and voluntary contributions. User fee means you pay only if you use the property. If you don’t use it, you do not pay for it.

Again, since all citizens have equal claim of ownership upon public property, the public property user fees to be just must be:

1. Explicitly agreed to by the majority of the citizens.
2. Administered equally among the citizens, and
3. Collection of such fees must not violate the private property of anyone.

What is Private Property?

Private Property is exclusive ownership and is naturally derived from, and includes the self-ownership of individual. Ownership is just control.

You own you, your body, your mind, the fruits of your labor. No one has a just right to control by force that which belongs to you against your will.

A just owner of a property is either the first user of it, or a recipient of it from the previous owner via voluntary gift, bequest or sale.

Private property, because it includes the self-ownership of individual, is therefore the very foundation of every virtue and right, and of Liberty itself, because without self-ownership there can be no virtue, no rights, and no liberty at all, which would be unjust.

In fact, no virtue or right can even be defined without the concept of property. And private property is the most fundamental type of property from which all other types are derived.

Therefore anything that violates Private Property violates Justice and Liberty, and thus is evil by definition.

Not surprisingly, the FIRST plank of Satanist-Luciferian-Communist manifesto is the abolishing of Private Property by violence of the state, because by abolishing it they abolish every right and virtue, and Liberty and Justice itself, which is evil by definition, and if fully adopted, would result in entire destruction of the world and of all who live in it. This is not surprising considering the source of the manifesto, which is the devil “who seeketh to destroy the souls of men” and to make them miserable like unto himself.

Thus:

Good is Private Property, and

Evil is violation of Private Property, and

Non-violation of Private Property is the definition of Justice and Liberty.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

So,

Step 11: What about justice enforcement and courts?

Anyone has an unalienable right to defend themselves and their property.

No individual has the right to deprive his neighbor of such right of just self-defense. Neither has any individual the right to claim exclusive monopoly on justice enforcement; therefore no one can delegate such right of exclusive monopoly to a group, because no one can delegate an authority they do not have.

Thus no individual, and consequently no group, has the right to claim exclusive monopoly on justice enforcement, for such claim would be unjust, for it would violate natural unalienable rights of individuals.

This means that justice can rightly be enforced by anyone, as long as such enforcement is just.

Of course, individuals could voluntarily contract with any third parties to provide such just enforcement.

Step 12: What about Information or Intellectual Property?

Property claims (i.e. exclusive just control) are meaningful and non-self-contradictory only with regards to TANGIBLE property. Such claims are entirely meaningless and self-contradictory for intangible objects.

Therefore information, or intellectual property ownership is only meaningful in terms of physical, TANGIBLE copies of information.

To own information is to own a tangible copy of it. Nothing less, nothing more.

Thus every tangible copy of information constitutes a separate intellectual property, even though it might represent exactly the same information.

And Intellectual Property is nothing more or less than ownership of a TANGIBLE copy of information.

Assigning and enforcing “ownership” to intangible information in general, leads to irreconcilable self-contradictions, and to violations of tangible property rights, and thus is unjust.

What would be an example of such irreconcilable self-contradiction caused by erroneous claims of ownership of intangible information in general?

Information is a pattern or an arrangement of matter. To claim “ownership” i.e. exclusive control over a pattern or an arrangement in general, is to claim the ownership and control of ALL matter in the Universe, because any matter can be used to encode such information, anywhere in the Universe, and in fact, every particle of matter contains information about all other particles of matter. Such claim of universal control over all matter, with an alleged “right” to prevent others by force from arranging their tangible property in that pattern, without actually owning all tangible property in the Universe, and without having one’s tangible property violated in any way, is a self-contradiction, because it creates contradictory ownership claims over all tangible property in the Universe, and if enforced, constitutes an act of aggression against the tangible property of others, and is therefore unjust.

Conclusion:

Justice is NAP, that is non-violation of private property, with implied right to use equal force to neutralize/offset the aggression against one’s property. To be just, any society must have the NAP (the Non-Aggression Principle) as its core principle.

Anything that does not violate the NAP is just and has the right to exist.

Anything that violates the NAP is immoral and unjust.

What about God, morality and his laws?

Exactly the same principle applies to God. Indeed, he is the source of this principle.

Love, Justice, and Liberty constitute the entire system of morality of God.

In his own words: “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.”

So NAP applies to God just as much as to anyone else. Indeed God is God because he lives by such laws (for he would cease to be God if he didn’t), and he is the one who gave these laws to man.

Now, God is the Creator and the Just owner of the Universe. Therefore all who live in it are responsible to him to use his property only in the way he approves of. However no-one has the right to presume to speak for God or to enforce his laws without his permission.

Any such usurpation by anyone must be treated for what it is: an act of aggression, and it is just to end all aggression by force, which is the definition of just self-defense.

These are the laws of Justice. Let’s build a world upon these just and holy principles.

Amen.


Note: you can find the abbreviated version of this proof here.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Based on the above proof I propose the following amendment to the Constitution, to square it with the Eternal principles of Justice.
Note: the amendment is written in this way because to be effective, the Constitution must not only proclaim the law, it must also educate the people as to WHY such law is true.

Justice Constitutional Amendment

(JCA)

Justice

Since Justice is the definition of Good and right, and
Since doing unto others as you would have them do to you is the definition of justice and morality, and
Since non-violation of private property is the direct consequence of this principle,

THEREFORE, non-violation of private property, with the implied right to use equal and opposite force to offset and neutralize such violation, is the definition of Justice.

THEREFORE, all violations of Private Property are evil and unjust, and are expressly forbidden.

Individual and the Group

Furthermore, since the only legitimate authority that public representative government can have is delegated to it by the individuals comprising it, and since no one can delegate an authority he does not have, and

No Public Taxation of Private Property

Since no individual has the right to forcibly confiscate his neighbor's property, he cannot delegate such authority to the government.

THEREFORE, all public taxation of private property is evil and unjust, and therefore forbidden and abolished.

Limits to Public Regulation of Private Property

Furthermore, since no individual has the right to control his neighbor's property without his neighbor's permission, therefore he cannot delegate such authority to the government,

THEREFORE, all public regulation of private property, — except one, that private property of no one be violated, — is evil and unjust, and is therefore forbidden and abolished.

Courts and Justice Enforcement

Furthermore, since no individual has the right to deny his neighbor the right of just self-defense nor has the right to claim the monopoly on justice enforcement, he cannot delegate such authority to the government,

THEREFORE, public government forced monopoly on justice enforcement is evil and unjust, and is therefore forbidden and abolished.

All have the right to enforce justice personally, or to contract with any third party for such enforcement, as long as such enforcement is just.

Proper Role of Government

Furthermore, since government is control, and no one has the right to control that which they do not own, and since the only thing that public representative government justly owns is public property,

THEREFORE, public representative government has the right to govern public property only, and nothing else.

Public Property

Public property is defined as property to which all citizens of a certain location have equal claim of ownership.

THEREFORE, to be just, public property

1. must be governed by the voice of the majority of the citizens, provided that
2. all citizens are treated equally with respect to the property, (since they all have equal claim of ownership upon it), and that
3. the property of no individual be violated in the process.

Just Financing of Public Government

Since no one has the right to tax what they do not own, such taxation being the definition and the essence of plunder, and
Since the only thing that public representative government can justly own is public property,

THEREFORE, the only just way to finance public representative government is via public property user fees and voluntary contributions.

To be just, such fees must be

1. explicitly agreed upon by the majority of the citizens,
2. must be administered equally among the citizens, and
3. the collection of such fees must not violate the property of any individual.

Private Property

Private Property is defined as exclusive ownership of property by an individual, and is derived from, and includes, the self-ownership of the individual. Ownership is defined as just control.

THEREFORE, no one has the right to control an individual's property against his or her will.

Since private property includes, and is derived from, self-ownership of the individual, it is the very foundation of Liberty, virtue and Justice, and is the source of all rights, because all of these things are meaningless without self-ownership of the individual, and therefore meaningless without private property.

The just owner of a property is either the first user of it, or the recipient of it from the previous owner via voluntary gift, bequest or sale.

Liberty

Liberty is defined as the right of the individual to do with his property as he pleases, as long as he does not violate the property of another. Violating Liberty is unjust and evil.

THEREFORE, violating Liberty is expressly forbidden.

That which does not violate justice has a right to exist, and it is unjust to forbid it.

Violation

Violation is defined as control of property against its owner's will.

[If it is easier, the following amendment can be passed separately.]

Intellectual Property

Since exclusive ownership has meaning only with regards to tangible property, and results in irreconcilable self-contradictions when applied to intangible things, such as information and ideas,

THEREFORE, Intellectual Property is defined as a tangible copy of information, and is meaningless as property outside of such tangible embodiment,

THEREFORE, no rational, and non-self-contradictory property claim can be made on information or ideas in general outside of such tangible embodiments, for such claims always and inevitably create self-contradictory tangible property claims, which if enforced, produce violations of tangible private property, and therefore are evil and unjust.

THEREFORE, all patent and copyright laws are unjust and therefore are forbidden and abolished.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Discrimination is Liberty

Let’s clear up these and other misconceptions about discrimination from the libertarian perspectives of property rights, the non-aggression principle, and individual liberty.

Designing, making, selling, or not selling floral arrangements has nothing to do with free speech or speech. The U.S. Supreme Court has greatly erred by labeling certain actions as a form of speech in order to protect them instead of just recognizing property rights.

Refusing to sell a product has everything to do with property rights. Since no potential customer has a claim on the property of any business owner, he has no legal recourse if the owner of the property refuses to sell it to him.

Selling someone a product has nothing to do with endorsing the buyer’s opinions or use of the product.

Discrimination is a crime in search of a victim. Every real crime needs a tangible victim with measurable damages. Discrimination is not aggression, force, or threat. It should never be a crime.

To outlaw discrimination is to outlaw freedom of thought.

Public accommodations are still private businesses. Just because they serve the public by offering to sell them goods and/or services doesn’t mean that they should be regarded as public libraries, public parks, and public buildings that have to accept all members of the public.

If discrimination is wrong, immoral, unjust, hateful, and bigoted, then it doesn’t suddenly cease to be these things because the entity doing the discriminating is religious in nature or the person doing the discriminating is doing it for religious reasons.

There is no “right to service.” In a free society, business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason on any basis.

If a florist can choose not to sell a particular type of flower arrangement, then why can’t it choose not to sell a flower arrangement to a particular person? If the government is so interested in stamping out discrimination, they why doesn’t it mandate that florists sell every type of flower arrangement for every situation? Aren’t florists who don’t sell flower arrangements for weddings discriminating against customers who want to buy them and suppliers who want to provide the necessary raw products to the florists?

If an individual can discriminate against a business owner in any way, for any reason, and on any basis, then why can’t a business owner likewise discriminate against an individual?

That discrimination may be based on based on stereotypes, prejudice, hate, sexism, xenophobism, homophobism, bigotry, or racism is immaterial.

That discrimination may be because of race, creed, religion, sex, color, age, national origin, political ideology, IQ, physical appearance, marital status, socio-economic status, disability, gender identity or sexual orientation is irrelevant.

That someone thinks an act of discrimination is unfair, illogical, irrational, nonsensical, unreasonable, or just plain stupid is of no consequence.

Barronelle Stutzman should be able to choose to whom she will sell flowers or floral arrangements. Discrimination is the exercise of freedom.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/03/...ation-freedom/

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Check out these articles:

The Law of Justice
Justice Constitutional Amendment (JCA)

[Sola_Fide]

The Law of Justice

There is a law of Justice which if understood and applied allows to create a just society and thus preserve and develop liberty and prosperity of the people.

A just social order must be based on the Law of Justice.

What is justice? It is derived from a fundamental principle:

Step 1: The fundamental principle:

Thou shall love your neighbor as yourself.

From this follows:

Step 2: The law of Justice:

Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

From this follows:

Step 3: The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).

How? Simple: as you would not like that someone committed an act of aggression against you and your property, so should you not commit such acts of aggression against others.

From this follows:

Step 4: The Group

Since no one individually has the right to commit acts of aggression against anyone and anyone’s property, neither has a group (no matter the size) the right to commit such acts of aggression, (because no one could rightly delegate a right they do not have).

So, as it is wrong for one person to rob his neighbor, so it is also wrong for many persons to rob him.

From this follows:

Step 5: No Taxation of Other People’s Property

Since no individual has the right to forcibly extract wealth from his neighbor, he cannot delegate such non-existent right to the group.

Therefore public taxation of private property is an act of aggression of the group against individual and his property, and thus is immoral and unjust.

And that which is unjust is evil by definition.

No society based on evil can ever persist, for it will unavoidably self-destruct.

Therefore no society based on public taxation of private property can ever endure, but will unavoidably self-destruct by corruption and violence, because it is BUILT upon aggressive violence of taxation, which is nothing more than legalized plunder, which is nothing more or less than legalized, monopolized, and institutionalized evil, written as law.

Such abomination of evil posing as law must not exist, if the society is ever to survive and prosper!

In general, any violation of the NAP, and any violation of private property is evil and unjust by definition, and any law sanctioning such violation is a legislative crime and an abomination that must not be allowed to exist, if the society is to survive and to prosper.

From which follows:

Step 6: No Regulation of Other People’s Property

Regulation is control. No one has the right to control the property he does not own, neither can one delegate such non-existent right to a group or any third party.

Therefore all public regulation of private property, except one, (that private property be not violated), is immoral and unjust.

What about anti-nuisance laws?

No one has the right to destroy or pollute anyone else’s property: neither by offensive smells, air, water or ground pollution, nor by projecting offensive sounds or images upon his neighbor’s property. So property rights take good care of environment protection and anti-nuisance laws.

What is Liberty?

Liberty is the right to do with your own property what you please, as long as you do not violate the property of another.
In other words, Liberty is anything you wish to do as long as it does not violate the NAP. (See Morality section at the end).

Thus a society built on the Non-Aggression Principle is the only just order possible. It is also the only way to have real Liberty.

Just Government

Then what about government? What is it, and what is its proper role?

To govern is to control. No one has the right to control the property he does not own. Thus any government has the right to govern or control ONLY the property it owns.

Since public representative government owns only public property, it has the right to govern public property only, and nothing else.

What is public property?

It is property to which all citizens of a certain location have equal claim of ownership. Therefore, since the claim of ownership is equal among the citizens, the just government of such public property must be done:

1. By the voice of the majority of the citizens, provided that
2. Every citizen is treated equally (since all have equal claim on the public property), and
3. The property of no individual is violated in the process.

How do you justly finance such public government?

Anything that is just must not violate the Non-Aggression Principle (the NAP).

Therefore the only just way to finance a public representative government is via public property user fees and voluntary contributions. User fee means you pay only if you use the property. If you don’t use it, you do not pay for it.

Again, since all citizens have equal claim of ownership upon public property, the public property user fees to be just must be:

1. Explicitly agreed to by the majority of the citizens.
2. Administered equally among the citizens, and
3. Collection of such fees must not violate the private property of anyone.

What about justice enforcement and courts?

Anyone has an unalienable right to defend themselves and their property. No individual has the right to deprive his neighbor of such right of just self-defense.

Therefore no individual, nor group, has the right to claim exclusive monopoly on justice enforcement, for such claim would be unjust.

This means that justice can rightly be enforced by anyone, as long as such enforcement is just.

Of course, individuals could voluntarily contract with any third parties to provide such just enforcement.

What is Private Property?

Private Property is naturally derived from, and includes the self-ownership of individual. Ownership is just control.

You own you, your body, your mind, the fruits of your labor. No one has a just right to control by force that which belongs to you against your will.

A just owner of a property is either the first user of it, or a recipient of it from the previous owner via voluntary gift, bequest or sale.

What about Information or Intellectual Property?

Property claims (i.e. exclusive just control) are meaningful and non-self-contradictory only with regards to TANGIBLE property. Such claims are entirely meaningless and self-contradictory for intangible objects.

Therefore information, or intellectual property ownership is only meaningful in terms of physical, TANGIBLE copies of information.

To own information is to own a tangible copy of it. Nothing less, nothing more.

Thus every tangible copy of information constitutes a separate intellectual property, even though it might represent exactly the same information.

Thus Intellectual Property is nothing more or less than ownership of a tangible copy of information.

Assigning and enforcing “ownership” to intangible information in general, leads to irreconcilable self-contradictions, and to violations of tangible property rights, and thus is unjust.

Conclusion:

Justice is NAP, that is non-violation of private property, with implied right to use equal force to neutralize/offset the aggression against one's property. To be just, any society must have the NAP (the Non-Aggression Principle) as its core principle.

Anything that does not violate the NAP is just and has the right to exist.

Anything that violates the NAP is immoral and unjust.

What about God, morality and his laws?

The same principle applies. God is the Creator and the Just owner of the world. Therefore all who live upon it are responsible to him to use his property only in the way he approves of. However no-one has the right to presume to speak for God or to enforce his laws without his permission.

Any such usurpation by anyone must be treated for what it is: an act of aggression, and it is just to end all aggression by force, which is the definition of just self-defense.


These are the laws of Justice. Let’s build a world upon these just and holy principles.

Amen.

I agree with a lot of this post, with some minor exceptions.

I don't think natural law is a logically defensible position. I think the right of property comes from the negative command of God (you shall not steal). The command of God, not nature, gives the foundation for a logically defensible concept of property. But I like that post otherwise.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

I agree with a lot of this post, with some minor exceptions.

I don't think natural law is a logically defensible position. I think the right of property comes from the negative command of God (you shall not steal). The command of God, not nature, gives the foundation for a logically defensible concept of property. But I like that post otherwise.

Thank you! If you believe as I do that are rights come from God, you will probably like a more detailed article The Law of Justice as well.

Thanks for your post.

[osan]

Your "law" fails. Why? Because of the presumptive basis, which cannot be supported as a mandate. To wit:

What is justice? It is derived from a fundamental principle:

Step 1: The fundamental principle:

Thou shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Firstly, it is not a principle. It is a mandate. The two things are very different.

As a mandate, it fails for a few reasons. Firstly, it has the "pulled out of a rabbit's ass" quality about it. It is NOT fundamental. It is NOT self-evident. Is is merely a commandment of a very apparently arbitrary nature that anyone with an IQ above that of a boiled turnip is going to sense and reject, if for no other reason than they are having it forced upon them. This is FAIL^FAIL, or FAIL-plex.

It is simplistic, making no distinctions for variance of context. Shall I love my neighbor as he fixes to stab me through my heart with a 10" kitchen knife? By the strict semantic construction of your "principle", I am law-bound to stand still and let him have my life.

Your "principle" is semantically vague and grossly incomplete - therefore it is useless from the aspect of practicality and stands devoid of substantive meaning, and thereby of any authority.

The rest of your "law" fails catastrophically and in toto because all of it derives and rests directly and explicitly from the failed mandate that masquerades as a premise.

All of this is not to say that there is perforce nothing of value here, but only that your construction is heavily flawed in its design. This is a philosophical work and as such must be held to the highest standards and scrutiny because by subtext it demands behavior from individual men. To do that, there must rest unbreakable authority. This work stands utterly devoid of the least hint of an authoritative basis in fact, but hollowly rings, smacking of the wannabe tyrant standing on his soapbox in Times Square, spewing his demands of those around him. That bird don't fly.

I am sure it could be repaired. Good luck.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

As a mandate, it fails for a few reasons. Firstly, it ... is NOT fundamental. It is NOT self-evident. Is is merely a commandment of a very apparently arbitrary nature

Here is where "Thou shall love your neighbor as yourself" is derived (as you asked):
http://www.eternalliberty.info/the-law-of-justice/

[osan]

Here is where "Thou shall love your neighbor as yourself" is derived (as you asked):
http://www.eternalliberty.info/the-law-of-justice/

Yeah, I think it suffers from the exact same problem. As a casual exposition it may be sufficient, but as a philosophical treatise moving beyond mere opinion, it needs work.