Libertarian socialism is a logical fallacy.......at no point whatsoever does the Libertarian individualistic philosophy support the position ones right to property is outweighed by anothers nor would any true Libertarian believe it so.
Libertarian's support charity through free will not the force of government.......socialism is Authoritarian, the polar opposite.
If you call yourself one you are greatly mistaken.......do some in depth research and find another banner.
If this was in text form instead of a video, I would be interested enough to read it all. Yet you somehow managed to make a video about the subject in such an annoying way that I couldnt't even be arsed to watch a whole minute of it...
The concept of self ownership is completely incoherent.First, to say that ownership of property or self ownership is a "natural right" is utterly meaningless. Ownership is a tittle that is granted to us by the law. You are are confusing a legal tittle with the concept of possession. The fact that you can control your body does not mean that you own yourself anymore that driving a car means that you own it.
@ryan84160 Ill be by to take your stuff. After all, if you don't have right to your stuff, since you don't have any right to the body that produced it. I assume you'll recognize my greater claim to it if I hold you at gunpoint.
@Ephisus Whoa, Whoa strawman alert. I DO own my things because I have a LEGAL right to them.
Self ownership is an incoherent concept. For something to be owned it requires a self (or a person) that does the owning. If we think what we mean by "the self', we really mean the body an most importantly the brain. It does not make any sense to say that that the brain owns the brain.
@Ephisus If there is no legal construct, then what you or I may think is right or wrong doesn't matter. The biggest and most powerful could take,possess and control what ever they want at will.
@Ephisus I never said acting in your own self interest in incoherent is incoherent. I said self ownership is incoherent. It makes no sense what so ever. It assumes dualism and it conflates the concept of possession (a descriptive statement) with the concept of ownership ( a legal and normative statement).
@Ephisus "Oh, okay, then.... Ill be by to take your stuff." What is this even supposed to mean ? Haven't we been over this already ? Enough with the irrelevant comments.
@Ephisus The only thing we can logically say, is that the brain IS the brain, that you ARE yourself or perhaps that the brain controls the rest of the body.
THIS IS A MESSAGE TO ALL WHO LOVE FREEDOM AND WOULD DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS FROM FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC TERRORISTS.
Barack Obama, just recently, signed the Bill which allows for martial law in the Unites States, completely getting rid of our 1st and 4th amendment right and further enslaved us.
PLEASE KEEP ON BUYING GUNS, BUT DO NOT USE THEM FOR VIOLENCE OR ANARCHY.
PLEASE COPY AND SPREAD THIS INFO AROUND AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
--->> Ron Paul 2012 -- MONEY BOMB --- TODAY!! <<---- ronpaul2012 . com
Donate toward preserving the liberties which our government has grossly perverted since the founding of our nation. Help restore our rights and freedoms.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke
I thank God, and all the men and women who have been brave enough to speak the truth that they really knew, and the many more who remained silent, because they really didn't know. This video saved my life. Literally.
this was great until about 3:30 when my attention wavered and i stopped watching. music repeats, and it all looks the same. it did hold me for 3:30 minutes though, so can you edit it down to that? this can be the 'extended play' version.
it really is a testiment to how dumb or blind the masses are when they ignore their own heritage, their own constitution, and their own liberty. No wonder rulers of ages past took advantage of them. WE WILL NOT BE FOOLED. WE ARE AMERICA.
...one danger i see is when we complicate things for others out of vanity or deceit...or become persuaded ourselves by others that they are complicated, and beyond our understanding...
...common sense, liberty, property, individual rights, etc. are not complicated ideas, and i suspect the ever-present "expert" factor comes into play for a very specific reason...to take self-determination out of the picture, so only those who "know better" can run the show...
If I am alive and I choose to murder somebody that is my property. One could easily argue that my ability to murder this person is brought about by my peculiar set of talents as well as the time and energy I have put into practicing the art of violence.
You could argue that Hitler is a person who exerted certain efforts to come into power, and so the third reich is protected under this ideology. Seriously. Be more rigorous with this stuff. We can't feel so entitled.
@nyumetsu - respectfully, there's an innate error with your reasoning. Another's life is NOT your property at all, per the Q.E.D. (look it up) behind this philosophy. The violations of one's own life, liberty and property are perpetrated by those imposing will upon another whether it be life (murder), liberty (unjustified prison action, torture, violation of freedom of speech, religion) or property (forced taxation, government imposition, common theft) by individuals OR GOVERNMENT
@nyumetsu - if you place all known liberty based philosophies side by side, you will find that the U.S. Constitution Natural Law Philosophies will hands down against Anarchist, Fascist, Socialistic and the most heinous of all political philosophies, Communism in every facet of free thought, right to believe what you want and right to enjoy the fruits of your labor without legal plunder of what belongs to you. One must be free to live, create and voluntarily help others and not FORCED.
@standsresolute I actually don't understand your sentences. This isn't an insult. I think you forgot a few words.
Taking occam's razor into consideration, I think there is a better way of going about this than to produce such an idealist perspective and then point out exceptions to the rule. There are obvious problems with the idea that our "property" is defensible by the fact that we planned for it, worked for it, and that we are alive. It's a pretty rickety definition.
@standsresolute It also makes the assumption that not only are people generally good, but that all members of society will always and invariably make choices for the greater good. Even ignoring the problem of personal intention (which does not always take into account the well-being of others), expecting that each citizen will have an understanding of the effect of EACH of her choices on such a large scale (literally billions of people) is not only presumptuous but impossible.
@nyumetsu I research history but am not aware of an association with Vietnam and the Czech Republic to our discussion points. Occam's Razor applies most elegantly to Natural Law Theory, which Libertariansim in large subscribes. The applied example of this theory in action would be to subtract all human beings from the planet and observe Natural Law in the animal kingdom find equilibrium without an organized form of government.....
@standsresolute I think that there is certainly a lot of truth to what's presented in this video. About how we want to be able to treat others, and what kind of a civil society we demand. While it points out a lot of problems, in no way is it a stable or practical "solution" to these problems. And it's frustrating to me that it presents itself as such. I think you should read into the political history of Vietnam and the Czech Republic to see how some of this manifests itself in practice.
capitalism leads to a centralised society dominated by hierchical organisations operation in a conumser economy. what this means is that a small number of elites control all of the resources and force in society leaving the rest to either get in to debt or work rediculous hours
@ses4life Crony capitalism is not the same thing as capitalism. When corporations recieve money from politicians and vice versa, it is not the fault of corporations, but the fault of government.
When I say that I am Liberal here in Denmark some people immediatly think of me as being selfish. Some of them don't get that liberty still is about society is a unity. In socialism we are a unity. In liberalism we are a unity of individuals.
I should maybe show those people this video cause I think it explains liberalism really well (atleast how I see it).
Great video dude! Watched it 3 years ago and I realize now that I haven't changed at all in my politcal beliefs xD
Anarcho Capitalism is the only moral and ethical conclusion anyone can come to. All other philosophies rely on the initiation of force against people who are not violating the rights of anyone else. All the arguments below use the straw man fallacy mistaking Ayn Rand's Objectivism for the tenets of voluntarism. The freer the people, the more voluntarily compassionate they are. Where do the greatest outpourings of voluntary charity originate after any disaster? Free people donating freely.
THIS IS MATHABA/The Green Charter. It is the Third UNIVERSAL THEORY revealed by Muammar al-Qathafi. If others say they espouse this thinking, it is because this is the natural way for man to be happy, as God inspired Muammar al-Qathafi to print it out for everyone to know. It is that Simple!
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." - Thomas Jefferson
libertarianism is a result of abandonment. we dont have to look at the world as individuals. if we no longer feel abandoned by others (particularly those who we gave power) and we can feel empowered by embracing and welcoming others into a global society that can achieve and imagine more than any 1 individual. (correct use of internet) i used to agree with rand et al when i thought i was smart and no one understood me but in fact many people have been there for me and also feel the same way.
@Ephisus This really has nothing to do with my question. My question was, would you like to live in the type of society with out any laws where the most powerful could do what they want at will ?
@Ephisus Except you did not say the equivalent of 2+2=4. You said that we have a right to be us. Essentially this boils down to you are your self, or 2=2. This is an utterly meaning tautology. Like I said before, self ownership is an incoherent concept.
@ryan84160 Something that is so obvious that it ought to be fundamental is the opposite of "incoherent". And sentiments to the contrary truly are incoherent.
@Ephisus Simply saying that is it "obvious" is not an argument,it is a bald assertion. Self ownership is incoherent. How do you get from "you are your self" to "you own your self"?
@Ephisus I don't give a rats ass if you think its "obvious". What humans find to be intuitively obvious is often not very useful. I want to know if you have REASONS for believing this .
@ryan84160 You really haven't been paying close attention. You're saying it's meaningless like saying 2=2 (ostensibly, because it's obvious). So we don't disagree on if it's obvious or not; just whether or not being obvious makes something meaningless.
@Ephisus Jesus Christ man. Your idiocy is really starting to piss me off. I agree that saying the self is the self is obvious, what I don't agree with is the ridiculous statement that the self owns the self. This makes absolutely no sense what so ever.
@ryan84160 Your idiocy isn't even starting to piss me off; that's how rational discussion is supposed to work. Do you have, inherent, exclusionary rights to yourself? Yes. Hint; in any meaningful sense that is ownership. I'm not even trying to convince you that this is so- You just have to own up to the fact that it's not an "incoherent", "meaningless" position, and that it's actually a completely understandable point of view, and that's already a recant of your position.
@Ephisus "Do you have, inherent, exclusionary rights to yourself?" This doesn't even make any sense. What does it mean to say that I have a right to myself ? I AM MYSELF. perhaps you mean to say something like, do I have the right not to be forced to do things against my will ? To that I would answer yes. I have this right because in a country that has laws that make it illegal (for the most part) to force someone to do something against their will. This is a legal entitlement.
@Ephisus "You just have to own up to the fact that it's not an "incoherent". Can we both agree that the self is essentially brain ? In everyday language we often say things like "my brain". For example someone might say "my brain is aging" or "my brain is damaged". When we look deeper into what this type of language actually means, it becomes clear that this type of language does not make any sense. It does not make any sense to say that you have a brain since the "you" is the brain.
@Ephisus In the same way it does not make any sense to say that you have a brain, it does not make any sense to say that you own your brain since the "you" is the brain. To be logically consistent, you would have to say the the brain owns the brain. This is a circular argument and this is what I mean when I say the concept is incoherent.
@Ephisus I don't give a rats ass if you think its "obvious". What humans find to be intuitively obvious is often not very useful. I want to know if you have REASONS for believing this .
@Ephisus I don't give a rats ass if you think its "obvious". What humans find to be intuitively obvious is often not very useful. I want to know if you have REASONS for believing this .
@Ephisus I don't give a rats ass if you think its "obvious". What humans find to be intuitively obvious is often not very useful. I want to know if you have REASONS for believing this .
@Ephisus I don't give a rats ass if you think its "obvious". What humans find to be intuitively obvious is often not very useful. I want to know if you have REASONS for believing this .
@Ephisus I don't give a rats ass if you think its "obvious". What humans find to be intuitively obvious is often not very useful. I want to know if you have REASONS for believing this .
@Ephisus Ok let me try this again. First, it does not make any sense to say that you own your self. Ownership requires an object and a self that does the owning of the object. Essentially what the "self" boils down to is the brain. It does not make any sense to say that the self owns the self or that the brain owns the brain. The brain simply is the brain. Second, this conflates the DESCRIPTIVE concept of possession with the NORMATIVE concept of ownership.
@ryan84160 "ownership" just means exclusionary. I (me, the party that is speaking to you now) am, by definition, the exclusive user and beneficiary of my self.
@Ephisus You are still confusing the concept of possession with the concept of ownership. Possession DESCRIBES who is in control of and who possess what. If I fly to the moon and set up and army to defend it for me, I possess the moon, this does not me I own the moon. Ownership is a LEGAL and PRESCRIPTIVE(or normative) concept. It is the rules that society creates to decide who OUGHT to possess what. If you have a legal right granted by society to possess and object, then you own the object.
@ryan84160 I mean, if we accept what you're saying, then saying 2=2 is "meaningless tautology"- which it isn't. It's something which is true on it's face, and it certainly isn't "incoherent".
@ryan84160 No? Are you? My argument hinges on the fact that you're saying that something that is obvious is "meaningless" and "incoherent", not on your description of the thing as tautology.
@Ephisus Wait what ? Your argument ? So far I have not heard an argument, all I have heard you say is that the concept of self ownership is "obvious".
@ryan84160 Your posit is "the concept of self ownership is incoherent because it is obvious" Mine is that "The concept of self ownership is fundamental because it is obvious." We're debating what "obvious" means. It's not being offered as evidence.
@Ephisus I never said that the concept of self ownership was obvious. I don't know where you are getting that from. I said that self ownership does not make any sense and that the only thing we can logically deduce is that the self is the self.
@ryan84160 "You are always going to be your self no matter what. There is no need to say you have a right right to be you. This is a meaningless tautology."
@SurmountedbyScorn I've read Atlas Shrugged over 4 times so what you are saying is pretty incomprehensible to me - I have no idea where you are coming from. Anyone who is interested in ideas should find this book fascinating and thought provoking to say the least.
Hmm, so would the creator of this video not support welfare systems? Surely if one is a citizen of a state, one has agreed to a social contract, and in return for assistance to the state, the individual must offer a return? Or is this video advocating minarchism?
A man doesn't own himself, as he did not purchase or create himself. But he does have sole custody of--and responsibility for--himself. That's the only I would quibble with here.
It used to be that some Americans would sacrifice some of their liberty for promises of some security. Nowadays, they'll gleefully sacrifice the liberty of others for these entitlements.
@piscataway15 ...while Ron Paul appears to support the concepts of liberty, I think it's important to realize that liberty resides only in the individual, and that no institution, person, or representative can EVER give us liberty, they can only take it away...and while I think that Paul's message is what is critically important, the very nature of government is opposed to practical, individual liberty...so- I am VERY sceptical of believing that Ron Paul is our "only" hope...
@thefreedomartist Our real hope is in "We the People", our rights under God, exercised by an understanding of common principles, or underlying truths of Nature. The only way to filter through deceit and lying is by holding these truths to be self evident...in Nature. Ron Paul is only a public spokesman of these values and principles, but he has insisted himself, that the TRUE power of freedom and liberty is in the people. Imagine IF more than 50% of our nation understood this principle....
@standsresolute ...yes, here Paul is following and emphasizing the principles that our nation was founded upon, and the media, (which doesn't surprize me), and a majority of the people do not support this message...
...i can only respond to that by saying that people are not thinking it through, they are not really coming to grips with what is "self-evident", it they spent one week really clarifying their political beliefs, they would see it...it's common sense...
This video could not be fuller of BS. The future, present and pst stuff is a joke. Who decides the allocations of nature? All the world's problems come from government force - you mean lik earthquakes? Who decides what "justly acquired" is? Using government force is "intellectual sloth" - what is this gibberish? Basically it is like calling your opponents names. Which, ironically, seems rather lazy.
@Kamensky93 - BUT that is their God given freedom to 'fuck up', not 'ours' to pay for their 'fuck ups'. If they learn, they learn, if they don't, they don't. It is anethema to ask/demand that 'we' pay for others mistakes. Humanitarian that we offer help by our own volition. To be 'made' to help is not humanitarian, it is force.
1:58 "Property is that part of nature that you turn to valuable use." This could be said better. You don't have to put your property to "valuable" use or any use at all for it to be your property. Individuals first gain ownership of property by being the first occupier of that property. They can then transfer ownership of that property to others if they wish. I recommend Stephan Kinsella's "Against Intellectual Property" (Google it) which includes a great analysis of the origin of all property.
at 5:26 a very important point is made. Today, because we no longer protect individual rights adequately, money and power become the most important means to gain back one's freedom. This is why money has become so dominant in our culture. The poor go to jail and the rich do not, for example. If we protected individuals from losing their liberty, they would be more free to pursue other choices without risk of losing their freedom.
This needs to be taught in the schools. Most do not understand the meaning of Liberty. If you do not understand the meaning of Libery , how can you remain free? Very good primer.
Progressivism (anti-liberty "liberalism") is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through GOV'T action.
Give POLITICIANS money & power to "redistribute & regulate" & they will ALWAYS benefit THEIR “special interest” campaign backers; Wall Street, Military-Industrial Complex, Collectivist Union Bosses & Giant "Green" Corps, Big Oil etc.
Progressivism CREATES Political Cronyism.
FIAT (counterfeit) debt-currency from the Fed just FUELS THE FIRE!
@yakyakyak69 thats why we need GOVERNMENT REGULATION to set laws against campaign contributions so that politicians do not have special interest campaign backers. After we get rid of buying out politicians we can then place regulations on speculators so that real businesses can flourish and not "pump and dump" stock vultures. We also need to protect the existing regulations we have on water so that it does not become trade-able on the stockmarket and turned into the next oil. Regulation works
@MyDormantSoul We can NEVER fix "the system" as long as the quality and quantity of our money is controlled by a private central bank and that fiat debt-currency can be multiplied at the local level with Fractional Reserve Banking FRAUD!
Until we END THE FED, we will have ZERO control over corrupt, crony politicians.
@yakyakyak69 I could laugh at you for thinking corrupt politicians would "regulate" themselves by ending the fed, because thats what it is, it is a law made by a regulation. I could laugh at you like fucking moron too but see, you have Ron Paul. And guess fucking what, he's not the only uncorrupt politician, and in the future we will see a number of other politicians rise from the ashes of OWS years from now who will propose such regulations. Im for ending the fed, but thats only one job of many
@yakyakyak69 Preach brother. People forget... THE FED MAKES MONEY. WE HAVE TO EARN MONEY THROUGH TIME + ENERGY SPENT. I REPEAT... WE EARN MONEY. THEY MAKE MONEY. This has been a message brought to you by a wayseer
Nice words but unfortunately it means little in real life application. The only 'rights' you have are implemented by government as and when it suits them. They can be taken away at any time. Ask any Japanese American citizen who was intered during WW2 what rights to liberty the good ol' USA showed them, or any inmate of Guantanamo bay. Rights are just a made-up concept to keep us happy for the time-being, same as God and Santa Claus.
Wrong. Your rights are based on Natural Law. They come to you from God and Nature. They are INALIENABLE. Government does not grant them, so government (nor anyone else) can take them away. Government or other CAN however, VIOLATE your rights. Government may violate your right to speak freely or practice your religion, but you still retain that right. The purpose of the government is to PROTECT YOUR God-given rights. If it doesn't, you and the people can alter or abolish it!
@cameraguy38 The Japanese Americans during WWII were treated horribly, you're correct about that. Guantanamo bay was a holding place for those intending massive, detrimental, and terrible acts against the United States and therefore cleaned up the cesspool of judgemental deranged people who wished nothing more than to destroy the infrastructure of the united states, nothing like the Japanese internment camps during WWII... Guantanamo bay inmates were rarely American Citizens.
@cameraguy38 God has neither been proven nor disproven, this controversey usually spawns hate, ignorance, unfair generalizations about both sides, and general unhappiness. Santa Claus is made up to excite children and bring forth the spirit of giving, often times carrying happiness over into adulthood -- watching their children delight over numerous presents. These words were intended to anyone gullible enough to buy into Obama's lies and manipulation, not the habitants of WWII era.
@cameraguy38 Your comment proves a general lack of comprehension of the text, but also the application of said text. I'd advise that maybe you revise your thoughts into a more relevant and coherent manner in that your opinion might be credited as somewhat intelligent and heard/understood by those reading it instead of someone quickly and effortlessly dissecting said comment and proving its antithesis.
Let's remeber that those rights were taken away by Progressives - namely Liberal Progressive God-father FDR who interred the Japanese by executive order, and dropped two atom bombs.
Progressivism (a.k.a. "Feudalism") is exactly the thing RIGHTS were made to restrain.
If u think resistance to communists, slave raiders, and fascist tyrants is too impractical, then how the hell do you think someone like YOU can enslave me? You might as well ask.. Who is John Galt?
My right to individualism doesn't impede on your right to voluntary collectivism. But your forced collectivism impedes on my right to individualism. There is no such thing as forced individiaulism. That would be to say that I am forcing you to not force me do anything.
@AroundSun That's an incredibly stupid comment to make. OF COURSE voluntary collectivism goes against individualism, but collectivism can be understood within the terms of society. For example, nobody is REALLY forcing you to pay taxes or anything else. You can always withdraw from established society, stop using roads, and other paid benefits of society funded through taxes and have fun being a tr00 individual without interacting with others using society's sources.
@KirbiesandYoshies Blahh Blahh Blahh. No, you can't opt out of government services. Just that statement alone instantly dismisses any credibility you may have had. Voluntary collectivism does not impede on individualism because there is no force dummy. Only forced collectivism breaches individual rights
@AroundSun RE: Only forced collectivism breaches individual rights. Well that's what we have to deal with on a planet of billions of people. I have a question for you. Would you feel free if there was an Island just for you? No people, no services but all this land just for you to live on and be left alone? If your answer is yes, THEN GREAT. But if answer is no, then you should understand. I would feel like a prisoner alone on island. We need each other in 1 form or another.
@sheepOG It's a great metaphor though. Everyone wants to be left alone and play by their own rules on a planet of billions, with no government, regulation and just call it liberty.
@cupocity303 It would be a great metaphor if that was what individualism and the opposition to authoritarianism stood for. Again, deception isn't cool.
@sheepOG You're speaking in simplistic terms, which is a deception in itself. Whats stopping you from being a individual right now (assuming you dont live in one of these shitty 3rd world dictatorship countries) This whole black & white view about the world is stupid. You talk about individualism yet expect every individual to collectively agree to this unwritten rule of leaving one another alone and our property. Anything else, and it's authoritarianism. Sorry, i live in the real world
@cupocity303 To say that not taking your rather contemptuous definition of individualism seriously is "speaking in simplistic terms" is ridiculous. Words don't lose meaning to me. And while there may be slight degrees of difference in how a person practises or understands individualism, what you imply it to be, it is not.
That has nothing to do with wanting individuals to collectively agree on unwritten rules. I haven't even stated what I think individualism is, so this quarrel is beyond me.
@sheepOG i don't much care for you definition of individualism. I was rather speaking in the context of this video, and what it asks of each individual to voluntarily agree on in order to make the "philosophy of Liberty" work in society.
Some parts of that video, we already have in 1st world countries. Dismantle Government, and we lose even that.
@AroundSun By engaging in individualism in the first place you guarantee that you do not have any rights to impede or infringe on any others rights or their right to individualism. So in a way nature itself, the nature of individuals and individualism, forces this relationship on everyone. We all will "force" others to disengage from infringements on individual rights and freedoms. If you try to force your rights into the realm of another person's rights and freedoms you will have yours removed.
@AroundSun No, I didn't say that. I said we are all forced by nature not to impede other's rights and freedoms lest we have our own rights and freedoms infringed upon or removed altogether. I didn't say I was forced to leave you alone. IE If I show I am willing to take necessary force to end your life you will react by defending yourself from my actions and anyone with any mild humanity will join you because they sense the very thing I just described.
Youth- speak up to your parents, to your friends, and to your coworkers about Ron Paul while we still have an opportunity to vote for him in the primary!
Now is the time to make a stand and to be a true patriot. The security of our liberties depends on YOU! Take a stand. Become a delegate, join a meetup group, and register as a republican. SPEAK UP about Ron Paul. It is up to YOU to make the difference!
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." - George Bernard Shaw
@soulmist7 Ron Paul cannot do it along, we have to get the White House, Congress, and the US Court at the same time, because getting just the White House is not gonna change anything.
An ownership society through legislation and the manipulation of both the markets and money supply......a divine comedy.
cc4272 3 hours ago
Libertarian socialism is a logical fallacy.......at no point whatsoever does the Libertarian individualistic philosophy support the position ones right to property is outweighed by anothers nor would any true Libertarian believe it so.
Libertarian's support charity through free will not the force of government.......socialism is Authoritarian, the polar opposite.
If you call yourself one you are greatly mistaken.......do some in depth research and find another banner.
Knowledge is power !
cc4272 6 hours ago
Libertarian socialism rules!
MrJockeekcoj 1 day ago
If this was in text form instead of a video, I would be interested enough to read it all. Yet you somehow managed to make a video about the subject in such an annoying way that I couldnt't even be arsed to watch a whole minute of it...
Well done.
crazeduude 3 days ago
I want this video on my CX70 unit.
lynncase12 4 days ago
thank you for making it and posting.. I wonder what kind of person would dislike this? Kind of a scary thought! Ron Paul 2012!
fcspike 1 week ago
the music freaked me out.
D5932 1 week ago
Anyone know the music to this video. If so, would you let me know. Thanks.
RPCInverness 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is bullshit, I know y'all believe in 'tis little magical fairy tale world;
but in reality, ideas such as superiority,
DO INFACT EXIST, and MUST BE EMPLOYED.
And for Christ's sake, don't include animals with freedom.
Vodoune 1 week ago
Comment removed
Vodoune 1 week ago
Comment removed
Vodoune 1 week ago
Eat the rich.
HappiestGnome 2 weeks ago
@HappiestGnome Someone missed the point. Or worse... you got it.
BudWithBeats76 1 week ago
Second, it implies duality. It implies that there is your self and that there is some other entity( a soul maybe) which does the owning of the self.
ryan84160 2 weeks ago
The concept of self ownership is completely incoherent.First, to say that ownership of property or self ownership is a "natural right" is utterly meaningless. Ownership is a tittle that is granted to us by the law. You are are confusing a legal tittle with the concept of possession. The fact that you can control your body does not mean that you own yourself anymore that driving a car means that you own it.
ryan84160 2 weeks ago
@ryan84160 Ill be by to take your stuff. After all, if you don't have right to your stuff, since you don't have any right to the body that produced it. I assume you'll recognize my greater claim to it if I hold you at gunpoint.
Ephisus 1 week ago
@Ephisus Whoa, Whoa strawman alert. I DO own my things because I have a LEGAL right to them.
Self ownership is an incoherent concept. For something to be owned it requires a self (or a person) that does the owning. If we think what we mean by "the self', we really mean the body an most importantly the brain. It does not make any sense to say that that the brain owns the brain.
ryan84160 1 week ago
@ryan84160 Okay, so, as long as there's no legal construct above you, then I have equal right to your stuff?
Ephisus 1 week ago
@Ephisus If there is no legal construct, then what you or I may think is right or wrong doesn't matter. The biggest and most powerful could take,possess and control what ever they want at will.
ryan84160 1 week ago
@ryan84160 If I come over to your place and smack you around, you will protest whether or not there is a legal construct established to protect you.
Ephisus 1 week ago
@Ephisus Of course I would. Humans like all animals try to avoid suffering. And your point is ?
ryan84160 1 week ago
@ryan84160 That maybe, given the universal nature of this thing, you would admit that inherent self-interest and ownership is not "incoherent".
Ephisus 1 week ago
@Ephisus And, that's that, I guess.
Ephisus 1 week ago
@Ephisus I never said acting in your own self interest in incoherent is incoherent. I said self ownership is incoherent. It makes no sense what so ever. It assumes dualism and it conflates the concept of possession (a descriptive statement) with the concept of ownership ( a legal and normative statement).
ryan84160 5 days ago
@ryan84160 Oh, okay, then.... Ill be by to take your stuff.
Ephisus 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ephisus "Oh, okay, then.... Ill be by to take your stuff." What is this even supposed to mean ? Haven't we been over this already ? Enough with the irrelevant comments.
ryan84160 5 days ago
@Ephisus The only thing we can logically say, is that the brain IS the brain, that you ARE yourself or perhaps that the brain controls the rest of the body.
ryan84160 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THIS IS A MESSAGE TO ALL WHO LOVE FREEDOM AND WOULD DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS FROM FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC TERRORISTS.
Barack Obama, just recently, signed the Bill which allows for martial law in the Unites States, completely getting rid of our 1st and 4th amendment right and further enslaved us.
PLEASE KEEP ON BUYING GUNS, BUT DO NOT USE THEM FOR VIOLENCE OR ANARCHY.
PLEASE COPY AND SPREAD THIS INFO AROUND AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
GOD BLESS THOSE WHO PROTECT FREEDOM.
PEACE.
godwithin060988 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
--->> Ron Paul 2012 -- MONEY BOMB --- TODAY!! <<---- ronpaul2012 . com
Donate toward preserving the liberties which our government has grossly perverted since the founding of our nation. Help restore our rights and freedoms.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke
ronpaul2012hope 2 weeks ago
I thank God, and all the men and women who have been brave enough to speak the truth that they really knew, and the many more who remained silent, because they really didn't know. This video saved my life. Literally.
JosephHuntington 2 weeks ago in playlist The Philosophy of Liberty
this was great until about 3:30 when my attention wavered and i stopped watching. music repeats, and it all looks the same. it did hold me for 3:30 minutes though, so can you edit it down to that? this can be the 'extended play' version.
maridejun 2 weeks ago
@maridejun I think the concept of liberty may be a bit too much for you...
munkyusm 2 weeks ago
it really is a testiment to how dumb or blind the masses are when they ignore their own heritage, their own constitution, and their own liberty. No wonder rulers of ages past took advantage of them. WE WILL NOT BE FOOLED. WE ARE AMERICA.
KingSlimjeezy 3 weeks ago
...one danger i see is when we complicate things for others out of vanity or deceit...or become persuaded ourselves by others that they are complicated, and beyond our understanding...
...common sense, liberty, property, individual rights, etc. are not complicated ideas, and i suspect the ever-present "expert" factor comes into play for a very specific reason...to take self-determination out of the picture, so only those who "know better" can run the show...
...it's an old trick...
thefreedomartist 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Remember when you could watch a video without having to sit through a commercial?
Remember when music videos were uploaded by users and not VEVO
Remember when all the info was to the right of the video?
Remember you could rate a video 1-5 stars?
Remember the famous silver subscribe button?
Remember when the users controlled the site and not corporations?
Post this in every video and lets start a youtube revolution!
Thumbs up to keep at the top of page
lorddotorius 1 month ago
If I am alive and I choose to murder somebody that is my property. One could easily argue that my ability to murder this person is brought about by my peculiar set of talents as well as the time and energy I have put into practicing the art of violence.
You could argue that Hitler is a person who exerted certain efforts to come into power, and so the third reich is protected under this ideology. Seriously. Be more rigorous with this stuff. We can't feel so entitled.
nyumetsu 1 month ago
@nyumetsu - respectfully, there's an innate error with your reasoning. Another's life is NOT your property at all, per the Q.E.D. (look it up) behind this philosophy. The violations of one's own life, liberty and property are perpetrated by those imposing will upon another whether it be life (murder), liberty (unjustified prison action, torture, violation of freedom of speech, religion) or property (forced taxation, government imposition, common theft) by individuals OR GOVERNMENT
standsresolute 4 weeks ago
@nyumetsu - if you place all known liberty based philosophies side by side, you will find that the U.S. Constitution Natural Law Philosophies will hands down against Anarchist, Fascist, Socialistic and the most heinous of all political philosophies, Communism in every facet of free thought, right to believe what you want and right to enjoy the fruits of your labor without legal plunder of what belongs to you. One must be free to live, create and voluntarily help others and not FORCED.
standsresolute 4 weeks ago
@standsresolute I actually don't understand your sentences. This isn't an insult. I think you forgot a few words.
Taking occam's razor into consideration, I think there is a better way of going about this than to produce such an idealist perspective and then point out exceptions to the rule. There are obvious problems with the idea that our "property" is defensible by the fact that we planned for it, worked for it, and that we are alive. It's a pretty rickety definition.
nyumetsu 4 weeks ago
@standsresolute It also makes the assumption that not only are people generally good, but that all members of society will always and invariably make choices for the greater good. Even ignoring the problem of personal intention (which does not always take into account the well-being of others), expecting that each citizen will have an understanding of the effect of EACH of her choices on such a large scale (literally billions of people) is not only presumptuous but impossible.
nyumetsu 4 weeks ago
@nyumetsu I research history but am not aware of an association with Vietnam and the Czech Republic to our discussion points. Occam's Razor applies most elegantly to Natural Law Theory, which Libertariansim in large subscribes. The applied example of this theory in action would be to subtract all human beings from the planet and observe Natural Law in the animal kingdom find equilibrium without an organized form of government.....
standsresolute 3 weeks ago
@standsresolute I think that there is certainly a lot of truth to what's presented in this video. About how we want to be able to treat others, and what kind of a civil society we demand. While it points out a lot of problems, in no way is it a stable or practical "solution" to these problems. And it's frustrating to me that it presents itself as such. I think you should read into the political history of Vietnam and the Czech Republic to see how some of this manifests itself in practice.
nyumetsu 4 weeks ago
Peculiar remarks for this video again.
markmartinez717 1 month ago
capitalism leads to a centralised society dominated by hierchical organisations operation in a conumser economy. what this means is that a small number of elites control all of the resources and force in society leaving the rest to either get in to debt or work rediculous hours
ses4life 1 month ago
@ses4life Care to provide historically occuring examples of that?
dylanmoller 1 month ago
@dylanmoller ummm the USA? the UK? Germany italy france russia china india etc. Mega Corporations alongside wealthy politicians raking it in.
ses4life 6 days ago
@ses4life Crony capitalism is not the same thing as capitalism. When corporations recieve money from politicians and vice versa, it is not the fault of corporations, but the fault of government.
dylanmoller 5 days ago
When I say that I am Liberal here in Denmark some people immediatly think of me as being selfish. Some of them don't get that liberty still is about society is a unity. In socialism we are a unity. In liberalism we are a unity of individuals.
I should maybe show those people this video cause I think it explains liberalism really well (atleast how I see it).
Great video dude! Watched it 3 years ago and I realize now that I haven't changed at all in my politcal beliefs xD
Everion 1 month ago
Anarcho Capitalism is the only moral and ethical conclusion anyone can come to. All other philosophies rely on the initiation of force against people who are not violating the rights of anyone else. All the arguments below use the straw man fallacy mistaking Ayn Rand's Objectivism for the tenets of voluntarism. The freer the people, the more voluntarily compassionate they are. Where do the greatest outpourings of voluntary charity originate after any disaster? Free people donating freely.
raceboy1971 1 month ago
THIS IS MATHABA/The Green Charter. It is the Third UNIVERSAL THEORY revealed by Muammar al-Qathafi. If others say they espouse this thinking, it is because this is the natural way for man to be happy, as God inspired Muammar al-Qathafi to print it out for everyone to know. It is that Simple!
theorbo1 1 month ago
Ron Paul 2012!
lb8825 1 month ago 17
@lb8825
If you want to elect Ron Paul as a ruler over other people, you haven't understood this video.
SansAuthoritas 5 days ago
Soooooo.. anarchy basically?
iron100159 1 month ago
@iron100159 yes
lightswitchvideo 1 month ago
@iron100159 no. government just large enough to protect the rights of the individual.
Bullpuma 1 month ago in playlist Realistic Theory
Libertarians believe that governments role is to protect your LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY.
limited government. constitutional law, non-interventionism.
Weaponsuser 1 month ago 3
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." - Thomas Jefferson
FistsOfFury21 1 month ago 27
the judge sent me here
rickyx1 1 month ago
good video. bad music.
CollectiveCheckup 1 month ago
Comment removed
galluer 1 month ago
libertarianism is a result of abandonment. we dont have to look at the world as individuals. if we no longer feel abandoned by others (particularly those who we gave power) and we can feel empowered by embracing and welcoming others into a global society that can achieve and imagine more than any 1 individual. (correct use of internet) i used to agree with rand et al when i thought i was smart and no one understood me but in fact many people have been there for me and also feel the same way.
vryundy 1 month ago
@vryundy "we dont have to look at the world as individuals" The subtle evil in this is the unspoken, "so, Im going to force you not to."
Ephisus 1 week ago
@Ephisus Any type of world view is going to rely on the use of force.
ryan84160 5 days ago
@ryan84160 But not the initiation of coercive force. That's the issue, not the force, per se.
Ephisus 5 days ago
@Ephisus This really has nothing to do with my question. My question was, would you like to live in the type of society with out any laws where the most powerful could do what they want at will ?
ryan84160 5 days ago
@ryan84160 No, I don't- and that's consistent with my belief that people have an inherent right to selfhood.
Ephisus 5 days ago
@Ephisus So you believe that government should protect rights ?
You are always going to be your self no matter what. There is no need to say you have a right right to be you. This is a meaningless tautology.
ryan84160 5 days ago
@ryan84160 I believe that a government that protects rights is useful.
Saying 2+2=4 is useful, no matter how obvious it appears, it's not meaningless.
Ephisus 5 days ago
@Ephisus Except you did not say the equivalent of 2+2=4. You said that we have a right to be us. Essentially this boils down to you are your self, or 2=2. This is an utterly meaning tautology. Like I said before, self ownership is an incoherent concept.
ryan84160 5 days ago
@ryan84160 Meaningless tautology rather.
ryan84160 5 days ago
@ryan84160 Something that is so obvious that it ought to be fundamental is the opposite of "incoherent". And sentiments to the contrary truly are incoherent.
Ephisus 4 days ago
@Ephisus Simply saying that is it "obvious" is not an argument,it is a bald assertion. Self ownership is incoherent. How do you get from "you are your self" to "you own your self"?
ryan84160 4 days ago
@ryan84160 lol. It's not an argument for being obvious, because you aren't disputing it that it's obvious, you're disputing that it's meaningful.
Ephisus 4 days ago
@Ephisus I don't give a rats ass if you think its "obvious". What humans find to be intuitively obvious is often not very useful. I want to know if you have REASONS for believing this .
ryan84160 4 days ago
@ryan84160 You really haven't been paying close attention. You're saying it's meaningless like saying 2=2 (ostensibly, because it's obvious). So we don't disagree on if it's obvious or not; just whether or not being obvious makes something meaningless.
Ephisus 4 days ago
@Ephisus Jesus Christ man. Your idiocy is really starting to piss me off. I agree that saying the self is the self is obvious, what I don't agree with is the ridiculous statement that the self owns the self. This makes absolutely no sense what so ever.
ryan84160 4 days ago
@ryan84160 Your idiocy isn't even starting to piss me off; that's how rational discussion is supposed to work. Do you have, inherent, exclusionary rights to yourself? Yes. Hint; in any meaningful sense that is ownership. I'm not even trying to convince you that this is so- You just have to own up to the fact that it's not an "incoherent", "meaningless" position, and that it's actually a completely understandable point of view, and that's already a recant of your position.
Ephisus 3 days ago
@Ephisus "Do you have, inherent, exclusionary rights to yourself?" This doesn't even make any sense. What does it mean to say that I have a right to myself ? I AM MYSELF. perhaps you mean to say something like, do I have the right not to be forced to do things against my will ? To that I would answer yes. I have this right because in a country that has laws that make it illegal (for the most part) to force someone to do something against their will. This is a legal entitlement.
ryan84160 3 days ago
@Ephisus "You just have to own up to the fact that it's not an "incoherent". Can we both agree that the self is essentially brain ? In everyday language we often say things like "my brain". For example someone might say "my brain is aging" or "my brain is damaged". When we look deeper into what this type of language actually means, it becomes clear that this type of language does not make any sense. It does not make any sense to say that you have a brain since the "you" is the brain.
ryan84160 3 days ago
@Ephisus In the same way it does not make any sense to say that you have a brain, it does not make any sense to say that you own your brain since the "you" is the brain. To be logically consistent, you would have to say the the brain owns the brain. This is a circular argument and this is what I mean when I say the concept is incoherent.
ryan84160 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ephisus I don't give a rats ass if you think its "obvious". What humans find to be intuitively obvious is often not very useful. I want to know if you have REASONS for believing this .
ryan84160 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ephisus I don't give a rats ass if you think its "obvious". What humans find to be intuitively obvious is often not very useful. I want to know if you have REASONS for believing this .
ryan84160 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ephisus I don't give a rats ass if you think its "obvious". What humans find to be intuitively obvious is often not very useful. I want to know if you have REASONS for believing this .
ryan84160 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ephisus I don't give a rats ass if you think its "obvious". What humans find to be intuitively obvious is often not very useful. I want to know if you have REASONS for believing this .
ryan84160 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ephisus I don't give a rats ass if you think its "obvious". What humans find to be intuitively obvious is often not very useful. I want to know if you have REASONS for believing this .
ryan84160 4 days ago
@Ephisus Ok let me try this again. First, it does not make any sense to say that you own your self. Ownership requires an object and a self that does the owning of the object. Essentially what the "self" boils down to is the brain. It does not make any sense to say that the self owns the self or that the brain owns the brain. The brain simply is the brain. Second, this conflates the DESCRIPTIVE concept of possession with the NORMATIVE concept of ownership.
ryan84160 4 days ago
@ryan84160 "ownership" just means exclusionary. I (me, the party that is speaking to you now) am, by definition, the exclusive user and beneficiary of my self.
Ephisus 4 days ago
@Ephisus You are still confusing the concept of possession with the concept of ownership. Possession DESCRIBES who is in control of and who possess what. If I fly to the moon and set up and army to defend it for me, I possess the moon, this does not me I own the moon. Ownership is a LEGAL and PRESCRIPTIVE(or normative) concept. It is the rules that society creates to decide who OUGHT to possess what. If you have a legal right granted by society to possess and object, then you own the object.
ryan84160 4 days ago
@ryan84160 I mean, if we accept what you're saying, then saying 2=2 is "meaningless tautology"- which it isn't. It's something which is true on it's face, and it certainly isn't "incoherent".
Ephisus 4 days ago
@Ephisus Are you actually this dense ? A tautology is not something that is untrue.
ryan84160 4 days ago
@ryan84160 No? Are you? My argument hinges on the fact that you're saying that something that is obvious is "meaningless" and "incoherent", not on your description of the thing as tautology.
Ephisus 3 days ago
@Ephisus Wait what ? Your argument ? So far I have not heard an argument, all I have heard you say is that the concept of self ownership is "obvious".
ryan84160 3 days ago
@ryan84160 I invite you to go back and reread the thread.
Ephisus 3 days ago
@Ephisus I just did. I don't know what it is your are getting at.
ryan84160 3 days ago
@ryan84160 Your posit is "the concept of self ownership is incoherent because it is obvious" Mine is that "The concept of self ownership is fundamental because it is obvious." We're debating what "obvious" means. It's not being offered as evidence.
Ephisus 3 days ago
@Ephisus I never said that the concept of self ownership was obvious. I don't know where you are getting that from. I said that self ownership does not make any sense and that the only thing we can logically deduce is that the self is the self.
ryan84160 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ryan84160 "You are always going to be your self no matter what. There is no need to say you have a right right to be you. This is a meaningless tautology."
Ephisus 2 days ago
@SurmountedbyScorn I've read Atlas Shrugged over 4 times so what you are saying is pretty incomprehensible to me - I have no idea where you are coming from. Anyone who is interested in ideas should find this book fascinating and thought provoking to say the least.
db11289 1 month ago
To anyone who agrees with any of this video: READ AYN RAND and ATLAS SHRUGGED!!!
db11289 1 month ago
Hmm, so would the creator of this video not support welfare systems? Surely if one is a citizen of a state, one has agreed to a social contract, and in return for assistance to the state, the individual must offer a return? Or is this video advocating minarchism?
Boico101 2 months ago
@Boico101 : I cannot for the life of me figure out how you came to that conclusion!! ...
Fangs78 2 months ago
@Fangs78 About the welfare state or the possibility that this video is advocating minarchism?
Boico101 2 months ago
@Boico101 : I dunno...misunderstood your comment I think!
Fangs78 2 months ago
233 Commies!!! Long live freedom....
bolitapelona 2 months ago
Occupy Wall Street. ::fist in the air::
posthumanfetus 2 months ago
This video is simplistic neo-fascist bullshit.
JamesRobertSmith 2 months ago
@JamesRobertSmith Define fascism.
dennis345 2 months ago
A man doesn't own himself, as he did not purchase or create himself. But he does have sole custody of--and responsibility for--himself. That's the only I would quibble with here.
dennis345 2 months ago
@dennis345 I think you've pretty well defined what ownership is right there.
brewhore 2 months ago
@JamesRobertSmith How is any message in the video at all socialistic?
Or do you have no grasp of the terms you are using?
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
non-aggresion axiom
livfreeordi3 2 months ago
230 elected officials disliked this video
WasabiMeal 2 months ago
Wow, liberty is so much more than I thought it was.
Good video.
WasabiMeal 2 months ago
So is the blue guy good or bad? :[
ModernTake 2 months ago
i love this video...but when it gets to "property" i get vexed...there is only so much room for 7 billion ppl
jcAetiologyoKathexis 2 months ago
Comment removed
jbkibs 2 months ago
It used to be that some Americans would sacrifice some of their liberty for promises of some security. Nowadays, they'll gleefully sacrifice the liberty of others for these entitlements.
Solverwiz 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.
C. S. Lewis
CNCJMAN2 2 months ago
oh liberty, how many horrible deeds have been made in your name?
Nkaecer 2 months ago
@Nkaecer are you saying that nothing bad is done in the name of slavery?
jbkibs 2 months ago
Ron Paul 2012!!! bring back the liberty!!
piscataway15 2 months ago 29
@piscataway15 ...while Ron Paul appears to support the concepts of liberty, I think it's important to realize that liberty resides only in the individual, and that no institution, person, or representative can EVER give us liberty, they can only take it away...and while I think that Paul's message is what is critically important, the very nature of government is opposed to practical, individual liberty...so- I am VERY sceptical of believing that Ron Paul is our "only" hope...
thefreedomartist 3 weeks ago
@thefreedomartist Our real hope is in "We the People", our rights under God, exercised by an understanding of common principles, or underlying truths of Nature. The only way to filter through deceit and lying is by holding these truths to be self evident...in Nature. Ron Paul is only a public spokesman of these values and principles, but he has insisted himself, that the TRUE power of freedom and liberty is in the people. Imagine IF more than 50% of our nation understood this principle....
standsresolute 3 weeks ago
@standsresolute ...yes, here Paul is following and emphasizing the principles that our nation was founded upon, and the media, (which doesn't surprize me), and a majority of the people do not support this message...
...i can only respond to that by saying that people are not thinking it through, they are not really coming to grips with what is "self-evident", it they spent one week really clarifying their political beliefs, they would see it...it's common sense...
thefreedomartist 3 weeks ago
This video could not be fuller of BS. The future, present and pst stuff is a joke. Who decides the allocations of nature? All the world's problems come from government force - you mean lik earthquakes? Who decides what "justly acquired" is? Using government force is "intellectual sloth" - what is this gibberish? Basically it is like calling your opponents names. Which, ironically, seems rather lazy.
hess6wi 2 months ago
@Kamensky93
"Given" too many choices mine Feuhrer? God forbid.
mredstriumph 2 months ago
@Kamensky93 - BUT that is their God given freedom to 'fuck up', not 'ours' to pay for their 'fuck ups'. If they learn, they learn, if they don't, they don't. It is anethema to ask/demand that 'we' pay for others mistakes. Humanitarian that we offer help by our own volition. To be 'made' to help is not humanitarian, it is force.
TheDissident77 2 months ago
1:58 "Property is that part of nature that you turn to valuable use." This could be said better. You don't have to put your property to "valuable" use or any use at all for it to be your property. Individuals first gain ownership of property by being the first occupier of that property. They can then transfer ownership of that property to others if they wish. I recommend Stephan Kinsella's "Against Intellectual Property" (Google it) which includes a great analysis of the origin of all property.
WelcometotheUnknown 2 months ago
Comment removed
WelcometotheUnknown 2 months ago
Comment removed
willkiely 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL 2012 !!!
suryahummer45 3 months ago
at 5:26 a very important point is made. Today, because we no longer protect individual rights adequately, money and power become the most important means to gain back one's freedom. This is why money has become so dominant in our culture. The poor go to jail and the rich do not, for example. If we protected individuals from losing their liberty, they would be more free to pursue other choices without risk of losing their freedom.
DCUPtoejuice 3 months ago
This needs to be taught in the schools. Most do not understand the meaning of Liberty. If you do not understand the meaning of Libery , how can you remain free? Very good primer.
njconnie1 3 months ago 2
@njconnie1
Personally, I prefer Freedom to Liberty. Freedom is God given. Liberty is man given.
mredstriumph 2 months ago
Progressivism (anti-liberty "liberalism") is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through GOV'T action.
Give POLITICIANS money & power to "redistribute & regulate" & they will ALWAYS benefit THEIR “special interest” campaign backers; Wall Street, Military-Industrial Complex, Collectivist Union Bosses & Giant "Green" Corps, Big Oil etc.
Progressivism CREATES Political Cronyism.
FIAT (counterfeit) debt-currency from the Fed just FUELS THE FIRE!
END THE FED!
yakyakyak69 3 months ago 46
@yakyakyak69 thats why we need GOVERNMENT REGULATION to set laws against campaign contributions so that politicians do not have special interest campaign backers. After we get rid of buying out politicians we can then place regulations on speculators so that real businesses can flourish and not "pump and dump" stock vultures. We also need to protect the existing regulations we have on water so that it does not become trade-able on the stockmarket and turned into the next oil. Regulation works
MyDormantSoul 2 months ago
@MyDormantSoul So, you want the crony politicians to regulate themselves and their campaign contributors?!?!?!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA....(sniffle).... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
(nieve much?)
gooooodddd onnneeee!
yakyakyak69 2 months ago
@MyDormantSoul We can NEVER fix "the system" as long as the quality and quantity of our money is controlled by a private central bank and that fiat debt-currency can be multiplied at the local level with Fractional Reserve Banking FRAUD!
Until we END THE FED, we will have ZERO control over corrupt, crony politicians.
yakyakyak69 2 months ago
@yakyakyak69 I could laugh at you for thinking corrupt politicians would "regulate" themselves by ending the fed, because thats what it is, it is a law made by a regulation. I could laugh at you like fucking moron too but see, you have Ron Paul. And guess fucking what, he's not the only uncorrupt politician, and in the future we will see a number of other politicians rise from the ashes of OWS years from now who will propose such regulations. Im for ending the fed, but thats only one job of many
MyDormantSoul 2 months ago
@yakyakyak69 Preach brother. People forget... THE FED MAKES MONEY. WE HAVE TO EARN MONEY THROUGH TIME + ENERGY SPENT. I REPEAT... WE EARN MONEY. THEY MAKE MONEY. This has been a message brought to you by a wayseer
thuff420 2 months ago
Nice words but unfortunately it means little in real life application. The only 'rights' you have are implemented by government as and when it suits them. They can be taken away at any time. Ask any Japanese American citizen who was intered during WW2 what rights to liberty the good ol' USA showed them, or any inmate of Guantanamo bay. Rights are just a made-up concept to keep us happy for the time-being, same as God and Santa Claus.
cameraguy38 3 months ago
@cameraguy38
Wrong. Your rights are based on Natural Law. They come to you from God and Nature. They are INALIENABLE. Government does not grant them, so government (nor anyone else) can take them away. Government or other CAN however, VIOLATE your rights. Government may violate your right to speak freely or practice your religion, but you still retain that right. The purpose of the government is to PROTECT YOUR God-given rights. If it doesn't, you and the people can alter or abolish it!
AnnInFL 3 months ago 2
@cameraguy38 The Japanese Americans during WWII were treated horribly, you're correct about that. Guantanamo bay was a holding place for those intending massive, detrimental, and terrible acts against the United States and therefore cleaned up the cesspool of judgemental deranged people who wished nothing more than to destroy the infrastructure of the united states, nothing like the Japanese internment camps during WWII... Guantanamo bay inmates were rarely American Citizens.
thejasond 2 months ago
@cameraguy38 God has neither been proven nor disproven, this controversey usually spawns hate, ignorance, unfair generalizations about both sides, and general unhappiness. Santa Claus is made up to excite children and bring forth the spirit of giving, often times carrying happiness over into adulthood -- watching their children delight over numerous presents. These words were intended to anyone gullible enough to buy into Obama's lies and manipulation, not the habitants of WWII era.
thejasond 2 months ago
@cameraguy38 Your comment proves a general lack of comprehension of the text, but also the application of said text. I'd advise that maybe you revise your thoughts into a more relevant and coherent manner in that your opinion might be credited as somewhat intelligent and heard/understood by those reading it instead of someone quickly and effortlessly dissecting said comment and proving its antithesis.
thejasond 2 months ago
@cameraguy38
Let's remeber that those rights were taken away by Progressives - namely Liberal Progressive God-father FDR who interred the Japanese by executive order, and dropped two atom bombs.
Progressivism (a.k.a. "Feudalism") is exactly the thing RIGHTS were made to restrain.
If u think resistance to communists, slave raiders, and fascist tyrants is too impractical, then how the hell do you think someone like YOU can enslave me? You might as well ask.. Who is John Galt?
mredstriumph 2 months ago
My right to individualism doesn't impede on your right to voluntary collectivism. But your forced collectivism impedes on my right to individualism. There is no such thing as forced individiaulism. That would be to say that I am forcing you to not force me do anything.
AroundSun 3 months ago 74
@AroundSun
Re: "My right to individualism doesn't impede on your right to voluntary collectivism."
uh.. yeah. It kind of does.
Taking away YOUR stuff is the entire point.
The "sharing stuff" line is for me. (I don't like feeling uncomfortable about what I'm doing)
ummm.. No to slavery! I love u!
($#$@-head.. just wait till I convince u to give away your gun.. for safety's sake i mean. You know.. mine?)
mredstriumph 2 months ago
@AroundSun That's an incredibly stupid comment to make. OF COURSE voluntary collectivism goes against individualism, but collectivism can be understood within the terms of society. For example, nobody is REALLY forcing you to pay taxes or anything else. You can always withdraw from established society, stop using roads, and other paid benefits of society funded through taxes and have fun being a tr00 individual without interacting with others using society's sources.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 months ago
@KirbiesandYoshies Blahh Blahh Blahh. No, you can't opt out of government services. Just that statement alone instantly dismisses any credibility you may have had. Voluntary collectivism does not impede on individualism because there is no force dummy. Only forced collectivism breaches individual rights
AroundSun 2 months ago
@AroundSun LMFAO so your brilliant insight is that FORCED Collectivism is forced? Thanks for the insight tr00 capitalist warrior.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 months ago
@AroundSun RE: Only forced collectivism breaches individual rights. Well that's what we have to deal with on a planet of billions of people. I have a question for you. Would you feel free if there was an Island just for you? No people, no services but all this land just for you to live on and be left alone? If your answer is yes, THEN GREAT. But if answer is no, then you should understand. I would feel like a prisoner alone on island. We need each other in 1 form or another.
cupocity303 2 months ago
@cupocity303 Stop equating society and the state. Individualism is not about living on an island by yourself either.
Deception isn't cool.
sheepOG 1 month ago 2
@sheepOG It's a great metaphor though. Everyone wants to be left alone and play by their own rules on a planet of billions, with no government, regulation and just call it liberty.
It's foolish.
cupocity303 1 month ago
@cupocity303 It would be a great metaphor if that was what individualism and the opposition to authoritarianism stood for. Again, deception isn't cool.
sheepOG 1 month ago
@sheepOG You're speaking in simplistic terms, which is a deception in itself. Whats stopping you from being a individual right now (assuming you dont live in one of these shitty 3rd world dictatorship countries) This whole black & white view about the world is stupid. You talk about individualism yet expect every individual to collectively agree to this unwritten rule of leaving one another alone and our property. Anything else, and it's authoritarianism. Sorry, i live in the real world
cupocity303 1 month ago
@cupocity303 To say that not taking your rather contemptuous definition of individualism seriously is "speaking in simplistic terms" is ridiculous. Words don't lose meaning to me. And while there may be slight degrees of difference in how a person practises or understands individualism, what you imply it to be, it is not.
That has nothing to do with wanting individuals to collectively agree on unwritten rules. I haven't even stated what I think individualism is, so this quarrel is beyond me.
sheepOG 1 month ago 2
@sheepOG i don't much care for you definition of individualism. I was rather speaking in the context of this video, and what it asks of each individual to voluntarily agree on in order to make the "philosophy of Liberty" work in society.
Some parts of that video, we already have in 1st world countries. Dismantle Government, and we lose even that.
cupocity303 1 month ago
@AroundSun By engaging in individualism in the first place you guarantee that you do not have any rights to impede or infringe on any others rights or their right to individualism. So in a way nature itself, the nature of individuals and individualism, forces this relationship on everyone. We all will "force" others to disengage from infringements on individual rights and freedoms. If you try to force your rights into the realm of another person's rights and freedoms you will have yours removed.
BEAR999 2 months ago
@BEAR999 You are saying that I am forcing you to leave me alone. And calling THAT force. Which is BS
AroundSun 2 months ago
@AroundSun No, I didn't say that. I said we are all forced by nature not to impede other's rights and freedoms lest we have our own rights and freedoms infringed upon or removed altogether. I didn't say I was forced to leave you alone. IE If I show I am willing to take necessary force to end your life you will react by defending yourself from my actions and anyone with any mild humanity will join you because they sense the very thing I just described.
BEAR999 2 months ago
what happens if i join this?
MikeModderMan 3 months ago
Youth- speak up to your parents, to your friends, and to your coworkers about Ron Paul while we still have an opportunity to vote for him in the primary!
Now is the time to make a stand and to be a true patriot. The security of our liberties depends on YOU! Take a stand. Become a delegate, join a meetup group, and register as a republican. SPEAK UP about Ron Paul. It is up to YOU to make the difference!
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." - George Bernard Shaw
soulmist7 4 months ago in playlist The Most Important Videos You Will Ever Watch 3
@soulmist7 Ron Paul cannot do it along, we have to get the White House, Congress, and the US Court at the same time, because getting just the White House is not gonna change anything.
pcmiler2000 3 months ago
THE COMMENTS ARE LOADED WITH GOVERNMENT ROBOT SOFTWARE ACCOUNTS TO TAKE UP SPACE.
Bullpuma 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
*Black THIS Out Moneybomb For Ron Paul -- October 19th*
Inspired by the mainstream media's blatantly biased reporting of Ron Paul.
Pledge at BlackTHISOut (DOT) com
+5500 pledges so far!!
Please spread the word!!
qwerty94376 4 months ago
The real question is WHEN you own your own life. Do children own their own life? Does that mean they don't have to obey their parents?
Do prisoners own their own life? Is it immoral to imprison them against their will?
YesWeCantaloupe 4 months ago
way too fucking slow. couldnt sit through it.
svenninq 4 months ago
@svenninq Awww
mersk100 4 months ago
perfect
erol12345 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
♫ #Freiheit ♪ #Liberdade ☼ #Liberté ☼ #Libertá ☼ #Libertad ♥ #Liberty ☺
libertyomnilife 4 months ago