I love this video : so simple and so clear ! Well done, philosophyofliberty ! This is the proof that one doesn't need a lot of academic words to express things that are deeply true.
How is it possible to fund a military without taxes? Taxes are, as you say, theft. So it's impossible to have a country without being a victim of theft??!!!??
John Locke wrote about unalienable rights in the 1600's. Life, liberty, and Property. Property in an agrarian society means a lot more than what it infers today. Property in the 1600's meant having the ability to provide for the welfare and survival of your family without having to depend on an outside enterprise.
This was freedom. Today most of us depend on a corporation for our ability to provide for a family. We are no longer free.
@You3P If "anybody" takes it from you,than this means declaring ownership over something that nobody owns,don't you get it?You have the outspoken need of a shelter and the human community in which you live accepts that,because of equality of needs for rest etc. and organized it with you,than there is noone who can get away with forcing you out there.In an ownership organized society this happens everyday by overpowering through money!
@You3P self organized people,based on the common will 2 fullfill each others principle needs out of self protection & the consequent ethical values,apreciated by nearly all societies around the globe since thousands of years,narrated through the most philosophies&religions boiled down in the sentence:
What i don't want to encounter myself i won't do to others!
i know,still utopian 4 todays human species,still ruled by the reptilian brain,but Evolution is a mindful one or none in a few decades.
@agnostoatomo There ain't no such a thing as a "common will"! This discussion should be proof enough...
So you can't organize a society around a thing which does not exist. You yoursellf call such a society "utopian" (which is really just another word for "fairy tale" ideas).
It sounds good as long as everybody agrees. If not, who protects weak from strong? What if I 'exchange' my threat for your work? How do we allocate who 'owns' what resources? If others depend on them (I control the spring, you depend on the river) am I entitled to destroy it and deprive you? If you fall sick and can't work for yourself, do you die alone? How do we arrange tasks too great for one individual alone? It's a child's view of cavemen! It sounds like an idealised 'back to the caves'.
We are born naked with nothing in our hands and we will leave this place with less than that,therefore nobody owns anything,neither oneself nor anything else.Ownership is the proclamation of stealing from others!
if we would own ourselves,we would be able to free ourselves from sickness,old age and death,but it's not in our hands to do so.Since we don't own ourselves we don't own others too of course.Everything else is just an more or less sophisticated justification of violence.
@agnostoatomo why should owning something imply total control over how this something work? also, your "logic" (nobody can own anything) seems to imply that we don't even have the right to eat as that is a form of "appropriation" of something we don't own and thus is a form of violence...
@You3P If you follow the theorem of "right/not right"or"just/unjust" it's necessary to have a monopoly on what is righ/just & to tell common people,what we HAVETO follow.We can see throughout history,how tyrannies and other royalties&highpriests opressed humans by doing so & even today we haven't got rid of this mindpropaganda of elites.One alternative could be,that we share the view of needs & that we are born equal in accordance to fullfill these needs in equality.
In a world where we can understand that we are guests or manifestations of an interconnected universe,we would behave differently than owners do!we would live and take what we really need,instead of"i can do with my property whatever i want to & that's my godgiven right&i follow the truth whereas you don't".Too many opportunities to pervert the idea of selfownership,like selling kidneys,children,yourself,if you need money to survive!is that less violent?
@agnostoatomo I don't believe in god, I don't believe we are created, I don't believe we are equal and I don't believe we should be given equal "parts" of everything regardless what we do or don't to earn it. Man is a social animal and some form of society is one of our need and I believe in the end we all are better off living within some kind of "association" with each other. To live together we must cede part of our ""personal sovereignity" but I do believe that must be kept to a minimum.
@You3P I'm with you in your point of "association" & social animal,that's exactly why i oppose propertism,because whatever i own,i have stolen from others!if there is nothing owned we'll all learn to share,but the ownership brainwashed people will always fear that,because they don't know the preciousness of sharing associations & it's profit for the individual,because they all have been taught,that this HAS to be contradictory...what a successful propaganda nowadays,with an old heritage btw.!
@agnostoatomo taking what you need is natural for EVERY lifeform on this planet, we either don't form any kind of association/society (which, again, is against our nature) and it's the "law of the jungle" or we choose to form a society which necessarily infringe on our personal freedom. what I strongly believe is that we should keep that (necessary) infringement to an ABSOLUTE MINIMUM.
@You3P i said nothing about equal lives!and if you don't believe in god and creation(i neither talked about beliefs,god,creation etc.)that's your business,i don't care!
but if you don't believe in Creator and Creation than i don't understand who is the one who SHOULD give equal rights and opportunity?Seems like a contradiction doesn't it?
So,since you talked about beliefs i answer you:"I don't believe in shoulds have to's or given somethings!"
who wants to be my master to tell me what i should?
@agnostoatomo We ourselves should. I talked about the natural need for association among men, so the society we form should grant a MINIMUM set of rights and basic equal oppotunity to its members.
@You3P i assume you are a human being,than i can assume that you have similar needs to be fullfilled like e.g. air to breathe,water to drink,food to eat,cloth to wear,a shelter,connection to fellow human beeings,creativity,sexuality etc. This was what i was talking about,when i said equality in needs.If you don't agree with that,than you'll probably advocate slavery...then i'm your enemy,be aware about that!
@You3P therefore nobody owns those things and nobody can steal them from you and if somebody tries to take something away from you and declares it as owned property,then it's natural to protect yourself and you'll find easily alliance,if we all understand non ownership!
but if there is ownership,there are multiple ways to make you pay for what you fundamentally need!
What do you mean Liberty can't be sold? It has happened in the past, therefore it IS possible, therefore you CAN sell your Liberty. And on inspection of the word "commodity"; one use of the word means "Something useful or valuable", so under that definition life and liberty actually are commodities.
@BloodskullMannoroth So you claim one can sell his life and liberty? Fine by me, but your are legitimazing slavery by accepting one can "buy" someonelses liberty in, let's say, a "free-market" - in which one can "sell" his life and liberty - would also be then a slave market.
I searched "commodity" on a dictionary and here is what I found: "Any bulk good traded on an exchange or in the cash market." No useufullness here, think of it: air is usefull but is not a commodity for it can't be traded.
One could argue that if someone sold their liberty then it wouldn't be slavery, as it was agreed upon by the person who would then be forced to work. And if someone in their right mind wants to sell themselves I have no authority to stop them. So what kind of society do you want? Surely not everyone wants a Marxist system, to be forced to work for the benefit of others (the collective), even if the collective helps them. Isn't that a form of slavery too?
@BloodskullMannoroth A reasonable person would know that to legitimize "volunteer" slavery is completely ridiculous, but about a Marxist system, the 1st thing you have to understand is that the means of production would belong to the workers themselves! You can't be your own slave.
In the capitalist system, the means are owned by a minority (0.1%) of rich wealthy businessman that control nearlly the whole society, this is terrible for a majority of the people, how can you impose this system?
You don't impose it, you just don't prevent it. And this talk of "workers owning the means of production" is not as simple as you put it. How would they own it? As a collective? With representatives? When they get down to it they'd individually have very little power, you're just assuming the representatives aren't going to screw over the majority somehow.
@BloodskullMannoroth Not preventing it is passivelly assist the ijustices by consent. And of course that worker's ownership isn't simple: exact sciences are complex, social ones are even more complex, but I am not to definde how the workers SELF-management is supposed to be. One think is certain: they need two things: education and organization.
A good exemple might be Zanon (google "FaSinPat"), by the way in capitalism businessman are allowed/required not to give a damm about his workers.
@BloodskullMannoroth I am sorry I took so long to reply, i've been offline for a couple weeks.
Workers don't have rescources to start companies, while some are born with them. This is clearly unfair, and shouldn't be accepted as normal: No matter how hard a humble worker work, he often won't gather enough rescources to start companies, while some heir companies... Talks of meritocracy from a defensor of this system is pure hypocrisy or ignorance.
Hard won't often won't make you wealthy, but it can happen and humble people sometimes do rise to create a company. If there were less restrictions and lower taxes it would be made all the more possible. If you have a good idea and a way to sell it you can be rewarded for your efforts. And not everything you receive in life has to be from merit, if we accepted a system like that then gambling and making business risks would be fruitless and many ingenuities wouldn't exist.
@BloodskullMannoroth Even without taxes and government you would never have a meritocratic system due unequal oportunities, private tyrany would still exist via brainwashing by medias, the system would remain unequal and unfair.
Without the class system, people would remain productive and creative, this is part of our nature, it wouldn't disapear in a system without private control over production. People don't need money to think on how to improve their own lives!
I wouldn't reduce it to no government. And whatever the case, I'm not looking for a pure meritocratic system. I just want people to leave each other alone. Giving a governing force a lot of power and responsibility to monitor and build the frame of society causes a lot of instances of people forcing others to do things they don't want to do.
@BloodskullMannoroth And by doing so you allow private tyrany to remain controlling the people's mind. Extreme unequalties allow the minorities to exerce a power of their own over the huge ignorant majority, givng them illusions of liberty while they have their strings pulled. It is not about amount of government, but about systematic contradictions! Issues that won't be fixed by reducing the government, but by changing the system itself. Those would remain with the goverment you described...
@BloodskullMannoroth No, there are many possible forms of tyrany. State tyrany is the most famous one, while there is also private tyrany. The government may protect you from force some tyranical rule, but it is usually having its strings pulled BY the private tyrans. This is a consequence of the system itself. My point is: Some unfairness cannot be undone without transforming the system we live in, greater or smaller government won't make a difference (e.g. brainwashing would remain).
You've filled out three whole replies in your attempt to establish a "proof in exact science" of what your view is, and it has resulted in "A collective affects the individual members of the collective". I fail to see why this truth would overturn an individualistic perspective because the collective still has to influence each perspective individually since none of them are linked beyond the senses.
@BloodskullMannoroth What I prooved here is that groups are more than just a bunch of individuals, a very clear claim of individualists. The influence the social structure has over the individual is very strong: It affects (sort of determine) our ideology, our moral vaules, etc. This means an individual can only be properly understood if we understand the means he lives on, and that the system is stronger than the individual being able to fool him with "necessary illusions" such as freedom.
I fail to see how the fact that some (or most) people happen to take their ideology morals and values from their group/society somehow makes the liberty and rights of an individual less meaning full.
@BloodskullMannoroth Rights and liberties are thing we simply made up, they don't exist in nature. Take a look in nature and you'll see that the only law there is is the law of the strongest. Despite the bullshit on "god gave us rights", in nature, there is no such thing. Thus understanding the influence of the social structure is necessary in order to know wether the moral vaules we live by are trully correct or are mere vices we have perpetuated. Thus individualism = oversimplification.
Pain, pleasure, sadness and happiness mixed with intelligence and logic is what created rights. People own themselves, they have a right to have final say in issues concerning their bodies, how can another or a collective of others somehow have a higher claim to your body, mind and work then you do? And of course you don't see rights in nature, that's because they're animals and can't reason. Since our brain generates a superior mind capable of doing so it can be held to different rules.
@BloodskullMannoroth Rights are ideas, and we simply made them up. We are affected by our means. People don't "own" themselves, you are yourself, it is different. Your life and liberty are not commodities to be owned, bought and sold! Think about it! Here are some examples:
-Your friend is in jail, can you "sell" him your liberty? No. Thus you don't "own" it.
-Your friend is dying, can you "sell" him you life? N. Thus you don't "own" it.
Humans naturally tend to belive their dogmas are natural.
Just because something isn't a commodity doesn't mean you can't own it. The reason you can't sell your liberty for someone else's is because our justice system doesn't allow that, not because it's impossible. And there is a big difference between owning your life and trying to switch abstract attributes with someone else.
@BloodskullMannoroth You remind me a part of a Marxist theory you are proving me. The Commodity fetishism - in a society based on comodity exchange, we start to see everything as mere commodities - people and the relations between them. Live and liberty are NOT commoditeis, they can't be owned for they can't be bought and sold, to claim otherwise is to accept slavery as long as the slave wants to "sell" his life and liberty, this is a consequence of a system that sees people as commodities.
@BloodskullMannoroth You remind me a part of a Marxist theory you are proving me. The Commodity fetishism - in a society based on comodity exchange, we start to see everything as mere commodities - people and the relations between them. Live and liberty are NOT commoditeis, they can't be owned for they can't be bought and sold, to claim otherwise is to accept slavery as long as the slave wants to "sell" his life and liberty, this is a consequence of a system that sees people as commodities.
I would also like to know, what is the base of your morality? "law of the strongest"? what exactly does the "law of the strongest" have to do with morality? And on another note, what does society have to do with morality? You seem to be making the claim that we can tell what is true by looking at what society tells us.
@BloodskullMannoroth (cont 2) This means we can't understand teh individual wihtout understanding the mean he is on. The problem about comparing "trees and forests" to "individual and group" is that trees are too isolated they don't have friends and teachers, they can (usually) reproduce on their own, they don't live on a social system, thus the comparison is not valid.
My whole point here is individuals are not isolated and independent, but affected by one another.
@BloodskullMannoroth (cont.) This FACT (check out ANY book on this) show us that a group is more than a mere bunch of individuals, for the way the individuals are organized (not an individual) afect the carracteristics of the group. The analogy with materials ends here, but the truth is that this social structure affects the individuals too, it affects our toughts and judgements, our ideals and wishes. So part of our mind is controled by something that is not a feature of an idividual. (cont 2)
It won't work. There will always be someone that will steal your liberties, or whatever, from you. That is just the way it is. Stop dreaming, and get real. This total utopia seems just as likely as communism.
Are you claiming humans are somehow artificial? Did we create ourselves? Obviously not, so we must be natural, whether through nature or its God or a mixture of both.
@BloodskullMannoroth Many and perhaps most of our behaviours and toughts are artificial, all influenciated or determined by our artifitial mean, our system. I won't discuss relligion here.
This individualsit perspective is simply wrong, the whole "trees and forest" crapp is a sofism. I can show an opposite and better comparison to prove what I say in exact science if you want.
I disagree with your notion that we as humans, as a result of nature, are artificial. But I'll let go of that argument anyways since it isn't relevant.
I have to ask, how is an individualistic perspective wrong? Isn't your belief that an individualistic perspective, in itself, an individual perspective? Surely you aren't connected mentally with another human, so you've formed these beliefs on your own, or accepted them from a source on your own.
@BloodskullMannoroth You must have heard that whole "tree and forest" stuff right? Well, I am an engeenier student, not a biologist, thus let me propose you a different analogy: "iron atoms and iron bars" to "individual and group" my advantage here is that I talk about material's cience, an exact cience. In materials cience it is a undeniable FACT that the properties of the bar (group) depends not only on the atoms(individual), but on the relations between them (structure). (cont.)
@BloodskullMannoroth Most if not all of our social structures, moral vaules, etc. are artificial, altought we mostly always think them to be natural, in general our toughts merely reflect the means we live in. An example: Aristotles himself tought and affirmed that a man would need at least 7 slaves to think. This falacy by a great mind such as his own is a reflect of the means he lived in (in which slavery was "natural").
This whole simplification of those series are pure sofisms actually.
"Heldall, a "community" does not have rights. Only individuals have rights. To say that a "community" has rights is a poor way of saying that individuals which comprise a community have their own individual rights. A community is not an entity with rights. It is a system of relationships among individuals.
Property is the product of mixing one's labor with previously unclaimed/unutilized resources."
Yes the founders were nearly always correct based upon the princples which bring freedom, happiness and prosperity but to say, "Who are we to argue against the founders?" is very much like asking "Who are we to think!?!?" and even deeper: since thinking is what alerts us of the fact that we exist that question probes us to the question: Who are we to exist?!?
I am a producers and a freeman who loves my life! That is who I am to: argue with the founders and that is who I am to: live!
Sure, where you derive these principles from ? May we quit any philosophical debate since Ron Paul found all the answers for us ?
Every property begins in an act of theft against the community. How do you own land ? How do you own resources ? Cause you sit on them ? It doesnt matter if you bought them from somebody, since tracked down to the past there must be somebody who just took it without possibly buying it from the non existent pre owner. Stupid new age brainwash here.
heldall, your a scary guy wielding that sort of confidence in such stupidity.
"Every property begins in an act of theft against the community." So your saying all land belongs to the community? And I can't buy it or be given it or its theft? Are you insane?
This so called "new age brainwash" is saying we are born free, owning ourselves. Nothing to do with land!
For you to compare land ownership rights to self ownership rights shows your complete lack of understanding of Liberty.
Heldall, a "community" does not have rights. Only individuals have rights. To say that a "community" has rights is a poor way of saying that individuals which comprise a community have their own individual rights. A community is not an entity with rights. It is a system of relationships among individuals.
Property is the product of mixing one's labor with previously unclaimed/unutilized resources.
"How do you own resources? Cause you sit on them? It doesnt matter if you bought them from somebody, since tracked down to the past there must be somebody who just took it without possibly buying it from the non existent pre owner." I see how you could come to that conclusion although you fail to mention who has authority over YOU, Yourself! Who owns you? Can I rightfully destroy you? Can I come in and destroy everything you know and have rightfully? Or is there just no right and wrong?
The "Indians" never issued Deeds of developed the land...not that this is necessarily a positive attribute...but Sewage treatment plants are a pretty good idea when the population increases...which it would have no matter who populated the continent. How many indigenous civil engineers are out there ? ?
I love this video : so simple and so clear ! Well done, philosophyofliberty ! This is the proof that one doesn't need a lot of academic words to express things that are deeply true.
Khadynumero1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The philosophy of liberty is the philosophy of Ron Paul. If you want liberty or you aren't sure what it means, please research Ron Paul.
This may be our last chance for Liberty!
Ron Paul for President 2012!!!
Leftovervictim1991 7 months ago
Good video on freedom! I am with Ron Paul for 2012....:)
stephenabm 7 months ago
How is it possible to fund a military without taxes? Taxes are, as you say, theft. So it's impossible to have a country without being a victim of theft??!!!??
mike257257 7 months ago
John Locke wrote about unalienable rights in the 1600's. Life, liberty, and Property. Property in an agrarian society means a lot more than what it infers today. Property in the 1600's meant having the ability to provide for the welfare and survival of your family without having to depend on an outside enterprise.
This was freedom. Today most of us depend on a corporation for our ability to provide for a family. We are no longer free.
You are a slave.
eolltz 10 months ago
"nobody owns those things and nobody can steal them from you" NONSENSE.
quick example: if you can't, and don't, own your shelter ANYBODY can take it.
You3P 11 months ago
@You3P If "anybody" takes it from you,than this means declaring ownership over something that nobody owns,don't you get it?You have the outspoken need of a shelter and the human community in which you live accepts that,because of equality of needs for rest etc. and organized it with you,than there is noone who can get away with forcing you out there.In an ownership organized society this happens everyday by overpowering through money!
agnostoatomo 11 months ago
@agnostoatomo so in such a society who gets to decide what kind of shelter you get?? (how big, with which amenities, location etc...)
You3P 11 months ago
@You3P self organized people,based on the common will 2 fullfill each others principle needs out of self protection & the consequent ethical values,apreciated by nearly all societies around the globe since thousands of years,narrated through the most philosophies&religions boiled down in the sentence:
What i don't want to encounter myself i won't do to others!
i know,still utopian 4 todays human species,still ruled by the reptilian brain,but Evolution is a mindful one or none in a few decades.
agnostoatomo 11 months ago
@agnostoatomo There ain't no such a thing as a "common will"! This discussion should be proof enough...
So you can't organize a society around a thing which does not exist. You yoursellf call such a society "utopian" (which is really just another word for "fairy tale" ideas).
You3P 11 months ago
@You3P Than likewise the philosophy of selfownership and the idea of owning something is a fairy tale too!
This discussion was only on the level of ideas not on the understanding of needs,hence no proof at all!
the result: The golden rule="Who has the gold rules!"=law of the jungle!
agnostoatomo 11 months ago
It sounds good as long as everybody agrees. If not, who protects weak from strong? What if I 'exchange' my threat for your work? How do we allocate who 'owns' what resources? If others depend on them (I control the spring, you depend on the river) am I entitled to destroy it and deprive you? If you fall sick and can't work for yourself, do you die alone? How do we arrange tasks too great for one individual alone? It's a child's view of cavemen! It sounds like an idealised 'back to the caves'.
Saiaton 11 months ago
So glad to see the music for this is actually licensed and wasn't just 'liberated' like in so many other youtube videos. :)
saintneko 1 year ago
Anyone have a text transcript of this?
venotar 1 year ago
We are born naked with nothing in our hands and we will leave this place with less than that,therefore nobody owns anything,neither oneself nor anything else.Ownership is the proclamation of stealing from others!
if we would own ourselves,we would be able to free ourselves from sickness,old age and death,but it's not in our hands to do so.Since we don't own ourselves we don't own others too of course.Everything else is just an more or less sophisticated justification of violence.
agnostoatomo 1 year ago
@agnostoatomo why should owning something imply total control over how this something work? also, your "logic" (nobody can own anything) seems to imply that we don't even have the right to eat as that is a form of "appropriation" of something we don't own and thus is a form of violence...
You3P 1 year ago
@You3P If you follow the theorem of "right/not right"or"just/unjust" it's necessary to have a monopoly on what is righ/just & to tell common people,what we HAVETO follow.We can see throughout history,how tyrannies and other royalties&highpriests opressed humans by doing so & even today we haven't got rid of this mindpropaganda of elites.One alternative could be,that we share the view of needs & that we are born equal in accordance to fullfill these needs in equality.
agnostoatomo 11 months ago
In a world where we can understand that we are guests or manifestations of an interconnected universe,we would behave differently than owners do!we would live and take what we really need,instead of"i can do with my property whatever i want to & that's my godgiven right&i follow the truth whereas you don't".Too many opportunities to pervert the idea of selfownership,like selling kidneys,children,yourself,if you need money to survive!is that less violent?
agnostoatomo 11 months ago
Comment removed
You3P 11 months ago
Comment removed
You3P 11 months ago
@agnostoatomo I don't believe in god, I don't believe we are created, I don't believe we are equal and I don't believe we should be given equal "parts" of everything regardless what we do or don't to earn it. Man is a social animal and some form of society is one of our need and I believe in the end we all are better off living within some kind of "association" with each other. To live together we must cede part of our ""personal sovereignity" but I do believe that must be kept to a minimum.
You3P 11 months ago
@You3P I'm with you in your point of "association" & social animal,that's exactly why i oppose propertism,because whatever i own,i have stolen from others!if there is nothing owned we'll all learn to share,but the ownership brainwashed people will always fear that,because they don't know the preciousness of sharing associations & it's profit for the individual,because they all have been taught,that this HAS to be contradictory...what a successful propaganda nowadays,with an old heritage btw.!
agnostoatomo 11 months ago
@agnostoatomo taking what you need is natural for EVERY lifeform on this planet, we either don't form any kind of association/society (which, again, is against our nature) and it's the "law of the jungle" or we choose to form a society which necessarily infringe on our personal freedom. what I strongly believe is that we should keep that (necessary) infringement to an ABSOLUTE MINIMUM.
You3P 11 months ago
@agnostoatomo We should be given equal rights and opportunity, not "equal lives".
You3P 11 months ago
@You3P i said nothing about equal lives!and if you don't believe in god and creation(i neither talked about beliefs,god,creation etc.)that's your business,i don't care!
but if you don't believe in Creator and Creation than i don't understand who is the one who SHOULD give equal rights and opportunity?Seems like a contradiction doesn't it?
So,since you talked about beliefs i answer you:"I don't believe in shoulds have to's or given somethings!"
who wants to be my master to tell me what i should?
agnostoatomo 11 months ago
@agnostoatomo We ourselves should. I talked about the natural need for association among men, so the society we form should grant a MINIMUM set of rights and basic equal oppotunity to its members.
You3P 11 months ago
@You3P i assume you are a human being,than i can assume that you have similar needs to be fullfilled like e.g. air to breathe,water to drink,food to eat,cloth to wear,a shelter,connection to fellow human beeings,creativity,sexuality etc. This was what i was talking about,when i said equality in needs.If you don't agree with that,than you'll probably advocate slavery...then i'm your enemy,be aware about that!
agnostoatomo 11 months ago
@agnostoatomo based on what you said before, you seem to believe that owning drinks, food, cloth, shelter etc is stealing from others...
You3P 11 months ago
@You3P therefore nobody owns those things and nobody can steal them from you and if somebody tries to take something away from you and declares it as owned property,then it's natural to protect yourself and you'll find easily alliance,if we all understand non ownership!
but if there is ownership,there are multiple ways to make you pay for what you fundamentally need!
agnostoatomo 11 months ago
What do you mean Liberty can't be sold? It has happened in the past, therefore it IS possible, therefore you CAN sell your Liberty. And on inspection of the word "commodity"; one use of the word means "Something useful or valuable", so under that definition life and liberty actually are commodities.
BloodskullMannoroth 1 year ago
@BloodskullMannoroth So you claim one can sell his life and liberty? Fine by me, but your are legitimazing slavery by accepting one can "buy" someonelses liberty in, let's say, a "free-market" - in which one can "sell" his life and liberty - would also be then a slave market.
I searched "commodity" on a dictionary and here is what I found: "Any bulk good traded on an exchange or in the cash market." No useufullness here, think of it: air is usefull but is not a commodity for it can't be traded.
MarxistStudant 1 year ago
One could argue that if someone sold their liberty then it wouldn't be slavery, as it was agreed upon by the person who would then be forced to work. And if someone in their right mind wants to sell themselves I have no authority to stop them. So what kind of society do you want? Surely not everyone wants a Marxist system, to be forced to work for the benefit of others (the collective), even if the collective helps them. Isn't that a form of slavery too?
BloodskullMannoroth 1 year ago
@BloodskullMannoroth A reasonable person would know that to legitimize "volunteer" slavery is completely ridiculous, but about a Marxist system, the 1st thing you have to understand is that the means of production would belong to the workers themselves! You can't be your own slave.
In the capitalist system, the means are owned by a minority (0.1%) of rich wealthy businessman that control nearlly the whole society, this is terrible for a majority of the people, how can you impose this system?
MarxistStudant 1 year ago
You don't impose it, you just don't prevent it. And this talk of "workers owning the means of production" is not as simple as you put it. How would they own it? As a collective? With representatives? When they get down to it they'd individually have very little power, you're just assuming the representatives aren't going to screw over the majority somehow.
BloodskullMannoroth 1 year ago
@BloodskullMannoroth Not preventing it is passivelly assist the ijustices by consent. And of course that worker's ownership isn't simple: exact sciences are complex, social ones are even more complex, but I am not to definde how the workers SELF-management is supposed to be. One think is certain: they need two things: education and organization.
A good exemple might be Zanon (google "FaSinPat"), by the way in capitalism businessman are allowed/required not to give a damm about his workers.
MarxistStudant 1 year ago
If the workers want to own the means of production then they should start the companies.
BloodskullMannoroth 1 year ago
@BloodskullMannoroth I am sorry I took so long to reply, i've been offline for a couple weeks.
Workers don't have rescources to start companies, while some are born with them. This is clearly unfair, and shouldn't be accepted as normal: No matter how hard a humble worker work, he often won't gather enough rescources to start companies, while some heir companies... Talks of meritocracy from a defensor of this system is pure hypocrisy or ignorance.
MarxistStudant 1 year ago
Hard won't often won't make you wealthy, but it can happen and humble people sometimes do rise to create a company. If there were less restrictions and lower taxes it would be made all the more possible. If you have a good idea and a way to sell it you can be rewarded for your efforts. And not everything you receive in life has to be from merit, if we accepted a system like that then gambling and making business risks would be fruitless and many ingenuities wouldn't exist.
BloodskullMannoroth 1 year ago
@BloodskullMannoroth Even without taxes and government you would never have a meritocratic system due unequal oportunities, private tyrany would still exist via brainwashing by medias, the system would remain unequal and unfair.
Without the class system, people would remain productive and creative, this is part of our nature, it wouldn't disapear in a system without private control over production. People don't need money to think on how to improve their own lives!
MarxistStudant 1 year ago
I wouldn't reduce it to no government. And whatever the case, I'm not looking for a pure meritocratic system. I just want people to leave each other alone. Giving a governing force a lot of power and responsibility to monitor and build the frame of society causes a lot of instances of people forcing others to do things they don't want to do.
BloodskullMannoroth 1 year ago
@BloodskullMannoroth And by doing so you allow private tyrany to remain controlling the people's mind. Extreme unequalties allow the minorities to exerce a power of their own over the huge ignorant majority, givng them illusions of liberty while they have their strings pulled. It is not about amount of government, but about systematic contradictions! Issues that won't be fixed by reducing the government, but by changing the system itself. Those would remain with the goverment you described...
MarxistStudant 1 year ago
If the government protects you from force then the only tyranny that exist is from nature itself.
BloodskullMannoroth 1 year ago
@BloodskullMannoroth No, there are many possible forms of tyrany. State tyrany is the most famous one, while there is also private tyrany. The government may protect you from force some tyranical rule, but it is usually having its strings pulled BY the private tyrans. This is a consequence of the system itself. My point is: Some unfairness cannot be undone without transforming the system we live in, greater or smaller government won't make a difference (e.g. brainwashing would remain).
MarxistStudant 1 year ago
You've filled out three whole replies in your attempt to establish a "proof in exact science" of what your view is, and it has resulted in "A collective affects the individual members of the collective". I fail to see why this truth would overturn an individualistic perspective because the collective still has to influence each perspective individually since none of them are linked beyond the senses.
BloodskullMannoroth 1 year ago
@BloodskullMannoroth What I prooved here is that groups are more than just a bunch of individuals, a very clear claim of individualists. The influence the social structure has over the individual is very strong: It affects (sort of determine) our ideology, our moral vaules, etc. This means an individual can only be properly understood if we understand the means he lives on, and that the system is stronger than the individual being able to fool him with "necessary illusions" such as freedom.
MarxistStudant 1 year ago
I fail to see how the fact that some (or most) people happen to take their ideology morals and values from their group/society somehow makes the liberty and rights of an individual less meaning full.
BloodskullMannoroth 1 year ago
@BloodskullMannoroth Rights and liberties are thing we simply made up, they don't exist in nature. Take a look in nature and you'll see that the only law there is is the law of the strongest. Despite the bullshit on "god gave us rights", in nature, there is no such thing. Thus understanding the influence of the social structure is necessary in order to know wether the moral vaules we live by are trully correct or are mere vices we have perpetuated. Thus individualism = oversimplification.
MarxistStudant 1 year ago
Pain, pleasure, sadness and happiness mixed with intelligence and logic is what created rights. People own themselves, they have a right to have final say in issues concerning their bodies, how can another or a collective of others somehow have a higher claim to your body, mind and work then you do? And of course you don't see rights in nature, that's because they're animals and can't reason. Since our brain generates a superior mind capable of doing so it can be held to different rules.
BloodskullMannoroth 1 year ago
@BloodskullMannoroth Rights are ideas, and we simply made them up. We are affected by our means. People don't "own" themselves, you are yourself, it is different. Your life and liberty are not commodities to be owned, bought and sold! Think about it! Here are some examples:
-Your friend is in jail, can you "sell" him your liberty? No. Thus you don't "own" it.
-Your friend is dying, can you "sell" him you life? N. Thus you don't "own" it.
Humans naturally tend to belive their dogmas are natural.
MarxistStudant 1 year ago
Just because something isn't a commodity doesn't mean you can't own it. The reason you can't sell your liberty for someone else's is because our justice system doesn't allow that, not because it's impossible. And there is a big difference between owning your life and trying to switch abstract attributes with someone else.
BloodskullMannoroth 1 year ago
@BloodskullMannoroth You remind me a part of a Marxist theory you are proving me. The Commodity fetishism - in a society based on comodity exchange, we start to see everything as mere commodities - people and the relations between them. Live and liberty are NOT commoditeis, they can't be owned for they can't be bought and sold, to claim otherwise is to accept slavery as long as the slave wants to "sell" his life and liberty, this is a consequence of a system that sees people as commodities.
MarxistStudant 1 year ago
@BloodskullMannoroth You remind me a part of a Marxist theory you are proving me. The Commodity fetishism - in a society based on comodity exchange, we start to see everything as mere commodities - people and the relations between them. Live and liberty are NOT commoditeis, they can't be owned for they can't be bought and sold, to claim otherwise is to accept slavery as long as the slave wants to "sell" his life and liberty, this is a consequence of a system that sees people as commodities.
MarxistStudant 1 year ago
I would also like to know, what is the base of your morality? "law of the strongest"? what exactly does the "law of the strongest" have to do with morality? And on another note, what does society have to do with morality? You seem to be making the claim that we can tell what is true by looking at what society tells us.
BloodskullMannoroth 1 year ago
@BloodskullMannoroth (cont 2) This means we can't understand teh individual wihtout understanding the mean he is on. The problem about comparing "trees and forests" to "individual and group" is that trees are too isolated they don't have friends and teachers, they can (usually) reproduce on their own, they don't live on a social system, thus the comparison is not valid.
My whole point here is individuals are not isolated and independent, but affected by one another.
MarxistStudant 1 year ago
@BloodskullMannoroth (cont.) This FACT (check out ANY book on this) show us that a group is more than a mere bunch of individuals, for the way the individuals are organized (not an individual) afect the carracteristics of the group. The analogy with materials ends here, but the truth is that this social structure affects the individuals too, it affects our toughts and judgements, our ideals and wishes. So part of our mind is controled by something that is not a feature of an idividual. (cont 2)
MarxistStudant 1 year ago
It won't work. There will always be someone that will steal your liberties, or whatever, from you. That is just the way it is. Stop dreaming, and get real. This total utopia seems just as likely as communism.
Siddis33 1 year ago
I love this video! It's definitely in my top ten!
ABlanketforDeath 2 years ago 2
Property just isn't part of nature.
The human being is the most unnatural being of all.
MarxistStudant 2 years ago
Are you claiming humans are somehow artificial? Did we create ourselves? Obviously not, so we must be natural, whether through nature or its God or a mixture of both.
BloodskullMannoroth 1 year ago
@BloodskullMannoroth Many and perhaps most of our behaviours and toughts are artificial, all influenciated or determined by our artifitial mean, our system. I won't discuss relligion here.
This individualsit perspective is simply wrong, the whole "trees and forest" crapp is a sofism. I can show an opposite and better comparison to prove what I say in exact science if you want.
MarxistStudant 1 year ago
I disagree with your notion that we as humans, as a result of nature, are artificial. But I'll let go of that argument anyways since it isn't relevant.
I have to ask, how is an individualistic perspective wrong? Isn't your belief that an individualistic perspective, in itself, an individual perspective? Surely you aren't connected mentally with another human, so you've formed these beliefs on your own, or accepted them from a source on your own.
BloodskullMannoroth 1 year ago
@BloodskullMannoroth You must have heard that whole "tree and forest" stuff right? Well, I am an engeenier student, not a biologist, thus let me propose you a different analogy: "iron atoms and iron bars" to "individual and group" my advantage here is that I talk about material's cience, an exact cience. In materials cience it is a undeniable FACT that the properties of the bar (group) depends not only on the atoms(individual), but on the relations between them (structure). (cont.)
MarxistStudant 1 year ago
@BloodskullMannoroth Most if not all of our social structures, moral vaules, etc. are artificial, altought we mostly always think them to be natural, in general our toughts merely reflect the means we live in. An example: Aristotles himself tought and affirmed that a man would need at least 7 slaves to think. This falacy by a great mind such as his own is a reflect of the means he lived in (in which slavery was "natural").
This whole simplification of those series are pure sofisms actually.
MarxistStudant 1 year ago
SansAuthoritas
"Heldall, a "community" does not have rights. Only individuals have rights. To say that a "community" has rights is a poor way of saying that individuals which comprise a community have their own individual rights. A community is not an entity with rights. It is a system of relationships among individuals.
Property is the product of mixing one's labor with previously unclaimed/unutilized resources."
I ment this one!
Trinivalts 2 years ago 2
Our rights come from our creator, according to the preamble of our constitution. Who are we to argue against the founders?
ruthelator 3 years ago
Who are the founders to argue against the creator, was their question.
evilsinz 3 years ago
Comment removed
TitleofLiberty 2 years ago
ruthelator
Yes the founders were nearly always correct based upon the princples which bring freedom, happiness and prosperity but to say, "Who are we to argue against the founders?" is very much like asking "Who are we to think!?!?" and even deeper: since thinking is what alerts us of the fact that we exist that question probes us to the question: Who are we to exist?!?
I am a producers and a freeman who loves my life! That is who I am to: argue with the founders and that is who I am to: live!
TitleofLiberty 2 years ago
Sure, where you derive these principles from ? May we quit any philosophical debate since Ron Paul found all the answers for us ?
Every property begins in an act of theft against the community. How do you own land ? How do you own resources ? Cause you sit on them ? It doesnt matter if you bought them from somebody, since tracked down to the past there must be somebody who just took it without possibly buying it from the non existent pre owner. Stupid new age brainwash here.
heldall 3 years ago
heldall, your a scary guy wielding that sort of confidence in such stupidity.
"Every property begins in an act of theft against the community." So your saying all land belongs to the community? And I can't buy it or be given it or its theft? Are you insane?
This so called "new age brainwash" is saying we are born free, owning ourselves. Nothing to do with land!
For you to compare land ownership rights to self ownership rights shows your complete lack of understanding of Liberty.
evilsinz 3 years ago
Heldall, a "community" does not have rights. Only individuals have rights. To say that a "community" has rights is a poor way of saying that individuals which comprise a community have their own individual rights. A community is not an entity with rights. It is a system of relationships among individuals.
Property is the product of mixing one's labor with previously unclaimed/unutilized resources.
SansAuthoritas 3 years ago 2
Probably the best definition ive heard so far.
Trinivalts 2 years ago
Comment removed
TitleofLiberty 2 years ago
Comment removed
TitleofLiberty 2 years ago
heldall,
This video is rooted in historically ancient principles. Study and youll find that to be true. Therefore it is not Stupid new age brainwash.
TitleofLiberty 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
TitleofLiberty 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
heldall
"How do you own resources? Cause you sit on them? It doesnt matter if you bought them from somebody, since tracked down to the past there must be somebody who just took it without possibly buying it from the non existent pre owner." I see how you could come to that conclusion although you fail to mention who has authority over YOU, Yourself! Who owns you? Can I rightfully destroy you? Can I come in and destroy everything you know and have rightfully? Or is there just no right and wrong?
TitleofLiberty 2 years ago
Beautiful! We were all born to be FREE.
LightBliss 4 years ago 8
The philosophy of liberty is the philosophy of Ron Paul. If you want liberty or you aren't sure what it means, please research Ron Paul.
This may be our last chance for Liberty!
Ron Paul for President '08!
victoriaous 4 years ago 6
Saw this some time back; super to see it on YT. Favorited. :-)
RP 08 or assume the position!
ProspectorSam 4 years ago
What if you stole your property from the Indians. Oh, burn!!!!! That's gotta hurt!!!!!
Requiredfields2 4 years ago
The "Indians" never issued Deeds of developed the land...not that this is necessarily a positive attribute...but Sewage treatment plants are a pretty good idea when the population increases...which it would have no matter who populated the continent. How many indigenous civil engineers are out there ? ?
caucusinformation 4 years ago
I must have missed the part about sewage treatment plants. I'll have to watch this scintillating video again. Uh, on second thought........
Requiredfields2 4 years ago
Caucus, are you saying that without a violent monopoly, some services are impossible?
SansAuthoritas 3 years ago
RON PAUL alllll the wayyyyyyy! Outstanding video thank you for sharing it with YouTube!
anyusmoon1 4 years ago 3
Incredibly Educational and non-abrasive!
KendraRox 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yeah, except it's non-abrasive because it's all bullshit.
Requiredfields2 4 years ago
Very insightful commentary there. Helpful.
Thank you. No, really!
TrueLiberty 4 years ago
This is an absolute must see!
Netwarrior007 4 years ago
Ron Paul is going against the evils of communism/socialism, religious fascism, and generally stupid people.
Paul84674 4 years ago
Great work!
Hawk5151 4 years ago
That is so beautiful... Thanks for posting.
Ron Paul 2008
Foslopac 4 years ago