I do like this explaination of liberty. I don't use alcohol or what are now listed as illegal drugs nor do I advocate anyone use them. But! I think we would be better off if the illegal drugs were legalized as alcohol is and we held people accountable for their actions when the drugs are abused. Compare the current drug wars to the gang wars in the U.S. during prohibition.
This is Why I'm a Independent, not a Dem or a Rep. Watch all the way through and find Freedom and Liberty for yourself. Truth is Bush and Obama are incorrect in their ideas of freedom. Christian, Islam and all American society can be Free to live happy and profit from these simply yet intelligent beliefs. We the people, not the government. Free your Mind and the Rest will follow.........
It is in your constitution where your right to put down your government is found. How come you Americans tolerate this? 'The war on drugs' and 'the war on terrorism' has taken your freedom and given the government the power to rip the governed of their liberties. America is no longer 'a place of freedom'. It's the asshole of the world flying around 'spreading democracy' and killing people while its own people are too stupid to take back what your forefathers traveled to America to get: liberty.
if you want to maintain the status quo, dont vote for Ron Paul... If you want to do away with civil liberties and freedom, dont vote for Ron Paul.. If you want more of what you earn taken from you, dont vote for Ron Paul.. If you think the U.S should borrow money from China to fund endless wars while the American people fall further into economic slavery, dont vote for Ron Paul..
If you love PROSPERITY, FREEDOM AND LIBERTY VOTE FOR RON PAUL in 2012!!!!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"SELF-OWNERSHIP" is an IDIOTIC definition of liberty.
You don't "own" yourself - you ARE yourself. Geez.
This is just weasel nonsense, to confuse discussions of a SOCIAL character (acquisition and maintenance of property) with the entirely private (liberty, personal sovereignty.)
Nice try pseudo "anarchist" capitalists and right-wing "libertarians" - but the color of liberty has always been RED.
Better this definition than none. What do you offer instead? It's not a perfect definition, but you have to admit it makes for a decent analogy. Sure; you ARE yourself, an entity with rights to acquire and maintain property. You also have rights to liberty and personal sovereignty. How does the definition not work here? You own a pet - you are responsible for its actions. You own yourself - you are responsible for your own actions. The analogy works for me.
"Liberty" is a property of existing as a human being. It does not hang on property - THAT is a weasel attempt to insinuate capitalist notions of property into the discussion of liberty.
"Who" owns the self? Another, higher self? And who owns that? It ends in infinite regression and absurdity. And it is entirely unnecessary to explain what liberty is.
PROPERTY is a matter of inter-subjective consensus. It is a social phenomenon. Don't obscure this with "religion."
@Kallepash 100 years from now, there will be no property rights. People forget that it is the *access to that they desire *not the ownership. *Owning property is a very unsustainable right. Our population is set to be 9 billion by the year 2050, and who knows what it will be 100 years from now, but I can tell you, that if humans are still inhabiting this planet, the epiphany will dawn on them that we will have to share land resources to remain a practical society.
@Riellysdad Nature is a dictatorship *if we want to prosper as a species. For instance, we are using our oil up at a rate of roughly 1 million times its regrowth rate. And at this rate, we will run out of oil by the year 2050, *forcing us to look elsewhere for energy solutions. There's many other examples I could give but that should give you the insight necessary to go further.
@OuTofJoY "You don't "own" yourself - you ARE yourself."
What I would like to know is: what's the difference? Are you suggesting that, because you ARE yourself, that this precludes the possibility that you also can OWN yourself?
This is obviously a silly notion. If you can't even own yourself, then how could you own ANYTHING?
Who is "owning" the self? You're setting up an infinite regression.
"Property" is a concept (variously defined in different places and times) regarding personal possession, and what society implicitly agrees it will accept/tolerate on that account. It is a social phenomenon, and a matter of inter-subjective consensus. It has no "ought" beyond this, only "cases to be made" to society at large.
I thought that was pretty obvious - if you ARE yourself, you cannot OWN yourself. There is no one to do the "owning."
This video was attempting to define liberty. Complaining that I'm focusing on the language of their definition is ridiculous. If a definition is incoherent and doesn't fit empirical facts it is rubbish.
As for ownership of property - like I said, that is a matter of social consensus. The attempt to root this in the ontology of the self is bad faith.
@OuTofJoY Allow me to quote myself: "Are you suggesting that, because you ARE yourself, that this precludes the possibility that you also can OWN yourself?"
Nothing about the idea of ownership that you present, precludes the possibility that you can own yourself.
If you're talking about dictionary definitions:
own·er
-–noun
a person who owns; possessor; proprietor.
pro·pri·e·tor
–noun
2. a person who has the exclusive right or title to something; an owner, as of real property.
You're not proving anything here. YOU do not have an external existence to yourself - ergo you CANNOT have a relationship of any sort WITH yourself (including that as an "owner.")
You do NOT "possess" yourself. You are not an external reality to yourself.
"Right" is a matter of social consensus. Your "rights" are empty words if no one honors them as such. A TERRIBLE basis for liberty, which is in actuality an inherent characteristic of BEING (you cannot be taken from yourself!)
@OuTofJoY I see. You have gone theological on your definition of "self". This disqualifies your opinion here. The philosophy that is laid out here is the one talked about by the likes of John Locke: "...every man has a Property in his own Person."
The words they used may not have been concise enough for your nitpickery but any rational person would understand the ideas in this video just fine. This is what I am talking about when I say you are getting caught up in semantics.
Locke also acknowledged that the "hand of the market" finds equilibrium in the culling of children of the impoverished. Charming.
Invoking him is simply an appeal to authority - as already explained, the SELF is not a possession - it is IDENTITY. "Self ownership" implies another doing the owning.
Again - this is a weasel attempt to tie "property rights" to the ontology of the self. No dice!
@OuTofJoY The theology present in your arguments, is that there is some sort of meta-physical consciousness above and beyond the physical realm that cannot be owned. This is conjecture.
If this is not what you're implying, then what you must be talking about, is the dictionary defintion of the word, "oneself", and it's proper uses in the english language. These are the semantics I've been talking about. "self-ownership" is a widley used and accepted phrase by everyone... except you, I guess.
@OuTofJoY As for the appeal to authority? Don't make me laugh. You should re-read what I said. I did not say I follow Locke or that his philosophy supports mine. I was simply pointing out the obvious: the libertarian ideas in this video are clearly inspired by Locke and his ilk.
@OuTofJoY I did not recite Lockes name to restate a point I made. Since you are incapable of reading what I wrote, I'll reprint it here: "The philosophy that is laid out here is the one talked about by the likes of John Locke..."
I might have said, "The philosophy that is laid out here is the one talked about by famous people who you've probably heard of and may have a certain understanding of what their ideas are/were."
I was stating the obvious source of these peoples ideas. Duh.
@OuTofJoY The question of whether you are talking about theology or not is presented in my last posts. Again, that whole reading thing. Don't worry I'll accomodate again: "If this is not what you're implying, then what you must be talking about, is the dictionary defintion of the word, "oneself", and it's proper uses in the english language."
I have no idea what you're talking about, if it's not this, or some strange idea about meta-physical consciousness. That's the whole point.
@OuTofJoY Actually citing sources is considered to increase credibility behind the argument, because it means that more then just one person agrees with it. This is an expected criteria for almost all intellectual or scientific papers. Cheers.
@OuTofJoY Given the definition of proprietor, I'd say this pretty much actually disproves your idea of property regarding self-ownership. You are the only one who CAN own yourself by sheer physical limitation. You have an "exclusive right" to everything about yourself that nobody else does.
No...you ARE yourself. You don't "have" yourself - that would imply a transferability of yourself. Go ahead, try that. Even try to conceive it.
The "definition of liberty" put forward in this video is really just a weasel attempt at tying property "rights" to human ontology. Of course the only way to do that is to imply an absurdity.
@OuTofJoY Please provide a single example of "RED" action that ultimately lead to a peaceful, effective, and wholly accepted establishment of paradigm. Institutionalized change is an absurdly superflous concept - simply more than twice the syllables needed to spell out COERCION.
@LouieArrighi Not an attack...just a clarification of "person"
Source,
UNITED STATES CODE:
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 75 > Subchapter D > § 7343
§ 7343. Definition of term “person”
The term “person” as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
@OuTofJoY I'm only a quarter way in the video, but I know that self-ownership is merely an adjective to give an example of being free, from everything, but your OWN right. It is a "saying", to say the least.
The "ownership" business is intended to be more than a metaphor. It's a weasel attempt to insinuate "property rights" with human ontology. It's not even an accurate description of what liberty in fact is.
Liberty (much like property, oddly enough) is a social phenomenon. It is society agreeing to respect an individual's DESIRE/will to be free. WERE man an island, there would be no need to discuss liberty or property.
@OuTofJoY your comment gets a bit hazy towards the end. First off, liberty, whether in a society or not, is still liberty. Liberty is not based on a social choice or rationed through society. Liberty is an individuals acknowledgement and "desire" of choice. It is a single persons freedom from oppression, restriction, or control. Though it relates to asocial interaction, it has nothing to do with society as a whole. It is merely individual rights.
that was a great video, nice music... could have been a little quieter compared to the speaker, but over all, something deserving millions of views. shame it hasn't seen close to 50k even...
Has anyone else noticed how backwards his American flag is? Vertical stripes and blue stars on a white back ground. Is there a point to it or is the creator of the vid trying to make a statement?
I agree with everything except the comment about President Bush. This comment should have been a generic comment about the 'President' instead of pointed at an individual. Would the creator of this video say the same thing about our current president? Would the creator of this video say the same thing about any other president?
He's shredding the constitution he swore to protect in order to try and take care of people by robbing everyone, and further decreasing personal responsibility...thus reducing further personal rights.
As far as personal liberties go, he's at least as bad as Bush, and maybe worse.
I'd need to do more research before speaking of past presidents, but it's been a long decline that continues to get worse.
@Kallepash Thanks - again I agree but this time with everything. We will only see worse until our society collapses. I am so sad to see this. I hope it collapses quick (today would be good) so I can participate in the rebuild instead of spending the rest of my life watching the decline of our great country.
As a radical libertarian (anarchist) I regard all taxation as theft (incl. that in the U.S Constitution.)
The "welfare state" is a consequence of the iniquities of this system. While the reasons for issuing these measures wasn't all benign (prevented revolution), they have gone to people who otherwise would have been left to rot.
The costliest "welfare" (and where libertarians should attack first) is the conspiracy of privilege of the "haves" who own the political process.
@thered702 wow thats interesting.. I did some other research and found some more articles about it. Articles that predate this video. But the thing is, if you try and tell someone this - they think you're a "crazy conspiracy theorist". It's hard to explain to people.
@GreedX23 Then show them something they would find extremely valuable information, such as how to beat a possession charge or traffic tickets. Everyone hates those. Easy to explain. Check out marcstevens (dot) net
@GreedX23 also, i don't believe that video is very logical. were all related in some way. Charlemagne has many descendants alive today. Infact something like 75% of people alive today that have European Ancestry of any sort... are somehow, someway, descendants of Charlemagne.
@hmdanker It sounds well balanced on my speakers. Sorry. There's a transcript on my website - revolutioni(dot)st - link on the right to the Philosophy of Liberty video.
In 1962 i stood in front of an areospace building passing out flyers, against Walter reuther's UAW union.I started down a path of never backing down, it really is a lot of fun. 4 years ago i took pictures of a cop making an illegal traffic arrest. I was handcuffed and charged with violation of the patriot act, sorta? The first thing the cop did was damage my camera to get rid of photos.and called in 2 more squad cars (6) cops.I had a of fun. the cop lost his job, his boss lost hisjob so did the
If a man is to be free the first thing you must do is stand up bullies. You cannot accept force or threat of force from any one, ever!! What is going on i n Egypt right now is the the price you absolutely must pay to be free. your videos suggest, as do many other believes that it is a option depending on you feel when you get up in the morning. IT IS NOT AN OPTION!!!!!!!. If a clerk or a cop is rude, your reaction is the same. Every person around you must know are brave.
@tyronejonez01 Absolutely! But there is a mental aspect as well. In America, we are told constantly that we are free, and most people believe it. They ignore the evidence around them because they keep getting told they are free.
You absolutely must take action to free yourself from others who want to control you, but thre first step to action is to realize that you need to be freed.
Not everyone understands that freedom is not just a word.
You can have your moral code, live by it, and enjoy it. No one is stopping you.
You cannot get a gun and FORCE your moral code upon others, depriving them of their lives, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.
In what way does gay marriage tread upon your RIGHTS of life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness?
Moral discomfort is not a right that has been violated, and cannot be enforced by government at bequest of its people - it is not in the people's power to give that authority.
See... your problem is that you don't listen, understand, or even try. (I did remove one duplicate post - don't freak out about me deleting your comments, please.)
You don't have a good understanding of "rights" yet.
What is a right, and what is a privilege? You have to answer this question before we can discuss deeper topics - such as gay marriage.
You do not have a RIGHT to not be offended by my behavior.
I DO have a right to behave as I choose, so long I do not tread upon your rights.
and why stop there dogs and cats can also marry too and lust well be written is not a law anymore but a commandment of the world to do or your free will to do so since this would violate other peoples rights who dont believe lust is a good thing.
all the gays in the world can argue about polygamy but chances are they wont if they can have there polygamy there is no stopping marriage between just one female but many females can marry one male or many females can marry many females at the same time so if gay marriage happens you can be sure that polygamy well also happen too.
You are not liberal nor are you democrat your an idiot and your video is just to aware awareness of same sex marriage im onto your gay agenda your upset bec ause people voted on it and the majority rule over it and didnt want same sex marriage even same sex couples voted against it so you homosexuals dont speak even your own people you claim are of your community.
@HighwaytoHeavenfan Actually, it was anti-drug-law propaganda, but the message is so broad, and America is so messed up, you're correct in some ways. The thing is, there is no propaganda, but that of peace and equality, while you promote persecution and segregation. I am all for Prop 8 (assuming that's what you mean) - it invalidates ALL marriages in California, entered into by a man, woman, AND the State. That's the whole point - private contract, personal consent; no place for government.
If a contract is between two consenting adults, it is illegal for any state to make any law abrogating that contract, or denying the ability to enter into that contract. That's all in the Constitution.
I don't know what agenda there is here.
What are you trying to accomplish? Reversal of the Constitutional establishment of personal rights and governmental privilege; giving government the "right" to strike down any individual if the majority votes demanding it? Collective crime is still crime.
there using this for the gay community so they can say we can have there same sex marriages and they wont stop there they well make sure every church marries them or say there racist and try to boy cott there church. Im onto ther segement.
@HighwaytoHeavenfan I don't get what you're trying to say... A church, as an independently funded entity, has the right to refuse service to anyone, unless it receives special status or finding from government.
The state, as a public entity, empowered by the rights inherent in the prime, must provide services equally to all people, and cannot withhold, nor force, its services upon anyone.
Tax status privileges require a waiver of some rights. Boycotting any place or service is allowed.
@Kallepash Sorry but you got your information wrong too the bible teaches to sbumit to goverment Jesus said it this is where you fial the dollar bill says in God we trust. You are just saying what the founding fathers should be saying but the four founding fathers of goverment were not for what you are saying this makes you a communist your like the lebaneese go out and pick an orange tree that doesnt belong to you and say it should be free for everyone.
@HighwaytoHeavenfan So freedom of religion is meaningless... You're free to believe and worship as you choose, but must submit to a christian lifestyle if you want to live in america?
Yet, yielding to government has never been an american christian tradition... Instead, the church promotes illegal governmental action in the name of god, using governmental force to impose a moral will illegally upon a free people.
You cannot legislate morality; vices are not crimes. See Lysander Spooner's notes.
Where did I say that you did? Any power "given" is a privilege, not a right. Government, the state, is a privileged entity with no rights at all.
It's a common misconception today, that people believe government is the origin of their rights... That rights are "created" by the constitution. This is backwards...
Rights are natural, and exist without government. Government was created to protect those rights, and the constitution limits its powers.
@Kallepash You are right on dude. Natural rights come from nature. Legal rights come from people and are also known as privileges. Contracts can confir rights, and so can law- but those are legal rights and can be taken the same way they were granted. The constutition DOES confir legal rights but mostly to the government. But as I write this I see that you said it better:)
@Kallepash You are right on dude. Natural rights come from nature. Legal rights come from people and are also known as privileges. Contracts can confir rights, and so can law- but those are legal rights and can be taken the same way they were granted. The constutition DOES confir legal rights but mostly to the government. But as I write this I see that you said it better:)
About the gay marriage discussion...
It is beyond the the assembly's legislative jurisdiction.
It is beyond the the assembly's legislative jurisdiction to determine who can marry among the people and it doesnt try.
Dogs-Cats-Gays- CAN marry and weirdos probably do marry however the state can regulate who gets what privileges. The assembly is supreme in it's jurisdiction- and silent outside it's jursidiction. The question I have is... have we forgotton so much that we do in fact have a totalitarian government?
@shadowcii That's pretty much it.... There is an inherent right to contract; to consent to obligations and responsibilities with another party who will perform other acts for the mutual benefit of the contracting parties. Government can pass no law inhibiting the obligation of contracts, under the constitution.
Issuing and withholding the ability to enter into a marriage contract violates the constitution, and is an illegitimate governmental act; governmental crime on behalf of the majority.
Democracy is totalitarian... The majority dictates its will, and its will is law.
Is it legal in America? No.
But it's here.
The push for democracy in Egypt is disappointing.
I hope the don't achieve it...and that they get the republic we're supposed to have here; govt. derived from human rights, rather than govt. with power to grant and deny privileges coloured as "rights" govt. controls, like the United Nations.
Contracts are not part of rights. Today's contracts and so-called binding documents are used in Fraudulent ways to imprison people. Vague words are used and hidden agendas used to bind and imprison people through debts. This is theft!!
Im not trying to be a troll or anything like that as I love your video. Just a recommendation.....The audio on the music track is really loud. Kind of takes away from the message.. Just My opinion. Thanks for sharing truth
This is PURE fantasy, Before the Constitution the Government had ZERO power, so this whole "limiting government", is a JOKE!
*
In an ECONOMY, the LEAST productive people are ALWAYS on the top with the MOST influence. While the majority does the PRODUCTION, and reaps the LEAST. But EVERY member's success and failure effects the ENTIRE economy.
*
These are things we have ALL experienced!
*
Ignoring these BASIC truths of nature, will ALWAYS produce DISASTER!
This is PURE fantasy, Before the Constitution the Government had ZERO power, so this whole "limiting government", is a JOKE!
*
In an ECONOMY, the LEAST productive people are ALWAYS on the top with the MOST influence. While the majority does the PRODUCTION, and reaps the LEAST. But EVERY member's success and failure effects the ENTIRE economy.
*
Ignoring these BASIC truths of nature, will ALWAYS produce DISASTER!
This is PURE fantasy, Before the Constitution the Government had ZERO power, so this whole "limiting government", is a JOKE!
*
In an ECONOMY, the LEAST productive people are ALWAYS on the top with the MOST influence. While the majority does the PRODUCTION, and reaps the LEAST. But EVERY member's success and failure effects the ENTIRE economy.
*
Ignoring these BASIC truths of nature, will ALWAYS produce DISASTER!
@Mostdef it isn't really. It's simple... Collectivism, or group rights, versus liberty and individual rights. Both republicans and democrats are (generally speaking) collectivistic in their thinking... They only differ in which areas collectivism should be applied and which individual rights are sacred.
@Mostdef No... Regulation reduces liberty. It permits agents of the government to make decisions, and enforce their choices at gunpoint.
Both parties seek to increase the power of the collective... The majority, the alleged will of the people.
Under that pretense, they seize powers outside the rights of the people, not derived from them, and commit crime - violate the rights of the minority (even 49.999%) - in the name of the public good; crime in the name of law while breaking the supreme law.
@Kallepash so how was my initial comment incorrect? Are you saying Obama is for less regulation? His record the past two years appears to be for a lot of regulation.
@Kallepash oh, the only reason I mentioned that is because the video seemed to be going solely at Bush which makes sense considering the date of this video
@Mostdef Yeah, it could use updating... But I'm behind on my politics after a year in prison, and can't have a computer until January... But I'll do more when I can. The phone records video but doesn't edit it :-(
I'd also scrap the civil flag stuff... And use my own music since I learned how to play the guitar while I was locked up.
Thanks again, taxpayers, for that much needed vacation. ;)
Absolutely! Though, some people sill won't get it. See the last few comments.
You should also do a search for individualism versus collectivism. I may still have working links for those videos on revolutioni.st but I haven't checked in a long time.
@Kallepash i did in the past, however a person on youtube called "STOPandLOOK" has animations just like this on collectism vs individualism,role of goverment, ect. these animations make what im trying to say a whole lot easyer, this video will give me something to point to, thanks alot this helps out alot.
So do you believe that a police officer has a legal right to arrest a person and deprive them of liberty if they commit a crime? Does the right to bear arms mean that I can own a nuclear weapon? Can I stand on a street corner and shout profanity if I choose to? That's not causing injury to another party is it? Can I refuse to pay taxes? Can I refuse to stop if a police officer signals me to because I think that I did nothing wrong?
And this is where things start to get twisted. You're missing the main point though - ALL PERSONS have equal rights. Who empowers "the government" and "the police"? People - with equal rights. You've also skewed the concept of "rights" and determined (falsely) that "Constitutional Rights" stem from their creation in the Constitution. This isn't the case either. Can you shout profanity/your viewpoints? Absolutely. Can you use a gun to intimidate others to believe your points? No.
It goes back to the initiation of force - the initial violation of the other person's life, liberty, or property. If the state initiates the violation - under pretense of "upholding the morals of the community" or to protect FALSE rights (of medical care, social security, etc) while violating acknowledged rights, the government, formed by the Constitution by contract, is in breach of the Constitutional contract, and all its powers are thus nullified. - revolutioni(dot)st
As for your "difficult" questions - an officer has a legal right to ASSIST in the protection of another's rights. If you violate someone's rights, the officer - or ANY PERSON - has a legal right to assist in stopping you. Nuclear weapons - sure, but the simple possession, assuming intent to use for its purpose, endangers others without their consent - if you had land to detonate it, and ensured the ecological effects would not extrude off your land? Sure.
Do i have the right to give someone an abortion if im not a trained doctor and both consent? Maybe im cheaper than a regular doctor.
She knows the risks, right? Same for most surgeries.
Do i have the right to ban everyone from my private property, and then say, buy large tracts of land between cities and charge exorbatant amounts for crossing them, which i then use to buy more land, and eventually become a corporate government, "Taxing" people (Charging them) for using my property
Abortion is rough. Surgery? Yes. You have the right to be stupid and make mistakes. If the other person is both in their right mind and consents, yes. You aren't asking the right questions though... Do you have the right to stop someone from consenting to do something they want to do if it will not effect your rights?
Abortion is special. Fetuses are not recognized persons at this time and do not have rights. Should that change, abortion would be an exception to consent.
I agree with the basic principles of liberty that you describe. There will always be people who don't respect the rights of others just as there will be public servants who abuse their authority. This is why we have a system of checks and balances within our government. If one branch of government exceeds the scope of it's authority than the other branches are supposed to stop it. Example-false arrest/search is overturned by the courts.
Do you believe that we have the right to a preemptive strike against another person or group if we believe that they are about to attack us but haven't done so yet? Example-can we lawfully strike another person if they threaten to strike us and have the ability to carry out the threat but have not done so yet? Must we wait to be attacked before we can respond?
This video misses one important point. The Constitution says that citizens can not be deprived of life or liberty WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. In other words, a police officer MAY deprive you of liberty if you commit a crime. The government and it's agents MAY seize(deprive) you of your property if that property was gained by illegal means. This video is entertaining but is obviously biased and is based on a political agenda.
But it does... You have a right to assist in the protection of another's rights, and can empower others to assist in the protection of those rights.
The problem is that law today does not claim to protect rights, but values, using government's violent force to impede liberty and oppress, not ensure equal rights, but isolated privileges to compel others to obey your moral standards.
If the illegal means you are referring to was a contract between consenting adults, with no injured party requesting assistance (drug deals or prostitution), who's rights is the government protecting? The collective community's? And when the majority's demands diminish the rights of minorities, even if the practice of these rights is labeled as crime, the true criminals are those diminishing and or abrocating the rights of the minorities, even if that force is called government.
Drug dealing is not a "victimless" crime. It diminishes everyone's property when a citizen requires medical care that they can not afford. You could argue that they have an absolute right to make that choice but you would than have to argue that they are not entitled to emergency medical care and other services. The founders values were based on a judeo/Christian cultural concept whether we like it or not. We do not have unlimited rights and our Constitution never suggests this.
Here is the central argument - what is "crime?" Violating the will of the majority (which has no right to enslave you to its will) is not "crime."
Crime is the infringement upon another's rights without their consent (consent converts crimes into innocuous activities - look at the difference between rape and sex). When government FORBIDS the giving of consent between "free adults," the right to self determination is breeched - CRIME has been committed by the state.
The evolution of recent human history has been dominated by minority control over the majority, the rulers have come up with nessesary illusion for compliance and servitude of the many, Science and technology has created a world of plenty, but the market mechanism is about artificial scarcity to perpetuate poverty and exploitation in a modality of war,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and so on . The new paradigm is sharing the Earth for our collective needs and wellbeing
Where exactly in the Constitution or US Code is property a protected right? I agree with you 100%, and having an exact law to cite to say how this prohibition is illegal would be an excellent tool when debating statists. However in USC Title 18, Chapter 13, § 241 and § 242 it says rights protected by the Constitution or US law (which is BS, because the ninth amendment says that they don't have the power to take rights even if they are not explicitly protected).
This is what should be taught to every schoolchild, instead of all the lefty social engineering pap. Individual liberties-not human rights, equal justice-not social justice.Teach people to fish and stop brainwashing them that it's okay to steal other peoples fish. They'll be far better off and happier in their own lives; Ahbut then where would the state get its power from? Frackin Frackers.
To teach the declaration of independence, self dignity, self respect & self responsibility to kids would be a wonderful idea. Its the cornerstone of the american society- of any free society. But we should not expect government to ever wanna stop brainwashing kids & start teaching them to be responsible
Interesting vid. I can do without the pan pipes (in every damned garden centre I visit), other than that, engaging.
Although I don't think it addresses the issues of group decision making thoroughly enough. Group contracts are necessary yet add complication. It is conceivable for instance, that an act of aggression may be justified prior to experiencing aggression. This is too heavy to do properly in youtube comments, but thanks for the input.
Well my choice is to smoke marijuana....and thats is illegal(goverment hasnt proof why is so bad using it)....thats mean if i took mrijuana and police known tahat, i go to prison...is that freedom of choice or....?
U c, in USA (and most of world) u havent freedpm of choice....think about this one.
@yakyakyak69 If some men are entitled by rights to products of the work of others, it means that those others being forced to provide are deprived of their rights and are condemned to slave labor. There can be no such thing as the right to enslave even for the welfare of others. Progressives endorse slavery.
I was born with no Property {real estate} if all the real estate is owned by the few and I cant acquire enough to sustain myself does this violate my liberty??? Property is defined self ownership and what you produce no ine produced land it belongs to everyone!!! Thats all Folks!!!
@ricklzimmerman Agreed. The land was here before mankind, and it is the most beautiful thing that we may know. Nature, in all of its wonders, should not be owned by any one person, or group of people. Claiming ownership of land is a sin if ever there was one. Power to Native American outlook.
property is not just real estate. It is also wealth, material goods, and those necessities which are provided for you by your family, etc. property is not just what you are born with. It is also what a person accumulates through a lifetime of work, trade, and luck.
Does someone who was born with even less than what you have, have the right to take from you a portion of what you have accumulated throughout your life?
Property is defined as "that part of nature which (through your labor and talent) you turn to productive use)". So, if you can create something of value and sell enough of it, you will be able to purchase some land, if you wish.
The concept of "property" is a delusion of ego. Nobody "owns" anything really. We simply SAY that we own things so that we can exercise control. Property is about control rather than cooperation, ownership rather than stewardship., self rather than others. volition rather than virtue.
A "right" is a just need meaning it is about JUSTice, not SELFishness. Nobody has a RIGHT to be a billionaire unless they can justify the necessity of that much property.
The amount doesn't matter. I no more have right to take anything from your home or bank account than you do to take from the home or bank account of a billionaire.
@pukedragon but you do have the right to take from entities that you grant privileges to... specifically state chartered corporations. There is every difference between a living soul accumulating property according to natural right and a ficticious entity (privately or publicly owned) accumulating property according to public privilege.
If someone does not have the right to own property, i.e. the fruits of his own labor and time (life), then that is to say that he does not own his own life. He must be a slave who is required to serve the demands of others.
A "right" is NOT defined as a just need. Justice is defined as fairness--the absence of a violation of rights. By attempting to redefine a "right", you're perverting the concept of "justice". Something CANNOT be a right if it violates someone else's rights.
Can you store it, maintain it, and not use it as a means of extortion?
If you can't store it or maintain it properly, then you are endangering all other peoples life and well being, and even their property. If you are using it as a means of exortion (like north korea and iran and other muslim/communist countries would) then ANY other nation on earth has the right to destroy you.
These ideals are all well and good, but they also allow for a capitalist to profit from and own the collective labor power of workers. A labor power that would not otherwise have existed, or would have taken another form. It is by this means that a man can enslave "Men", but not another man. It is also by this that labor environments and consumption patterns are created. Labor unions are the workers reply. State Capitalism leads to overproduction and resource depletion and sometimes to war.
Indeed and people are free to form unions, strike, etc. You own your labor and the fruits of it. If you, or you and a group decide you are not being paid or treated fairly, you are entitled to strike, resign, protest, etc. You are also free to state your case to the free media and gain public support.
I wouldn't say TRUE, FREE MARKET Capitalism leads to overproduction. A true free market ( not this mixed system we have in the US ) is typically quite efficient at sorting itself out.
I agree with that. Fredric von Hayek, correctly observed that price synchronizes community and personal knowledge about resources, labor cost etc. Any distortion of the market, he argued conveys false information and leads folks to make bad choices. Ayn Rand, bless her black soul warned us about the perils of state capitalism and referred to the free market as the "Unknown Ideal"
State capitalism doesn't lead to overproduction, overproduction leads to overproduction. This video would suggest markets be free, and thus production would be determined by market forces and would have nothing to do with the government.
As for resources, a government can tax organizations for any mining/extraction of resources... and heavily too. After all, the land belongs to the people... so if the mining/extraction does not benefit the people directly, they must benefit through taxation.
Mining does benefit people, and very occasionally, the people where the mining actually occurs. However it only benefits people through production of goods or the means to goods and services. Problems come in when governments interfere by excessive allocation and directed legislation creating monopolies and oligopolies.
Taxpayer created infrastructure , for example roads, benefits both consumers and producers, but inevitably leads to a spiral of increasing consumption, and production.
How do people benefit if a transnational comes in and mines all of our resources?
Example:
An American uranium-mining company could set up a subsidiary in Canada and all profits from the operation would be transferred to the Americans, or at least the shareholders, none of which have to necessarily be Canadian. Sure, the plant workers may be Canadian and thus benefit, but chances are all the executive positions belong to Americans as well. So where does the individual benefit?
I do like this explaination of liberty. I don't use alcohol or what are now listed as illegal drugs nor do I advocate anyone use them. But! I think we would be better off if the illegal drugs were legalized as alcohol is and we held people accountable for their actions when the drugs are abused. Compare the current drug wars to the gang wars in the U.S. during prohibition.
breezio01 2 months ago
pacifist crap
MultiTroll99 5 months ago
This is Why I'm a Independent, not a Dem or a Rep. Watch all the way through and find Freedom and Liberty for yourself. Truth is Bush and Obama are incorrect in their ideas of freedom. Christian, Islam and all American society can be Free to live happy and profit from these simply yet intelligent beliefs. We the people, not the government. Free your Mind and the Rest will follow.........
wippster99 6 months ago
It is in your constitution where your right to put down your government is found. How come you Americans tolerate this? 'The war on drugs' and 'the war on terrorism' has taken your freedom and given the government the power to rip the governed of their liberties. America is no longer 'a place of freedom'. It's the asshole of the world flying around 'spreading democracy' and killing people while its own people are too stupid to take back what your forefathers traveled to America to get: liberty.
DexterWarden 6 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
if you want to maintain the status quo, dont vote for Ron Paul... If you want to do away with civil liberties and freedom, dont vote for Ron Paul.. If you want more of what you earn taken from you, dont vote for Ron Paul.. If you think the U.S should borrow money from China to fund endless wars while the American people fall further into economic slavery, dont vote for Ron Paul..
If you love PROSPERITY, FREEDOM AND LIBERTY VOTE FOR RON PAUL in 2012!!!!!
TheEthereallotus 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"SELF-OWNERSHIP" is an IDIOTIC definition of liberty.
You don't "own" yourself - you ARE yourself. Geez.
This is just weasel nonsense, to confuse discussions of a SOCIAL character (acquisition and maintenance of property) with the entirely private (liberty, personal sovereignty.)
Nice try pseudo "anarchist" capitalists and right-wing "libertarians" - but the color of liberty has always been RED.
OuTofJoY 8 months ago
Better this definition than none. What do you offer instead? It's not a perfect definition, but you have to admit it makes for a decent analogy. Sure; you ARE yourself, an entity with rights to acquire and maintain property. You also have rights to liberty and personal sovereignty. How does the definition not work here? You own a pet - you are responsible for its actions. You own yourself - you are responsible for your own actions. The analogy works for me.
Do you have something better?
Kallepash 8 months ago 11
@Kallepash
"Liberty" is a property of existing as a human being. It does not hang on property - THAT is a weasel attempt to insinuate capitalist notions of property into the discussion of liberty.
"Who" owns the self? Another, higher self? And who owns that? It ends in infinite regression and absurdity. And it is entirely unnecessary to explain what liberty is.
PROPERTY is a matter of inter-subjective consensus. It is a social phenomenon. Don't obscure this with "religion."
OuTofJoY 8 months ago
@Kallepash 100 years from now, there will be no property rights. People forget that it is the *access to that they desire *not the ownership. *Owning property is a very unsustainable right. Our population is set to be 9 billion by the year 2050, and who knows what it will be 100 years from now, but I can tell you, that if humans are still inhabiting this planet, the epiphany will dawn on them that we will have to share land resources to remain a practical society.
esca8652 1 month ago
@Kallepash Nature is a dictatorship as well. That's one of the things overlooked in Libertarian philosophy that really needs to be revised.
esca8652 1 month ago
@esca8652 ..nature just "is"...existence exists..A is A. Don't likr that...? then die..that's the only out.
Riellysdad 1 month ago
@Riellysdad Nature is a dictatorship *if we want to prosper as a species. For instance, we are using our oil up at a rate of roughly 1 million times its regrowth rate. And at this rate, we will run out of oil by the year 2050, *forcing us to look elsewhere for energy solutions. There's many other examples I could give but that should give you the insight necessary to go further.
esca8652 1 month ago
@OuTofJoY "You don't "own" yourself - you ARE yourself."
What I would like to know is: what's the difference? Are you suggesting that, because you ARE yourself, that this precludes the possibility that you also can OWN yourself?
This is obviously a silly notion. If you can't even own yourself, then how could you own ANYTHING?
strych97 8 months ago
@strych97
Who is "owning" the self? You're setting up an infinite regression.
"Property" is a concept (variously defined in different places and times) regarding personal possession, and what society implicitly agrees it will accept/tolerate on that account. It is a social phenomenon, and a matter of inter-subjective consensus. It has no "ought" beyond this, only "cases to be made" to society at large.
OuTofJoY 8 months ago
@OuTofJoY I have set up nothing. You haven't answered a single one of the questions I asked.
You seem to be caught up on semantics and are putting WAY to much thought into what they mean then they say that, "you own yourself."
strych97 8 months ago
@strych97
I thought that was pretty obvious - if you ARE yourself, you cannot OWN yourself. There is no one to do the "owning."
This video was attempting to define liberty. Complaining that I'm focusing on the language of their definition is ridiculous. If a definition is incoherent and doesn't fit empirical facts it is rubbish.
As for ownership of property - like I said, that is a matter of social consensus. The attempt to root this in the ontology of the self is bad faith.
OuTofJoY 8 months ago
@OuTofJoY Allow me to quote myself: "Are you suggesting that, because you ARE yourself, that this precludes the possibility that you also can OWN yourself?"
Nothing about the idea of ownership that you present, precludes the possibility that you can own yourself.
If you're talking about dictionary definitions:
own·er
-–noun
a person who owns; possessor; proprietor.
pro·pri·e·tor
–noun
2. a person who has the exclusive right or title to something; an owner, as of real property.
strych97 8 months ago
@strych97
You're not proving anything here. YOU do not have an external existence to yourself - ergo you CANNOT have a relationship of any sort WITH yourself (including that as an "owner.")
You do NOT "possess" yourself. You are not an external reality to yourself.
"Right" is a matter of social consensus. Your "rights" are empty words if no one honors them as such. A TERRIBLE basis for liberty, which is in actuality an inherent characteristic of BEING (you cannot be taken from yourself!)
OuTofJoY 8 months ago
@OuTofJoY I see. You have gone theological on your definition of "self". This disqualifies your opinion here. The philosophy that is laid out here is the one talked about by the likes of John Locke: "...every man has a Property in his own Person."
The words they used may not have been concise enough for your nitpickery but any rational person would understand the ideas in this video just fine. This is what I am talking about when I say you are getting caught up in semantics.
Troll elsewhere.
strych97 8 months ago
@strych97
Explain this "theology" - I don't see it.
Locke also acknowledged that the "hand of the market" finds equilibrium in the culling of children of the impoverished. Charming.
Invoking him is simply an appeal to authority - as already explained, the SELF is not a possession - it is IDENTITY. "Self ownership" implies another doing the owning.
Again - this is a weasel attempt to tie "property rights" to the ontology of the self. No dice!
Not nit-picking - just an insistance on logic.
OuTofJoY 8 months ago
@OuTofJoY The theology present in your arguments, is that there is some sort of meta-physical consciousness above and beyond the physical realm that cannot be owned. This is conjecture.
If this is not what you're implying, then what you must be talking about, is the dictionary defintion of the word, "oneself", and it's proper uses in the english language. These are the semantics I've been talking about. "self-ownership" is a widley used and accepted phrase by everyone... except you, I guess.
strych97 8 months ago
@OuTofJoY As for the appeal to authority? Don't make me laugh. You should re-read what I said. I did not say I follow Locke or that his philosophy supports mine. I was simply pointing out the obvious: the libertarian ideas in this video are clearly inspired by Locke and his ilk.
You are the only one playing the weasel, here.
strych97 8 months ago
@strych97
Citing someone of "name" to re-state a point you already made is an exercise in citing an authority or redundancy. You tell me which one it is.
Now please tell me - where was I indulging "theology" in pointing out that the identical, non transferable "self" cannot be classified as "property"?
OuTofJoY 8 months ago
@OuTofJoY I did not recite Lockes name to restate a point I made. Since you are incapable of reading what I wrote, I'll reprint it here: "The philosophy that is laid out here is the one talked about by the likes of John Locke..."
I might have said, "The philosophy that is laid out here is the one talked about by famous people who you've probably heard of and may have a certain understanding of what their ideas are/were."
I was stating the obvious source of these peoples ideas. Duh.
strych97 8 months ago
@OuTofJoY The question of whether you are talking about theology or not is presented in my last posts. Again, that whole reading thing. Don't worry I'll accomodate again: "If this is not what you're implying, then what you must be talking about, is the dictionary defintion of the word, "oneself", and it's proper uses in the english language."
I have no idea what you're talking about, if it's not this, or some strange idea about meta-physical consciousness. That's the whole point.
strych97 8 months ago
@OuTofJoY Actually citing sources is considered to increase credibility behind the argument, because it means that more then just one person agrees with it. This is an expected criteria for almost all intellectual or scientific papers. Cheers.
daobagua 7 months ago
@OuTofJoY Given the definition of proprietor, I'd say this pretty much actually disproves your idea of property regarding self-ownership. You are the only one who CAN own yourself by sheer physical limitation. You have an "exclusive right" to everything about yourself that nobody else does.
strych97 8 months ago
@strych97
No...you ARE yourself. You don't "have" yourself - that would imply a transferability of yourself. Go ahead, try that. Even try to conceive it.
The "definition of liberty" put forward in this video is really just a weasel attempt at tying property "rights" to human ontology. Of course the only way to do that is to imply an absurdity.
OuTofJoY 8 months ago
@OuTofJoY Please provide a single example of "RED" action that ultimately lead to a peaceful, effective, and wholly accepted establishment of paradigm. Institutionalized change is an absurdly superflous concept - simply more than twice the syllables needed to spell out COERCION.
bassawash1 8 months ago
@OuTofJoY and nobody wants to control a PERSON. more like multinational corps. libertarians can't separate person-hood from a corporation.
LouieArrighi 8 months ago
@LouieArrighi Not an attack...just a clarification of "person"
Source,
UNITED STATES CODE:
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 75 > Subchapter D > § 7343
§ 7343. Definition of term “person”
The term “person” as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
Hawkswish 5 months ago
@OuTofJoY I'm only a quarter way in the video, but I know that self-ownership is merely an adjective to give an example of being free, from everything, but your OWN right. It is a "saying", to say the least.
Zanzikhan 8 months ago
@Zanzikhan
The "ownership" business is intended to be more than a metaphor. It's a weasel attempt to insinuate "property rights" with human ontology. It's not even an accurate description of what liberty in fact is.
Liberty (much like property, oddly enough) is a social phenomenon. It is society agreeing to respect an individual's DESIRE/will to be free. WERE man an island, there would be no need to discuss liberty or property.
OuTofJoY 8 months ago
@OuTofJoY your comment gets a bit hazy towards the end. First off, liberty, whether in a society or not, is still liberty. Liberty is not based on a social choice or rationed through society. Liberty is an individuals acknowledgement and "desire" of choice. It is a single persons freedom from oppression, restriction, or control. Though it relates to asocial interaction, it has nothing to do with society as a whole. It is merely individual rights.
Zanzikhan 7 months ago
@OuTofJoY If you own yourself, you controll your life, are you saying other people should be allowed to controll your life?
BirgirZ 6 months ago
@OuTofJoY Go soak your head.
dunodug 2 months ago
Respond to this video...
JoeDope813 9 months ago
@BandrewD I agree. I'm a libertarian socialist.
SomeoneCrazy2 9 months ago
that was a great video, nice music... could have been a little quieter compared to the speaker, but over all, something deserving millions of views. shame it hasn't seen close to 50k even...
MUSLIMSareCHOMOS 10 months ago
Has anyone else noticed how backwards his American flag is? Vertical stripes and blue stars on a white back ground. Is there a point to it or is the creator of the vid trying to make a statement?
Peterjnel 10 months ago
Hands down one of the best videos I have ever seen.
AJatethewaffles 11 months ago
I agree with everything except the comment about President Bush. This comment should have been a generic comment about the 'President' instead of pointed at an individual. Would the creator of this video say the same thing about our current president? Would the creator of this video say the same thing about any other president?
sws1253 1 year ago 7
@sws1253 Our current one? Absolutely.
He's shredding the constitution he swore to protect in order to try and take care of people by robbing everyone, and further decreasing personal responsibility...thus reducing further personal rights.
As far as personal liberties go, he's at least as bad as Bush, and maybe worse.
I'd need to do more research before speaking of past presidents, but it's been a long decline that continues to get worse.
Kallepash 1 year ago 12
@Kallepash Thanks - again I agree but this time with everything. We will only see worse until our society collapses. I am so sad to see this. I hope it collapses quick (today would be good) so I can participate in the rebuild instead of spending the rest of my life watching the decline of our great country.
sws1253 1 year ago
@Kallepash
As a radical libertarian (anarchist) I regard all taxation as theft (incl. that in the U.S Constitution.)
The "welfare state" is a consequence of the iniquities of this system. While the reasons for issuing these measures wasn't all benign (prevented revolution), they have gone to people who otherwise would have been left to rot.
The costliest "welfare" (and where libertarians should attack first) is the conspiracy of privilege of the "haves" who own the political process.
OuTofJoY 8 months ago
@sws1253 All presidents, except Martin Van Buren are related to King John signor Magna Carta, an invalid document.
thered702 11 months ago
@thered702 prove that they are related?
GreedX23 9 months ago
@GreedX23 /watch?v=9oYKMJkatzI
So, a 12 year old put that together. Everyone being cousins and all is normal, but them all having a common ancestor is not.
thered702 9 months ago
@thered702 wow thats interesting.. I did some other research and found some more articles about it. Articles that predate this video. But the thing is, if you try and tell someone this - they think you're a "crazy conspiracy theorist". It's hard to explain to people.
GreedX23 9 months ago
@GreedX23 Then show them something they would find extremely valuable information, such as how to beat a possession charge or traffic tickets. Everyone hates those. Easy to explain. Check out marcstevens (dot) net
thered702 9 months ago
@GreedX23 also, i don't believe that video is very logical. were all related in some way. Charlemagne has many descendants alive today. Infact something like 75% of people alive today that have European Ancestry of any sort... are somehow, someway, descendants of Charlemagne.
GreedX23 9 months ago
OMG... this is horrible... can we turn down the awful music... ecchk... what did he say?... I cant hear the dialog over the music?...
hmdanker 1 year ago
@hmdanker It sounds well balanced on my speakers. Sorry. There's a transcript on my website - revolutioni(dot)st - link on the right to the Philosophy of Liberty video.
~Kalash
Kallepash 1 year ago
In 1962 i stood in front of an areospace building passing out flyers, against Walter reuther's UAW union.I started down a path of never backing down, it really is a lot of fun. 4 years ago i took pictures of a cop making an illegal traffic arrest. I was handcuffed and charged with violation of the patriot act, sorta? The first thing the cop did was damage my camera to get rid of photos.and called in 2 more squad cars (6) cops.I had a of fun. the cop lost his job, his boss lost hisjob so did the
tyronejonez01 1 year ago
If a man is to be free the first thing you must do is stand up bullies. You cannot accept force or threat of force from any one, ever!! What is going on i n Egypt right now is the the price you absolutely must pay to be free. your videos suggest, as do many other believes that it is a option depending on you feel when you get up in the morning. IT IS NOT AN OPTION!!!!!!!. If a clerk or a cop is rude, your reaction is the same. Every person around you must know are brave.
It is easy not to use
tyronejonez01 1 year ago
@tyronejonez01 Absolutely! But there is a mental aspect as well. In America, we are told constantly that we are free, and most people believe it. They ignore the evidence around them because they keep getting told they are free.
You absolutely must take action to free yourself from others who want to control you, but thre first step to action is to realize that you need to be freed.
Not everyone understands that freedom is not just a word.
Kallepash 1 year ago
I Think it is a misunderstanding on my part.
I could not sort out exactly what you said I said .
I will be more careful in the future.
tyronejonez01 1 year ago
@tyronejonez01 It's ok. I don't mind clarifying... I just hate the 500 character limit ;)
Kallepash 1 year ago
so the question is are you even in America or just stating out your opinion of how laws should be?
HighwaytoHeavenfan 1 year ago
@HighwaytoHeavenfan I'm in California, yes.
And I've read the constitution. It's all there in plain english.
Democracy is forbidden in America: the majority vote cannot legally control. This is to protect minority groups from persecution by the majority.
Kallepash 1 year ago
Morality is a right.
You can have your moral code, live by it, and enjoy it. No one is stopping you.
You cannot get a gun and FORCE your moral code upon others, depriving them of their lives, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.
In what way does gay marriage tread upon your RIGHTS of life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness?
Moral discomfort is not a right that has been violated, and cannot be enforced by government at bequest of its people - it is not in the people's power to give that authority.
Kallepash 1 year ago
See... your problem is that you don't listen, understand, or even try. (I did remove one duplicate post - don't freak out about me deleting your comments, please.)
You don't have a good understanding of "rights" yet.
What is a right, and what is a privilege? You have to answer this question before we can discuss deeper topics - such as gay marriage.
You do not have a RIGHT to not be offended by my behavior.
I DO have a right to behave as I choose, so long I do not tread upon your rights.
Kallepash 1 year ago
and why stop there dogs and cats can also marry too and lust well be written is not a law anymore but a commandment of the world to do or your free will to do so since this would violate other peoples rights who dont believe lust is a good thing.
HighwaytoHeavenfan 1 year ago
all the gays in the world can argue about polygamy but chances are they wont if they can have there polygamy there is no stopping marriage between just one female but many females can marry one male or many females can marry many females at the same time so if gay marriage happens you can be sure that polygamy well also happen too.
HighwaytoHeavenfan 1 year ago
You are not liberal nor are you democrat your an idiot and your video is just to aware awareness of same sex marriage im onto your gay agenda your upset bec ause people voted on it and the majority rule over it and didnt want same sex marriage even same sex couples voted against it so you homosexuals dont speak even your own people you claim are of your community.
HighwaytoHeavenfan 1 year ago
@HighwaytoHeavenfan Actually, it was anti-drug-law propaganda, but the message is so broad, and America is so messed up, you're correct in some ways. The thing is, there is no propaganda, but that of peace and equality, while you promote persecution and segregation. I am all for Prop 8 (assuming that's what you mean) - it invalidates ALL marriages in California, entered into by a man, woman, AND the State. That's the whole point - private contract, personal consent; no place for government.
Kallepash 1 year ago
If a contract is between two consenting adults, it is illegal for any state to make any law abrogating that contract, or denying the ability to enter into that contract. That's all in the Constitution.
I don't know what agenda there is here.
What are you trying to accomplish? Reversal of the Constitutional establishment of personal rights and governmental privilege; giving government the "right" to strike down any individual if the majority votes demanding it? Collective crime is still crime.
Kallepash 1 year ago
This is the best video I have ever seen! It's shortcoming is it does not give balance to
The absolute law: I have no right to us force or threat of force on anyone.
To be absolutely free. I have no right to accept force or threat of force from anyone.
The first half of the LAW is no good with out the second half !!! II hang my life on
truth.
tyronejonez01 1 year ago
there using this for the gay community so they can say we can have there same sex marriages and they wont stop there they well make sure every church marries them or say there racist and try to boy cott there church. Im onto ther segement.
HighwaytoHeavenfan 1 year ago
@HighwaytoHeavenfan I don't get what you're trying to say... A church, as an independently funded entity, has the right to refuse service to anyone, unless it receives special status or finding from government.
The state, as a public entity, empowered by the rights inherent in the prime, must provide services equally to all people, and cannot withhold, nor force, its services upon anyone.
Tax status privileges require a waiver of some rights. Boycotting any place or service is allowed.
Kallepash 1 year ago
@Kallepash Sorry but you got your information wrong too the bible teaches to sbumit to goverment Jesus said it this is where you fial the dollar bill says in God we trust. You are just saying what the founding fathers should be saying but the four founding fathers of goverment were not for what you are saying this makes you a communist your like the lebaneese go out and pick an orange tree that doesnt belong to you and say it should be free for everyone.
HighwaytoHeavenfan 1 year ago
@HighwaytoHeavenfan So freedom of religion is meaningless... You're free to believe and worship as you choose, but must submit to a christian lifestyle if you want to live in america?
Yet, yielding to government has never been an american christian tradition... Instead, the church promotes illegal governmental action in the name of god, using governmental force to impose a moral will illegally upon a free people.
You cannot legislate morality; vices are not crimes. See Lysander Spooner's notes.
Kallepash 1 year ago
@Kallepash I did not give "the state" any "rights" because I do not have any to give, I do not know any one else who has those "rights", do you?
tyronejonez01 1 year ago
@tyronejonez01 Ummm.... No.
Where did I say that you did? Any power "given" is a privilege, not a right. Government, the state, is a privileged entity with no rights at all.
It's a common misconception today, that people believe government is the origin of their rights... That rights are "created" by the constitution. This is backwards...
Rights are natural, and exist without government. Government was created to protect those rights, and the constitution limits its powers.
Kallepash 1 year ago
@Kallepash You are right on dude. Natural rights come from nature. Legal rights come from people and are also known as privileges. Contracts can confir rights, and so can law- but those are legal rights and can be taken the same way they were granted. The constutition DOES confir legal rights but mostly to the government. But as I write this I see that you said it better:)
shadowcii 1 year ago
@Kallepash You are right on dude. Natural rights come from nature. Legal rights come from people and are also known as privileges. Contracts can confir rights, and so can law- but those are legal rights and can be taken the same way they were granted. The constutition DOES confir legal rights but mostly to the government. But as I write this I see that you said it better:)
About the gay marriage discussion...
It is beyond the the assembly's legislative jurisdiction.
shadowcii 1 year ago
@Kallepash
About the gay marriage discussion...
It is beyond the the assembly's legislative jurisdiction to determine who can marry among the people and it doesnt try.
Dogs-Cats-Gays- CAN marry and weirdos probably do marry however the state can regulate who gets what privileges. The assembly is supreme in it's jurisdiction- and silent outside it's jursidiction. The question I have is... have we forgotton so much that we do in fact have a totalitarian government?
shadowcii 1 year ago
@shadowcii That's pretty much it.... There is an inherent right to contract; to consent to obligations and responsibilities with another party who will perform other acts for the mutual benefit of the contracting parties. Government can pass no law inhibiting the obligation of contracts, under the constitution.
Issuing and withholding the ability to enter into a marriage contract violates the constitution, and is an illegitimate governmental act; governmental crime on behalf of the majority.
Kallepash 1 year ago
As for the totalitarian govt...
The people believe we have democracy.
Democracy is totalitarian... The majority dictates its will, and its will is law.
Is it legal in America? No.
But it's here.
The push for democracy in Egypt is disappointing.
I hope the don't achieve it...and that they get the republic we're supposed to have here; govt. derived from human rights, rather than govt. with power to grant and deny privileges coloured as "rights" govt. controls, like the United Nations.
Kallepash 1 year ago
Contracts are not part of rights. Today's contracts and so-called binding documents are used in Fraudulent ways to imprison people. Vague words are used and hidden agendas used to bind and imprison people through debts. This is theft!!
UnderstandingCuresMe 1 year ago
Im not trying to be a troll or anything like that as I love your video. Just a recommendation.....The audio on the music track is really loud. Kind of takes away from the message.. Just My opinion. Thanks for sharing truth
sdolin78 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is PURE fantasy, Before the Constitution the Government had ZERO power, so this whole "limiting government", is a JOKE!
*
In an ECONOMY, the LEAST productive people are ALWAYS on the top with the MOST influence. While the majority does the PRODUCTION, and reaps the LEAST. But EVERY member's success and failure effects the ENTIRE economy.
*
These are things we have ALL experienced!
*
Ignoring these BASIC truths of nature, will ALWAYS produce DISASTER!
g4macdad 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is PURE fantasy, Before the Constitution the Government had ZERO power, so this whole "limiting government", is a JOKE!
*
In an ECONOMY, the LEAST productive people are ALWAYS on the top with the MOST influence. While the majority does the PRODUCTION, and reaps the LEAST. But EVERY member's success and failure effects the ENTIRE economy.
*
Ignoring these BASIC truths of nature, will ALWAYS produce DISASTER!
g4macdad 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is PURE fantasy, Before the Constitution the Government had ZERO power, so this whole "limiting government", is a JOKE!
*
In an ECONOMY, the LEAST productive people are ALWAYS on the top with the MOST influence. While the majority does the PRODUCTION, and reaps the LEAST. But EVERY member's success and failure effects the ENTIRE economy.
*
Ignoring these BASIC truths of nature, will ALWAYS produce DISASTER!
g4macdad 1 year ago
I believe this with every fiber of my being.
patricialee76 1 year ago
What a great video. Thank you. PEACE.
MrRuzo214 1 year ago
Two words come to mind when I watch this: Tacit Consent.
slaughtz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ten Essential Points on Anarcho-Capitalists: docs.google.com/document/d/1ax3_Pzxgj-fjvCwBofUjA0vgH13RexEf8rug3QOMnds/edit?hl=en#
yonoid818 1 year ago
The Peruvian flute music is just killing me.
clevername333 1 year ago
funny how this can be applied to the Obama
Mostdef 1 year ago
@Mostdef it isn't really. It's simple... Collectivism, or group rights, versus liberty and individual rights. Both republicans and democrats are (generally speaking) collectivistic in their thinking... They only differ in which areas collectivism should be applied and which individual rights are sacred.
Kallepash 1 year ago
@Kallepash So your saying all that regulation democrats are always preaching is to promote liberty?
Mostdef 1 year ago
@Mostdef No... Regulation reduces liberty. It permits agents of the government to make decisions, and enforce their choices at gunpoint.
Both parties seek to increase the power of the collective... The majority, the alleged will of the people.
Under that pretense, they seize powers outside the rights of the people, not derived from them, and commit crime - violate the rights of the minority (even 49.999%) - in the name of the public good; crime in the name of law while breaking the supreme law.
Kallepash 1 year ago
@Kallepash so how was my initial comment incorrect? Are you saying Obama is for less regulation? His record the past two years appears to be for a lot of regulation.
Mostdef 1 year ago
@Mostdef It wasn't incorrect...
I meant that it wasn't funny... Wasn't hard to understand how it could also apply to Obama. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Kallepash 1 year ago
@Kallepash oh, the only reason I mentioned that is because the video seemed to be going solely at Bush which makes sense considering the date of this video
Mostdef 1 year ago
@Mostdef Yeah, it could use updating... But I'm behind on my politics after a year in prison, and can't have a computer until January... But I'll do more when I can. The phone records video but doesn't edit it :-(
I'd also scrap the civil flag stuff... And use my own music since I learned how to play the guitar while I was locked up.
Thanks again, taxpayers, for that much needed vacation. ;)
Kallepash 1 year ago
@Kallepash ha I know that feeling screwed recently myself
Mostdef 1 year ago
Do you read Rothbard?
xTAxGUNZ 1 year ago
@xTAxGUNZ Thanks...and, no...don't know what it is, but I'm sure I'll stay. Thank you. ;) I like Lysander Spooner though.
Kallepash 1 year ago
Great video!!
xTAxGUNZ 1 year ago
the social democracy idee is the top of evolution
realfritztc 1 year ago
hay, this video is very descriptive and very helpful to what im trying to tell everyone, may i upload this video and put it on my channal?
patriotfreedomfigher 1 year ago
@patriotfreedomfigher
Absolutely! Though, some people sill won't get it. See the last few comments.
You should also do a search for individualism versus collectivism. I may still have working links for those videos on revolutioni.st but I haven't checked in a long time.
Kallepash 1 year ago
@Kallepash i did in the past, however a person on youtube called "STOPandLOOK" has animations just like this on collectism vs individualism,role of goverment, ect. these animations make what im trying to say a whole lot easyer, this video will give me something to point to, thanks alot this helps out alot.
patriotfreedomfigher 1 year ago
@patriotfreedomfigher
Those are the ones I was thinking about. You're welcome.
Kallepash 1 year ago
So do you believe that a police officer has a legal right to arrest a person and deprive them of liberty if they commit a crime? Does the right to bear arms mean that I can own a nuclear weapon? Can I stand on a street corner and shout profanity if I choose to? That's not causing injury to another party is it? Can I refuse to pay taxes? Can I refuse to stop if a police officer signals me to because I think that I did nothing wrong?
Eurotrash4367 1 year ago
And this is where things start to get twisted. You're missing the main point though - ALL PERSONS have equal rights. Who empowers "the government" and "the police"? People - with equal rights. You've also skewed the concept of "rights" and determined (falsely) that "Constitutional Rights" stem from their creation in the Constitution. This isn't the case either. Can you shout profanity/your viewpoints? Absolutely. Can you use a gun to intimidate others to believe your points? No.
Kallepash 1 year ago
It goes back to the initiation of force - the initial violation of the other person's life, liberty, or property. If the state initiates the violation - under pretense of "upholding the morals of the community" or to protect FALSE rights (of medical care, social security, etc) while violating acknowledged rights, the government, formed by the Constitution by contract, is in breach of the Constitutional contract, and all its powers are thus nullified. - revolutioni(dot)st
Kallepash 1 year ago
As for your "difficult" questions - an officer has a legal right to ASSIST in the protection of another's rights. If you violate someone's rights, the officer - or ANY PERSON - has a legal right to assist in stopping you. Nuclear weapons - sure, but the simple possession, assuming intent to use for its purpose, endangers others without their consent - if you had land to detonate it, and ensured the ecological effects would not extrude off your land? Sure.
Kallepash 1 year ago
@Kallepash
Do i have the right to give someone an abortion if im not a trained doctor and both consent? Maybe im cheaper than a regular doctor.
She knows the risks, right? Same for most surgeries.
Do i have the right to ban everyone from my private property, and then say, buy large tracts of land between cities and charge exorbatant amounts for crossing them, which i then use to buy more land, and eventually become a corporate government, "Taxing" people (Charging them) for using my property
sketchydc 1 year ago
@sketchydc
Abortion is rough. Surgery? Yes. You have the right to be stupid and make mistakes. If the other person is both in their right mind and consents, yes. You aren't asking the right questions though... Do you have the right to stop someone from consenting to do something they want to do if it will not effect your rights?
Abortion is special. Fetuses are not recognized persons at this time and do not have rights. Should that change, abortion would be an exception to consent.
Kallepash 1 year ago
@sketchydc Fetuses are human beings and deserve life.
noyouaintgettingit 1 year ago
@Kallepash
I agree with the basic principles of liberty that you describe. There will always be people who don't respect the rights of others just as there will be public servants who abuse their authority. This is why we have a system of checks and balances within our government. If one branch of government exceeds the scope of it's authority than the other branches are supposed to stop it. Example-false arrest/search is overturned by the courts.
Eurotrash4367 1 year ago
@Kallepash
Do you believe that we have the right to a preemptive strike against another person or group if we believe that they are about to attack us but haven't done so yet? Example-can we lawfully strike another person if they threaten to strike us and have the ability to carry out the threat but have not done so yet? Must we wait to be attacked before we can respond?
Eurotrash4367 1 year ago
@Kallepash
You just said that people have a right to privatly own nuclear weapons. Epic fail!
Eurotrash4367 1 year ago
This video misses one important point. The Constitution says that citizens can not be deprived of life or liberty WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. In other words, a police officer MAY deprive you of liberty if you commit a crime. The government and it's agents MAY seize(deprive) you of your property if that property was gained by illegal means. This video is entertaining but is obviously biased and is based on a political agenda.
Eurotrash4367 1 year ago
But it does... You have a right to assist in the protection of another's rights, and can empower others to assist in the protection of those rights.
The problem is that law today does not claim to protect rights, but values, using government's violent force to impede liberty and oppress, not ensure equal rights, but isolated privileges to compel others to obey your moral standards.
@Eurotrash4367
Kallepash 1 year ago
@Eurotrash4367
If the illegal means you are referring to was a contract between consenting adults, with no injured party requesting assistance (drug deals or prostitution), who's rights is the government protecting? The collective community's? And when the majority's demands diminish the rights of minorities, even if the practice of these rights is labeled as crime, the true criminals are those diminishing and or abrocating the rights of the minorities, even if that force is called government.
Kallepash 1 year ago
@Kallepash
Drug dealing is not a "victimless" crime. It diminishes everyone's property when a citizen requires medical care that they can not afford. You could argue that they have an absolute right to make that choice but you would than have to argue that they are not entitled to emergency medical care and other services. The founders values were based on a judeo/Christian cultural concept whether we like it or not. We do not have unlimited rights and our Constitution never suggests this.
Eurotrash4367 1 year ago
@Eurotrash4367
Here is the central argument - what is "crime?" Violating the will of the majority (which has no right to enslave you to its will) is not "crime."
Crime is the infringement upon another's rights without their consent (consent converts crimes into innocuous activities - look at the difference between rape and sex). When government FORBIDS the giving of consent between "free adults," the right to self determination is breeched - CRIME has been committed by the state.
Kallepash 1 year ago
24 idiots don't know what liberty means and have no self respect.
tociph 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The evolution of recent human history has been dominated by minority control over the majority, the rulers have come up with nessesary illusion for compliance and servitude of the many, Science and technology has created a world of plenty, but the market mechanism is about artificial scarcity to perpetuate poverty and exploitation in a modality of war,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and so on . The new paradigm is sharing the Earth for our collective needs and wellbeing
arzoyan 1 year ago
WATCH; ENACT; RESTORE AMERICA AND THE WORLD!!!
randylinamen 1 year ago
Interesting rationalization.
Causa10bserver 1 year ago
Where exactly in the Constitution or US Code is property a protected right? I agree with you 100%, and having an exact law to cite to say how this prohibition is illegal would be an excellent tool when debating statists. However in USC Title 18, Chapter 13, § 241 and § 242 it says rights protected by the Constitution or US law (which is BS, because the ninth amendment says that they don't have the power to take rights even if they are not explicitly protected).
bluecobra95 1 year ago
It's all in the 5th amendment... You cannot be deprived of your life, liberty, or property.
@bluecobra95
Kallepash 1 year ago
This is what should be taught to every schoolchild, instead of all the lefty social engineering pap. Individual liberties-not human rights, equal justice-not social justice.Teach people to fish and stop brainwashing them that it's okay to steal other peoples fish. They'll be far better off and happier in their own lives; Ahbut then where would the state get its power from? Frackin Frackers.
7Highlander 1 year ago 13
@7Highlander
To teach the declaration of independence, self dignity, self respect & self responsibility to kids would be a wonderful idea. Its the cornerstone of the american society- of any free society. But we should not expect government to ever wanna stop brainwashing kids & start teaching them to be responsible
swu880 1 year ago
Wow, that video demonstrates the definition of Liberty dumbed down just enough for even the stupidest moron to understand it...
Soulshroude 1 year ago
Bush have denied Americans their Liberties, according to this video.
AstroMen2911 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
FUCK AMERICA!!!
adamisajoker 1 year ago
this 1 is better
Karmathejedi1701 1 year ago
Interesting vid. I can do without the pan pipes (in every damned garden centre I visit), other than that, engaging.
Although I don't think it addresses the issues of group decision making thoroughly enough. Group contracts are necessary yet add complication. It is conceivable for instance, that an act of aggression may be justified prior to experiencing aggression. This is too heavy to do properly in youtube comments, but thanks for the input.
MarkMuses 1 year ago
Well my choice is to smoke marijuana....and thats is illegal(goverment hasnt proof why is so bad using it)....thats mean if i took mrijuana and police known tahat, i go to prison...is that freedom of choice or....?
U c, in USA (and most of world) u havent freedpm of choice....think about this one.
EvilMrDark 1 year ago
@EvilMrDark do what you want with your body, It's yours!
crunchyuncle 1 year ago
@EvilMrDark You have the freedom of choice, I have the freedom NOT to pay for your mistakes.
yakyakyak69 1 year ago
@yakyakyak69 too bad that you don't have the freedom of choice, and that you do havce to pay for other people's mistakes
makeshiftbattlefield 1 year ago
@yakyakyak69 If some men are entitled by rights to products of the work of others, it means that those others being forced to provide are deprived of their rights and are condemned to slave labor. There can be no such thing as the right to enslave even for the welfare of others. Progressives endorse slavery.
yakyakyak69 1 year ago
@yakyakyak69 agreed!
yakyakyak69 1 year ago
Excellent video. Thank you!
cowgirlmoon 1 year ago
Purchase from who and how do they own do they own it to begin with.
This is the problem.
The land is owned by the people and they received nothing for it.
I propose you can lease the land from the people.
Revenue Source for the common defense and protection of rights.
ricklzimmerman 1 year ago
I was born with no Property {real estate} if all the real estate is owned by the few and I cant acquire enough to sustain myself does this violate my liberty??? Property is defined self ownership and what you produce no ine produced land it belongs to everyone!!! Thats all Folks!!!
ricklzimmerman 1 year ago
@ricklzimmerman Agreed. The land was here before mankind, and it is the most beautiful thing that we may know. Nature, in all of its wonders, should not be owned by any one person, or group of people. Claiming ownership of land is a sin if ever there was one. Power to Native American outlook.
Nisassa31425 1 year ago
Easy to say if you live off the hard work and ambition of others.
TRY and take my home and my land and see what happens.
Fucking lazy parasite!
espada9 1 year ago
property is not just real estate. It is also wealth, material goods, and those necessities which are provided for you by your family, etc. property is not just what you are born with. It is also what a person accumulates through a lifetime of work, trade, and luck.
Does someone who was born with even less than what you have, have the right to take from you a portion of what you have accumulated throughout your life?
pukedragon 1 year ago 2
@ricklzimmerman
Property is defined as "that part of nature which (through your labor and talent) you turn to productive use)". So, if you can create something of value and sell enough of it, you will be able to purchase some land, if you wish.
AnnInFL 1 year ago
The concept of "property" is a delusion of ego. Nobody "owns" anything really. We simply SAY that we own things so that we can exercise control. Property is about control rather than cooperation, ownership rather than stewardship., self rather than others. volition rather than virtue.
A "right" is a just need meaning it is about JUSTice, not SELFishness. Nobody has a RIGHT to be a billionaire unless they can justify the necessity of that much property.
nodesnetwork 1 year ago
The amount doesn't matter. I no more have right to take anything from your home or bank account than you do to take from the home or bank account of a billionaire.
pukedragon 1 year ago 4
@pukedragon but you do have the right to take from entities that you grant privileges to... specifically state chartered corporations. There is every difference between a living soul accumulating property according to natural right and a ficticious entity (privately or publicly owned) accumulating property according to public privilege.
shadowcii 1 year ago
@nodesnetwork
If someone does not have the right to own property, i.e. the fruits of his own labor and time (life), then that is to say that he does not own his own life. He must be a slave who is required to serve the demands of others.
A "right" is NOT defined as a just need. Justice is defined as fairness--the absence of a violation of rights. By attempting to redefine a "right", you're perverting the concept of "justice". Something CANNOT be a right if it violates someone else's rights.
AnnInFL 1 year ago
We need to start by bringing an end to the taxpayer funding of politcal action such a Planned Parenthood, La Raza and ACORN.
ram0166 2 years ago
So, do I have a right to own a nuclear bomb if I can purchase or produce it?
ram0166 2 years ago
@ram0166 Sure, as long as you don't violate other peoples' rights by killing, or threatening them.
Nisassa31425 1 year ago
Can you store it, maintain it, and not use it as a means of extortion?
If you can't store it or maintain it properly, then you are endangering all other peoples life and well being, and even their property. If you are using it as a means of exortion (like north korea and iran and other muslim/communist countries would) then ANY other nation on earth has the right to destroy you.
pukedragon 1 year ago
This expanded video is not as effective than the original.
The US is a very imperfect embodiment of the philosophy of liberty.
dumky 2 years ago
These ideals are all well and good, but they also allow for a capitalist to profit from and own the collective labor power of workers. A labor power that would not otherwise have existed, or would have taken another form. It is by this means that a man can enslave "Men", but not another man. It is also by this that labor environments and consumption patterns are created. Labor unions are the workers reply. State Capitalism leads to overproduction and resource depletion and sometimes to war.
kokopelli314 2 years ago
Indeed and people are free to form unions, strike, etc. You own your labor and the fruits of it. If you, or you and a group decide you are not being paid or treated fairly, you are entitled to strike, resign, protest, etc. You are also free to state your case to the free media and gain public support.
I wouldn't say TRUE, FREE MARKET Capitalism leads to overproduction. A true free market ( not this mixed system we have in the US ) is typically quite efficient at sorting itself out.
Libertyman78 2 years ago
I agree with that. Fredric von Hayek, correctly observed that price synchronizes community and personal knowledge about resources, labor cost etc. Any distortion of the market, he argued conveys false information and leads folks to make bad choices. Ayn Rand, bless her black soul warned us about the perils of state capitalism and referred to the free market as the "Unknown Ideal"
kokopelli314 2 years ago
State capitalism doesn't lead to overproduction, overproduction leads to overproduction. This video would suggest markets be free, and thus production would be determined by market forces and would have nothing to do with the government.
As for resources, a government can tax organizations for any mining/extraction of resources... and heavily too. After all, the land belongs to the people... so if the mining/extraction does not benefit the people directly, they must benefit through taxation.
djdestroyer 2 years ago
Mining does benefit people, and very occasionally, the people where the mining actually occurs. However it only benefits people through production of goods or the means to goods and services. Problems come in when governments interfere by excessive allocation and directed legislation creating monopolies and oligopolies.
Taxpayer created infrastructure , for example roads, benefits both consumers and producers, but inevitably leads to a spiral of increasing consumption, and production.
kokopelli314 2 years ago
How do people benefit if a transnational comes in and mines all of our resources?
Example:
An American uranium-mining company could set up a subsidiary in Canada and all profits from the operation would be transferred to the Americans, or at least the shareholders, none of which have to necessarily be Canadian. Sure, the plant workers may be Canadian and thus benefit, but chances are all the executive positions belong to Americans as well. So where does the individual benefit?
djdestroyer 2 years ago