The Philosophy of Liberty

[downzero]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I]YouTube - The Philosophy of Liberty[/ame]

I really love this little animation. It's so simple that it could be shown to children, and the writing portion of it just strikes me as top notch.

Finding the (secular) origins of our liberty isn't exactly an easy process. This little video does a great job of explaining what liberty is and why we have it.

Bonus for them defining it in Lockean terms.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I"] [/ame]

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Perhaps I saw too much into this video, but it almost presented "Liberty" as some form of Anarchy w/the whole Self-ownership spill.

And then made it appear like Liberty is Right that MUST BE GIVEN.
Historically, Liberties have been fought for; despite the "no one can take your liberties by force." comments.

 

[leftsock]

Perhaps I saw too much into this video, but it almost presented "Liberty" as some form of Anarchy w/the whole Self-ownership spill.

And then made it appear like Liberty is Right that MUST BE GIVEN.
Historically, Liberties have been fought for; despite the "no one can take your liberties by force." comments.

I didn't spot the part where the video made it appear that liberty is a right that must be given, but I do agree that there is an anarchy aspect to liberty.

This presentation's value of anarchy may be described as "No rulership or enforced authority." or "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder.) But is bound by a social code ." We have to consider that this liberty-induced anarchy has to exist within the bounds of an individual's or appointed representative's limitation to not exert undue force on another individual or group. Yes, criminals need to be held accountable for their actions by a proper representative of the people, but that representative can't exert force on individuals "just because" or <insert made up reason here>. This example's criminal, however, must have made a transgression against another individual and not just some concept of "the state," perhaps having smoked marijuana in the privacy of their own home.

(Side note, I don't smoke dope, I have no interest in it, but I can understand that an individual smoking dope in the privacy of their own home has no transgression against another individual.)

Anarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[downzero]

Perhaps I saw too much into this video, but it almost presented "Liberty" as some form of Anarchy w/the whole Self-ownership spill.

And then made it appear like Liberty is Right that MUST BE GIVEN.
Historically, Liberties have been fought for; despite the "no one can take your liberties by force." comments.

What else is liberty, if not something that belongs exclusively to one person?

Liberties have been fought for because people are willing to use force to take the liberty of others, whether it's Kim Jung Ill, Casto, Hussain, or Obama for that matter.

When "liberty" comes with the responsibility that you use force or fight with other people, you have no liberty at all. You're just a slave to the power that can compel you to fight for its cause at any time.

 

[Eddie]

I liked the video. I saw it as simply a message for people to rely on themselves and not their government to solve their problems.

 

[downzero]

I liked the video. I saw it as simply a message for people to rely on themselves and not their government to solve their problems.

Yes, of course. I'm bumping this post just because more need to see it.

 

[Rebecca Sink-Burris]

I agree, more people need to see it!

 

[downzero]

I agree, more people need to see it!

Everyone should watch this video.

 

[TK421]

It's so simple that it could be shown to children...

I agree and what better place to show it than to INGO members.

The problem that many other members would have with such a system is that it does not allow for a defense until an offense is committed. Which means that you can not defend your right to life until someone takes it from you... and I'm not sure how one could do that. It would be great if every person understood how beneficial a self interest based honor system is, but it would require a mental and physical effort that I truly believe the majority of human beings are simply not capable of.

Also, I too want more people to view this thread, and think the best way to do that is to relate to a modern topic of heated discussion. Just off the top of my head, but Arizona, immigration, and border laws come to mind. Most people will watch the vid and probably agree with the message... until it they realize that agreeing with the message means that border laws are totally void under such Lockean principles. Which means we can't keep "illegal immigrants" out of "our" country, or else we would be depriving them of their right to earn and accumulate property.

 

[downzero]

You cannot defend your right to life until yours is threatened. Nobody has a right to take your life.

The immigration issue belongs in another thread.

 

[John Galt]

I saw this about two years ago and it really hit me, the simplicity, along with the power of, the message. Glad to see it still going around!

 

[Rebecca Sink-Burris]

I agree, immigration belongs on another thread. But of course I have to put my 2 cents in anyway:-)

Immigration issue is a shell game that keeps the Republican base energized but distracts from the fact that the Republican politicians have done no better with the economy than the Democrats. Go ahead, vote Republican, you will still get out of control debt and out of control spending along with endless foreign wars. If you want limited government that follows the Constitution you you have to start voting that way.Take a look at the Libertarian candidates who are on the ballot, they are not in the pocket of big business, wall street or big labor.


Trespass is a violation of property rights, trespassers can be legally and reasonably dealt with. Our down economy has slowed illegal immigration, but I don't think that benefits anyone. End welfare benefits and make it much easier to immigrate legally. Keep out criminals and those with a dangerous communicable disease, let anyone who wants to work be welcome in our country. Pass the Fair Tax and we will have so much economic growth that we will have more jobs than we will know what to do with.

 

[Lex Concord]

To complete the thread-jack, I have to say that the Fair Tax seems to be just another shell game.

The first problem is that it assumes revenue-neutrality as a requirement. Leviathan has grown to its current size because of profligate spending, regardless of income. I really think the focus should be on efforts to drastically reduce spending rather than coming up with a sales pitch to get (possibly different) folks to keep sending the same amount in.

The next problem is that most Fair Tax proponents fail to address the absolute necessity of ensuring the repeal of the 16th Amendment and all laws authorizing, implementing, and enforcing the income tax. Without such repeal, you can rest assured that we would eventually have both the "fair" tax and the income tax.

Finally, while the numbers haven't been settled, most proposals I have heard focus on a "23%" tax. This is based on a 30% tax at the point of sale, with a cap at 23% of income, and a refund up to the point of the poverty line. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't pay nearly 23% of my income to the feds in income tax (remember, income rates are marginal, meaning when you experience bracket creep, you pay the higher rate on the amount above and beyond X, not your entire taxable income).

The income tax is abhorrent and should be repealed and have no replacement.

That being said, I realize that, short of a complete collapse of the "federal" (read: central) government, the income tax will never go away without a replacement. Even so, a lot more numbers will have to come out to convince me that the Fair Tax is indeed "fair".

As with immigration, this topic deserves its own thread.

Edit: It appears some of my concerns are now addressed at Americans For Fair Taxation:

It has been a while since I have researched, so it looks like I have more reading to do.

 

[downzero]

The question you have to ask yourself about the fair tax is how will incentives change? It removes a lot of the penalty for savings, which fuel investment and job creation. Consumption only creates a job today. Investing in our future lasts for a long time.

Despite the interest in cutting spending at the national level, we have unfunded liabilities that are 3-4x our GDP. It will never be politically palatable to eliminate all of these, and so we need to balance any future cuts in spending with sustainable taxes that will allow us to meet our liabilities.

 

[mrjarrell]

The "fair tax" will do nothing to change the bureaucracy, regardless of what its supporters contend. It will also create a whole new entitlement that will be impossible to get rid of, if libertarians are still serious about getting rid of taxes as a source of funding.

 

[T-rav]

I dont like the term "fair" Who determines what is fair for what income? I like a flat tax.

 

[downzero]

I dont like the term "fair" Who determines what is fair for what income? I like a flat tax.

The "fair" tax is nothing other than a flat consumption tax with a few deductions.

 

[level.eleven]

The prebate system seems interesting as well. I don't know if I like the idea of getting the entire population hooked on a monthly government check. There is an implication of reliance built into that. And of course the "fair" percentage will always be decided by professional bureaucrats.

 

[jsgolfman]

Lockean with proviso here.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I agree and what better place to show it than to INGO members.

The problem that many other members would have with such a system is that it does not allow for a defense until an offense is committed. Which means that you can not defend your right to life until someone takes it from you... and I'm not sure how one could do that. It would be great if every person understood how beneficial a self interest based honor system is, but it would require a mental and physical effort that I truly believe the majority of human beings are simply not capable of.

Also, I too want more people to view this thread, and think the best way to do that is to relate to a modern topic of heated discussion. Just off the top of my head, but Arizona, immigration, and border laws come to mind. Most people will watch the vid and probably agree with the message... until it they realize that agreeing with the message means that border laws are totally void under such Lockean principles. Which means we can't keep "illegal immigrants" out of "our" country, or else we would be depriving them of their right to earn and accumulate property.

Illegal immigration, as such, wouldn't be a problem if property (money) wasn't being taken from other individuals to support them. If they were required to pay for medical services, subsistance, etc. just like everyone else would be, they either wouldn't come here, or they would be competing equally with anyone who wanted the jobs they will work at. If they were competing "fairly" for jobs with others, their lack of English (the de facto national language) skills would handicap them in job searches competing with English-speakers - and they would have the same incentive the Irish, Polish, Italian, Russian, French, Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese and others had to learn the language and assimilate into the culture.