not owned, not self owned, not alone, not identified or exceptioned by any concept of ownership, even of self- this still implies that the aquisition of life and liberty comports an greater character and a greater liberty, and leads to non-forceful abilities, called neglect which whimsically preclude that as my ownership of self, I may refuse social duty to my fellow citizens- there is no social contract offered in this video, based on property and opens the door to sins of inaction as well.
* I shouldn't say capitalist- I should say economic, it is not an alternative economic option, because socialism is not economic- just as liberty is not actually rooted in property- again, this is playing the corporate game- it used to be landed citizens had more rights, now corporations have all the rights- if you wish to have liberty for the human, you cannot cast it as superior or alternate forms of those notions- you have to break the mould- liberty is that which makes humans full and real
I am not knocking its idea- only that it is insufficient, it is pitting the human as an alternative to the corporate state- but this will lead to issues- like pretending communism was an alternative to capitalism- it's just not true- socialism is not alternative, b/c it's social, concerned with people, and is not an alternative to capital- it's in a completely different realm, just as the human and its social duties should not be made to counter act corporatism cast as superior indiv. form of it
This video has some problems from the get go- for instance, it is clearly not a process by which to render what the meaning of liberty is- but a reaction to corporate market corruption- 'I own my life', is not a universal context for liberty, it doesn't touch on 'WHY I SHOULD OWN MY LIFE?'. And it suffers from the same corporate habit of reducing humanity to commodities- albeit an improvement, but still, only self-possessed, a utility, not integral, and to what importance?
@jacobromu .....only after Milton Friedman convinced him to open them resulting in Chile becoming the most prosperous country in South America. Pinochet voluntarily steeped down and Friedman is a human rights hero for what he did there.
Libertarianism is awesome but it is not a utopia as some of these comments are suggesting. Utopia's don't exist and can never exist whilst there is scarcity in the world. But it is the philosophy that each person has the right to defend himself, his produce, and his liberty. This is also not an anarchist belief either because government is needed to protect your private property from the aggression of others.
actually, I think the philosophy of liberty is based on the idea that humans cannot be owned. Self-ownership is as if to say self-slavery, so that self-slavery is freedom... i.e. slavery is freedom... is that possible, for any type of slavery to be freedom... don't think so.
property and ownership is not just the right to peaceful control... it's also the right to trade. You cannot trade a human, therefore it is not property. The logic of property is about obtaining and trading goods, and none of that pertains to human beings.
You can trade your time. People do every time they get a job.
Self ownership is an inalienable right.
The right to other property is not inalienable, so other property can be traded.
But if you still object, it may be sufficient for the arguments in this video to say that even if you do not own yourself, at least no one else owns you.
How do we deal with the problem of "old money?" For example, if the wealth of a family is traced back to the value in land acquired through forceful conquest (i.e. native americans, or british-colonized india), all of the wealth that has resulted from this capital, acquired wrongfully through violence, is illegitimate, and those that benefit from its use in the marketplace have an unfair and morally dubious advantage in any libertarian society we might attempt to create.
Every and all political systems will have to contend with legacy problems like the ones you mentioned. Sadly, the best way forward may simply be to draw a line and admit some people lucked out in the past through unjust means. Trying to redistribute their property more fairly will likely cause more havoc and end up hurting the most vulnerable in society. Just look at Zimbabwe -- the Africans redistributed white farm lands to blacks but it ruined the economy.
One small example - Fifty years ago men were forced by the government to fight in a war (Vietnam). This war resulted in some US citizens profiting from the results. Is this wealth, the effects of which are of course untraceable, rightfully possessed property? How do we separate currently possessed property wrongfully acquired from that which was rightfully acquired? How do we transition from this tainted marketplace to a free, libertarian one? There is no reset button.
I believe that libertarianism is the most beneficial political philosophy - on paper. The problem that I believe is insurmountable: how do we fairly transition from our current society to a libertarian one? While much of the property owned by individuals in this country was acquired through legitimate libertarian market forces, a lot of it was not.
I like the video alot but there are some issues that concern me. Even if a person is doing harm only to themself they will also do harm to others if they continue the behavior. Drug use when driving. Drug use when pregnant. Abortion is it murder of millions or a choice? There has to be definitions of each right based on morality. A lot of questions need to be answered. Who's morrality is correct for others?
I would say that abortion is not imposing force on another. The argument is that a collection of tissues are not a human being. Now that does bring up a debate but I don't think that anyone would choose to save the life of some tissue to a fully formed outside the womb baby. Its a highly unlikely situation sure but the moral of the story remains logical. Either way its not like the other parties are solving this issue either.
To answer some of your questions: One's stance on drug use while pregnant, or abortion depends on if your believe that an unborn child is a human being. If you do then those acts should be outlawed because no one has a right to harm others. If you believe that a 6 month old fetus is just a bunch of cells then what the mother does shouldn't matter.
As for drug use while driving; it's not the drug use that harms anyone, but wreckless driving that does the damage. Which is already illegal btw
what a GREAT video!!! simple, easy to understand, and hopefully people will see the ways in which the U.S. government steals from individuals and has started to seriously infringe liberties. Yes, there are worse governments around the world, but if we love her, we will strive to protect and fight to keep her the way she was intended to be. FREE!!!
I just explained. It is not stolen from you. You choose to live in the country you live in when you turned 18. You didn't stop "using" the product.
Today's somewhat democratic world is no different then that Libertarian Utopia. With the only difference that you can vote and in an libertarian system it is the landowner who decides.
You choose to live in your country, with all it's laws and rules. If you don't like it during your life, leave. That's how it will go in a libertarian society.
The democratic society is almost the same. Almost. Love your country, leave it or ... vote for another party.
I never chose to be born in this country. I am where I am. If you want to use violence to remove me, fine, but violence isn't an argument, and it doesn't make you right.
Tell me why anyone else has more of a right to my property than I do, unless you don't believe in private property.
Well, suppose I am a landowner and you are born on my private property in a "libertarian society", and you refuse to pay rent to use my property, then I will kick you off my property, because you are stealing.
What is the difference with today? In today's democratic society, it's the same, but you can at least vote in your own country. Then I prefer democracy to libertarianism.
The difference is that, in a libertarian society, private property is absolute because no one has more of a right to your property than you do. Since this cannot be logically refuted, the only way to overcome this is with violence, which is not an argument.
This is the method the government uses. This is why I would rather live in a libertarian society. It's logical and rational and not based on violence.
You are surely mistaken. By your definition, if the majority (lynch mob) threatens to burn my house or kill me but does not actually do it then I am not living in a tyranny. If the majority takes my property, it is not tyranny as long as they do it without using violence (perhaps when I am not home). What makes tyranny is not the kind of action it motivates, but the concentration of power it necessitates, which in this case will be whatever institution that reflects the will of the majority.
If the majority threatens to burn your house down, then your obviously not living in a pacifist democracy.
Libertarians are against the initiation of violence, like me. But they also think that everything has to be privatised, and nothing should be communal. I disagree at that point.
You are entitled to disagree on that point. All I wanted to do was sensitize you to the fact that Libertarianism is not incompatible with democracy. Also since you brought it up, note the fact that although violence and tyranny are usually friends, what defines a tyranny is not violence. It is oppression (by the majority on the minority or vice-versa)
You are surely mistaken. By your definition, if the majority (lynch mob) threatens to burn my house or kill me but does not actually do it then I am not living in a tyranny. If the majority takes my property, it is not tyranny as long as they do it without using violence (perhaps when I am not home). What makes tyranny is not the kind of action it motivates, but the concentration of power it necessitates, which in this case will be whatever institution that reflects the will of the majority.
When you say that you have no right to impose rulers onto others do you mean that there is no right for government, whome do have power over us and do have more rights, and there is no right for a president or a prime minister perhaps? If so then without government, president or prime minister there would be no sense of control and everything would be more haywire then usual. then people would have to come up with a solution to the problem and we would be confused.
The purpose of government that's focused on individual liberty isn't to rule over people, but to serve people for the purpose of fair preservation of liberty for all.
And, it's not about giving something to others for nothing, but to represent the collective will of those who mutually desire individual liberty and the ability for it to work on its behalf. When government doesn't work that way, they must answer to the people.
The idea behind liberty is, basically, you are free to do whatever you want so long as what you do doesn't infringe upon the liberty of others.
This applies to everyone, even those elected to a significant public servant position. The U.S. President, for instance, IS a public servant sworn to act constitutionally for the liberty of the people. He isn't above the law and cannot act unjustly against anyone. (Or, at least, that's how it's supposed to be.)
In other words, stop hiding in the herd. If you want War, join the military and do your own killing! If you want to eat meat buy an animal from another animal and butcher them yourself! Or live your life with only the right to kill in defense of your survival. If killing is done for any other reason, or by others on your behalf it's still senseless killing.
Accept this individual responsible, or remain a sheep in the herd until the slaughterhouse.
tomtomttom are you a control freak and must tell me what to do. Look you would hate if I told you not to wear red close, you would feel violated if red close was a crime. However, according your control freak ways if most of the world including you found red repulsive like say slavery then you would be against it. As long as no one forces someone else to wear red or go into slavery then all is fine. Long live tomtomttom the dictator.
Man my grammar and spelling above is atrocious. But since I should be liberal to miss spell and grammertize(I invented the word because I am free to do so). However there may be a spelling and grammer nazi out there to shot me down.
Instead of saying self-ownership you should say self-determination. Because ownership implies you are a commodity that can be bought and sold, even if it is by you. Better word choice is self-determination.
It should also be against the law to voluntarily sell yourself into slavery. Because it violates your rights and other people's civil rights. Even if someone wants to be a slave it opens the door to slavery. And harms everyone. Also the question is asked what happens if he or she bares kids while a slave. Do they become slaves as well?
No no, you own your body and you can sell it lets not water this down. If you want to mutilate, kill, or torture yourself. Hey that's your business and not tomtomttom. Just because tomtomttom says don't kill yourself or take cocaine etc, I should not be restricted. You think it wrong don't do it but don't deprive me of my self inflicted torcher just because you won't do it to yourself.
gentlestormtoo you are a fool. Did I ever say you can't 'torcher' yourself? Go do that. I said people shouldn't be allowed to own other people. I guess you really don't understand liberty you dumbass. Now don't try and put words in my mouth. Unlike you I don't believe in slavery.
It is in the nature of a human, when humiliated to withdraw, his illusion of individuality which gives him a concept by which to live is damaged, and no longer functions properly, he must withdraw to reaffirm himself.
I just mean I need to think about it more. I've never seen it so well explained and illuminated. Actually it reminds me of a lot of the philosophy I've been reading from Goodkind lately, which is supposedly Objectivist, I believe. Anyway, I'm a contemplative person like that. Don't jump to conclusions. Need to watch it a few more times.
Initiating force is what is wrong. It's ok to defend yourself. Force (usually via government) is the greatest evil of man. Rape, Slavery, Murder, War, Theft.. you name it governments have at some point made it all legal and caused great oppression and tyranny upon man our current government is no exception. If you say NO to them they will hurt you.
The free hugs campaign with juan mann here on youtube was shut down. The Sydney city council actually outlawed HUGGING in public. Effectively they did anyway, because anyone wanting to hug people needed 25 million in liability insurance in case a hug led to a back problem. If the city lets you get hugged on city property you might sue the city for a "Hug gone bad." This world is frikken insane.
Accidents happen. We need to grow up and deal with it. No one should be arrested or prosecuted unless, as guaranteed in the 14th amendment, criminal Intent can be shown. I would rather have a less SAFE world and a more FREE world.
Like a car accident? There are legal avenues. In many cases, every day, people use their capacity of understanding and compassion to resolve issues, with the hope of education in mind. Do u have a specific example?
We have become so accustomed to everyone bringing lawsuits against anyone who unintentionally contributed to some type of harm. These lawsuits have chipped away at our liberties where someday we will have to carry 25 million in personal liability insurance to leave the house ON FOOT. If a natural disaster killed your loved one, WHO WOULD YOU SUE?
this is really well done! I'm not sure if I completely agree with Libertarianism (at least as expressed herein) but it expresses it clearly and makes it possible for me to really contemplate! Great Job!
not owned, not self owned, not alone, not identified or exceptioned by any concept of ownership, even of self- this still implies that the aquisition of life and liberty comports an greater character and a greater liberty, and leads to non-forceful abilities, called neglect which whimsically preclude that as my ownership of self, I may refuse social duty to my fellow citizens- there is no social contract offered in this video, based on property and opens the door to sins of inaction as well.
fiann100 1 month ago
* I shouldn't say capitalist- I should say economic, it is not an alternative economic option, because socialism is not economic- just as liberty is not actually rooted in property- again, this is playing the corporate game- it used to be landed citizens had more rights, now corporations have all the rights- if you wish to have liberty for the human, you cannot cast it as superior or alternate forms of those notions- you have to break the mould- liberty is that which makes humans full and real
fiann100 1 month ago
I am not knocking its idea- only that it is insufficient, it is pitting the human as an alternative to the corporate state- but this will lead to issues- like pretending communism was an alternative to capitalism- it's just not true- socialism is not alternative, b/c it's social, concerned with people, and is not an alternative to capital- it's in a completely different realm, just as the human and its social duties should not be made to counter act corporatism cast as superior indiv. form of it
fiann100 1 month ago
This video has some problems from the get go- for instance, it is clearly not a process by which to render what the meaning of liberty is- but a reaction to corporate market corruption- 'I own my life', is not a universal context for liberty, it doesn't touch on 'WHY I SHOULD OWN MY LIFE?'. And it suffers from the same corporate habit of reducing humanity to commodities- albeit an improvement, but still, only self-possessed, a utility, not integral, and to what importance?
fiann100 1 month ago
This video is from the Illuminati website.
BrockPrinting 5 months ago
@BrockPrinting Actually the site is secretly run by reptillians.
topperheartramada 5 months ago
Great video.
styzoom 5 months ago
So simple and right....only human hating morons could disagree with this.
Riellysdad 5 months ago
WOWWW that would be such a fail in real life u fuckin pussies!
adkjshane 5 months ago
@adkjshane So being respectful of others and their ideas makes one a pussy?
BrettDiercks 5 months ago
ya know, Pinochet had pretty much the free-est markets ever
jacobromu 1 year ago
@jacobromu .....only after Milton Friedman convinced him to open them resulting in Chile becoming the most prosperous country in South America. Pinochet voluntarily steeped down and Friedman is a human rights hero for what he did there.
Riellysdad 5 months ago
the social democracy idee is the top of evolution
realfritztc 1 year ago
Comment removed
Xiagar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@realfritztc In a closed, perfect world, every utopia is homeless. -Ernst Bloch
Xiagar 1 year ago
Comment removed
Xiagar 1 year ago
Comment removed
Xiagar 1 year ago
@Xiagar utopia will be construct by realistic dreamers and is home for everybody !!!
realfritztc 1 year ago
@realfritztc But if you think the idea of social democracy is the top of the evolution, there is no room for utopias in your mind ^^
Xiagar 1 year ago
@Xiagar ...the way to U..... ...not a finish !
realfritztc 1 year ago
Libertarianism is awesome but it is not a utopia as some of these comments are suggesting. Utopia's don't exist and can never exist whilst there is scarcity in the world. But it is the philosophy that each person has the right to defend himself, his produce, and his liberty. This is also not an anarchist belief either because government is needed to protect your private property from the aggression of others.
UncleSamAmerican 1 year ago 4
I would have watched this if it weren't for the MOST annoying music. I'll go read about it instead.
typesix 1 year ago
@typesix Just mute it.
albino0rca 5 months ago
>Good luck with your utopia.
Good luck with your slavery.
doghousepiiman 2 years ago
Thank you for reminding me that my liberty is mine and that my stances on letting people decide issues for themselves is true patriotism.
vids721 2 years ago 2
A lovely idea. Good luck with your utopia.
rocketmagnet 2 years ago
Awesome!
cuv4xd 2 years ago 3
Wonderful!
Free minds and free markets!
freesk8 3 years ago 15
Amazing video! Very well done
Psychmonster 3 years ago 2
actually, I think the philosophy of liberty is based on the idea that humans cannot be owned. Self-ownership is as if to say self-slavery, so that self-slavery is freedom... i.e. slavery is freedom... is that possible, for any type of slavery to be freedom... don't think so.
Humans. cannot. be. owned.
pyrrho314 3 years ago
Ownership is merely the right to control peacefully.
If I own my cell phone, then I have the right to control it, so long as I do not violate the rights of others, or harm them significantly.
The term "significant" is vague, but I think that you and I would agree 99% of the time on what is significant harm.
To say that I own myself, is merely to say that I have the right to control my body as long as I do no sig. harm to others.
If you do not have the right to control your body then who does?
freesk8 3 years ago
property and ownership is not just the right to peaceful control... it's also the right to trade. You cannot trade a human, therefore it is not property. The logic of property is about obtaining and trading goods, and none of that pertains to human beings.
pyrrho314 3 years ago
You can trade your time. People do every time they get a job.
Self ownership is an inalienable right.
The right to other property is not inalienable, so other property can be traded.
But if you still object, it may be sufficient for the arguments in this video to say that even if you do not own yourself, at least no one else owns you.
freesk8 3 years ago
and it is the right to destroy, Schopenhauer makes this clear in his defense of the right to suicide
amobashe 3 years ago
How do we deal with the problem of "old money?" For example, if the wealth of a family is traced back to the value in land acquired through forceful conquest (i.e. native americans, or british-colonized india), all of the wealth that has resulted from this capital, acquired wrongfully through violence, is illegitimate, and those that benefit from its use in the marketplace have an unfair and morally dubious advantage in any libertarian society we might attempt to create.
techstyle 3 years ago 2
Every and all political systems will have to contend with legacy problems like the ones you mentioned. Sadly, the best way forward may simply be to draw a line and admit some people lucked out in the past through unjust means. Trying to redistribute their property more fairly will likely cause more havoc and end up hurting the most vulnerable in society. Just look at Zimbabwe -- the Africans redistributed white farm lands to blacks but it ruined the economy.
lordaltay5 3 years ago 10
One small example - Fifty years ago men were forced by the government to fight in a war (Vietnam). This war resulted in some US citizens profiting from the results. Is this wealth, the effects of which are of course untraceable, rightfully possessed property? How do we separate currently possessed property wrongfully acquired from that which was rightfully acquired? How do we transition from this tainted marketplace to a free, libertarian one? There is no reset button.
techstyle 3 years ago
I believe that libertarianism is the most beneficial political philosophy - on paper. The problem that I believe is insurmountable: how do we fairly transition from our current society to a libertarian one? While much of the property owned by individuals in this country was acquired through legitimate libertarian market forces, a lot of it was not.
techstyle 3 years ago 2
One of the wisest thing I've heard, even though it makes me think of instructions given before entering a planet.
Madmachine73 3 years ago
I like the video alot but there are some issues that concern me. Even if a person is doing harm only to themself they will also do harm to others if they continue the behavior. Drug use when driving. Drug use when pregnant. Abortion is it murder of millions or a choice? There has to be definitions of each right based on morality. A lot of questions need to be answered. Who's morrality is correct for others?
bossman068410 3 years ago
I'll try to answer some of these if I can, though I'm by no means a Cato Scholar...IMO:
Drug use when driving would be considered initiating violence (though unintended) against others.
Drug use when pregnant and abortion: I have no idea. Anyone else know? Is killing a fetus considered force against another?
Okay I didn't answer as many as I'd hoped. Sorry..
XRagDollXST 3 years ago
I would say that abortion is not imposing force on another. The argument is that a collection of tissues are not a human being. Now that does bring up a debate but I don't think that anyone would choose to save the life of some tissue to a fully formed outside the womb baby. Its a highly unlikely situation sure but the moral of the story remains logical. Either way its not like the other parties are solving this issue either.
UcanbeGOD 3 years ago
To answer some of your questions: One's stance on drug use while pregnant, or abortion depends on if your believe that an unborn child is a human being. If you do then those acts should be outlawed because no one has a right to harm others. If you believe that a 6 month old fetus is just a bunch of cells then what the mother does shouldn't matter.
As for drug use while driving; it's not the drug use that harms anyone, but wreckless driving that does the damage. Which is already illegal btw
insdel2004 2 years ago
what a GREAT video!!! simple, easy to understand, and hopefully people will see the ways in which the U.S. government steals from individuals and has started to seriously infringe liberties. Yes, there are worse governments around the world, but if we love her, we will strive to protect and fight to keep her the way she was intended to be. FREE!!!
pianista17mari 4 years ago
We need to fight for these Rights!!
lorerax1 4 years ago 4
Oh by the way, Ron Paul is the only candidate who is not Evil. Perhaps we should vote for him.
VINNYMOR 4 years ago 4
too bad about Ron Paul, the dream is over :-(, the elections are just a popularity contest, a media circus sometimes. ie black man and woman
however no one who is truly qualified ever wins an election.
the wise words of southpark, every election is between a "giant douche" and "turd sandwich"
AdudefromNY 3 years ago 5
Sort of a modern Youtube version of Bastiat's " The Law". This is not as effective, but it is very good. I give it 5 stars.
VINNYMOR 4 years ago 2
Love the use of symbols. Especially the hats!
jnventers 4 years ago
Wow this is pretty much What U.S.A does with CIA and even the invasion of Iraq and others... Makes me sick what sheep in the U.S. follow
WeAre1withtheUnivers 4 years ago 2
If you are unsatisfied with the "product" (the democratic country where you live), leave that product alone and stop using and contributing to it.
Dodec84 4 years ago
Or else what?
ForOrAgainstUs 4 years ago
Or else you are stealing.
Dodec84 4 years ago
How can I be stealing the product of what was stolen from me?
ForOrAgainstUs 4 years ago
I just explained. It is not stolen from you. You choose to live in the country you live in when you turned 18. You didn't stop "using" the product.
Today's somewhat democratic world is no different then that Libertarian Utopia. With the only difference that you can vote and in an libertarian system it is the landowner who decides.
Dodec84 4 years ago
So you don't believe in property rights, but believe that the government has more of a right to the land that you pay for than you do?
I'm curious what gives them that right?
ForOrAgainstUs 4 years ago
You choose to live in your country, with all it's laws and rules. If you don't like it during your life, leave. That's how it will go in a libertarian society.
The democratic society is almost the same. Almost. Love your country, leave it or ... vote for another party.
Dodec84 4 years ago
I never chose to be born in this country. I am where I am. If you want to use violence to remove me, fine, but violence isn't an argument, and it doesn't make you right.
Tell me why anyone else has more of a right to my property than I do, unless you don't believe in private property.
ForOrAgainstUs 4 years ago
Well, suppose I am a landowner and you are born on my private property in a "libertarian society", and you refuse to pay rent to use my property, then I will kick you off my property, because you are stealing.
What is the difference with today? In today's democratic society, it's the same, but you can at least vote in your own country. Then I prefer democracy to libertarianism.
Dodec84 4 years ago
The difference is that, in a libertarian society, private property is absolute because no one has more of a right to your property than you do. Since this cannot be logically refuted, the only way to overcome this is with violence, which is not an argument.
This is the method the government uses. This is why I would rather live in a libertarian society. It's logical and rational and not based on violence.
ForOrAgainstUs 4 years ago
Your ability to miss the point is uncanny
There is a considerable difference between democracy and capitalism
AnxIronicxCliche 4 years ago
Indeed. You can vote in a democracy. In capitalism you are dependent from a landowner, like in the dark ages.
Sorry for my bad English.
Dodec84 4 years ago
Democracy is after all tyranny of the majority. The only way a libertarianism can come into being in a democracy is if the majority wishes it.
82abhilash 4 years ago 2
Democracy is only tyranny of the majority when it uses violence. It would be my own choice when I would like to join a pacifist democracy.
Libertarianism is just a capitalist kind of pacifism.
Dodec84 4 years ago 2
You are surely mistaken. By your definition, if the majority (lynch mob) threatens to burn my house or kill me but does not actually do it then I am not living in a tyranny. If the majority takes my property, it is not tyranny as long as they do it without using violence (perhaps when I am not home). What makes tyranny is not the kind of action it motivates, but the concentration of power it necessitates, which in this case will be whatever institution that reflects the will of the majority.
82abhilash 4 years ago 2
If the majority threatens to burn your house down, then your obviously not living in a pacifist democracy.
Libertarians are against the initiation of violence, like me. But they also think that everything has to be privatised, and nothing should be communal. I disagree at that point.
Dodec84 4 years ago 2
You are entitled to disagree on that point. All I wanted to do was sensitize you to the fact that Libertarianism is not incompatible with democracy. Also since you brought it up, note the fact that although violence and tyranny are usually friends, what defines a tyranny is not violence. It is oppression (by the majority on the minority or vice-versa)
82abhilash 4 years ago 3
You are surely mistaken. By your definition, if the majority (lynch mob) threatens to burn my house or kill me but does not actually do it then I am not living in a tyranny. If the majority takes my property, it is not tyranny as long as they do it without using violence (perhaps when I am not home). What makes tyranny is not the kind of action it motivates, but the concentration of power it necessitates, which in this case will be whatever institution that reflects the will of the majority.
82abhilash 4 years ago
When you say that you have no right to impose rulers onto others do you mean that there is no right for government, whome do have power over us and do have more rights, and there is no right for a president or a prime minister perhaps? If so then without government, president or prime minister there would be no sense of control and everything would be more haywire then usual. then people would have to come up with a solution to the problem and we would be confused.
Bunit1621 4 years ago
The purpose of government that's focused on individual liberty isn't to rule over people, but to serve people for the purpose of fair preservation of liberty for all.
And, it's not about giving something to others for nothing, but to represent the collective will of those who mutually desire individual liberty and the ability for it to work on its behalf. When government doesn't work that way, they must answer to the people.
Watcher3223 4 years ago
The idea behind liberty is, basically, you are free to do whatever you want so long as what you do doesn't infringe upon the liberty of others.
This applies to everyone, even those elected to a significant public servant position. The U.S. President, for instance, IS a public servant sworn to act constitutionally for the liberty of the people. He isn't above the law and cannot act unjustly against anyone. (Or, at least, that's how it's supposed to be.)
Watcher3223 4 years ago
repinjh$
mofofosho88 4 years ago
Google these videos:
1) CENSORED! Forgotten History of the 911 Octopus
2) Interview with G. Edward Griffin @ Ron Paul Bay Area Rally
3) Who Owns America's Wealth?
4) The L-Curve: A Tour of the U.S. Income Distribution
5) Pentagon the day before 9-11
earthlings911 4 years ago
6) Dubailand and the rotating skyscraper!
7) FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution
8) Earthlings
Now do you understand the difference between individual rights and imagined group rights, between a Republic and a Democracy?
earthlings911 4 years ago
In other words, stop hiding in the herd. If you want War, join the military and do your own killing! If you want to eat meat buy an animal from another animal and butcher them yourself! Or live your life with only the right to kill in defense of your survival. If killing is done for any other reason, or by others on your behalf it's still senseless killing.
Accept this individual responsible, or remain a sheep in the herd until the slaughterhouse.
What goes around comes around!
earthlings911 4 years ago
tomtomttom are you a control freak and must tell me what to do. Look you would hate if I told you not to wear red close, you would feel violated if red close was a crime. However, according your control freak ways if most of the world including you found red repulsive like say slavery then you would be against it. As long as no one forces someone else to wear red or go into slavery then all is fine. Long live tomtomttom the dictator.
gentlestormtoo 4 years ago
Man my grammar and spelling above is atrocious. But since I should be liberal to miss spell and grammertize(I invented the word because I am free to do so). However there may be a spelling and grammer nazi out there to shot me down.
gentlestormtoo 4 years ago
Instead of saying self-ownership you should say self-determination. Because ownership implies you are a commodity that can be bought and sold, even if it is by you. Better word choice is self-determination.
tomtomttom 4 years ago
It should also be against the law to voluntarily sell yourself into slavery. Because it violates your rights and other people's civil rights. Even if someone wants to be a slave it opens the door to slavery. And harms everyone. Also the question is asked what happens if he or she bares kids while a slave. Do they become slaves as well?
tomtomttom 4 years ago
No no, you own your body and you can sell it lets not water this down. If you want to mutilate, kill, or torture yourself. Hey that's your business and not tomtomttom. Just because tomtomttom says don't kill yourself or take cocaine etc, I should not be restricted. You think it wrong don't do it but don't deprive me of my self inflicted torcher just because you won't do it to yourself.
gentlestormtoo 4 years ago 2
gentlestormtoo you are a fool. Did I ever say you can't 'torcher' yourself? Go do that. I said people shouldn't be allowed to own other people. I guess you really don't understand liberty you dumbass. Now don't try and put words in my mouth. Unlike you I don't believe in slavery.
tomtomttom 4 years ago
The philosophy of liberty is the philosophy of Ron Paul. If you want liberty or you aren't sure what it means, please research Ron Paul.
This may be our last chance for Liberty!
Ron Paul for President '08!
victoriaous 4 years ago
It is in the nature of a human, when humiliated to withdraw, his illusion of individuality which gives him a concept by which to live is damaged, and no longer functions properly, he must withdraw to reaffirm himself.
MatthewLeee 4 years ago
speaking of the guy who left because he couldn't explain how referring to a video is forceful.
MatthewLeee 4 years ago
Excelente video, muy ilustrativo :)
surcodelsembrador 4 years ago
How is simply referring somebody to a video forceful?
RussellsParadox 4 years ago
ONE WORD FREE From Cimex 01 And The Team T.C.A.A.H.S = 直 指 人 心
Cimex01 5 years ago
I just mean I need to think about it more. I've never seen it so well explained and illuminated. Actually it reminds me of a lot of the philosophy I've been reading from Goodkind lately, which is supposedly Objectivist, I believe. Anyway, I'm a contemplative person like that. Don't jump to conclusions. Need to watch it a few more times.
dragonguyver 5 years ago
Initiating force is what is wrong. It's ok to defend yourself. Force (usually via government) is the greatest evil of man. Rape, Slavery, Murder, War, Theft.. you name it governments have at some point made it all legal and caused great oppression and tyranny upon man our current government is no exception. If you say NO to them they will hurt you.
jadier00 4 years ago 2
The free hugs campaign with juan mann here on youtube was shut down. The Sydney city council actually outlawed HUGGING in public. Effectively they did anyway, because anyone wanting to hug people needed 25 million in liability insurance in case a hug led to a back problem. If the city lets you get hugged on city property you might sue the city for a "Hug gone bad." This world is frikken insane.
blahinhawaii 5 years ago
Accidents happen. We need to grow up and deal with it. No one should be arrested or prosecuted unless, as guaranteed in the 14th amendment, criminal Intent can be shown. I would rather have a less SAFE world and a more FREE world.
blahinhawaii 5 years ago
very well done! One question for debate: how do you deal with accidents. What happens when one person unintentionally violates another's rights?
rht808 5 years ago
Like a car accident? There are legal avenues. In many cases, every day, people use their capacity of understanding and compassion to resolve issues, with the hope of education in mind. Do u have a specific example?
thisisbunk 5 years ago
We have become so accustomed to everyone bringing lawsuits against anyone who unintentionally contributed to some type of harm. These lawsuits have chipped away at our liberties where someday we will have to carry 25 million in personal liability insurance to leave the house ON FOOT. If a natural disaster killed your loved one, WHO WOULD YOU SUE?
blahinhawaii 5 years ago
this is really well done! I'm not sure if I completely agree with Libertarianism (at least as expressed herein) but it expresses it clearly and makes it possible for me to really contemplate! Great Job!
dragonguyver 5 years ago