The Philosophy of Liberty

When you hear Ron Paul say that he stands for the Philosophy of Liberty, this is what he means.

The philosophy of liberty is based on self-ownership. This simple but elegant and hard-hitting animation will explain exactly what that means. It's a great tool anyone can use to educate children and adults about our right to life, liberty, and the property we create - and our responsibility to think, speak and act.

For more info and/or to download a free DVD version of this video, see:

http://www.philosophyofliberty.blogspot.com


CREDITS

AUTHOR: Ken Schoolland schoolak001@hawaii.rr.com
PRODUCER: Kerry Pearson (aka Lux Lucre)
MUSIC: Music2Hues 'Betrayal' http://www.music2hues.com/m2h_orig/flag/_pianoflute.htm
WEBSITE: http://www.jonathangullible.com
SUPPORT: The Jonathan Gullible fund http://www.isil.org/tools/jonathan-gullible.html
COPYRIGHT: http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• Ron
• Paul
• philosophy
• liberty
• freedom
• individualism
• libertarian
• collectivism
• self-ownership
• life
• property
• force
• murder
• slavery
• taxes
• theft
• capitalism

[ryan84160]

@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.

[Ephisus]

@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.

[ryan84160]

@Ephisus I just did. I don't know what it is your are getting at.

[crazeduude]

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.

[Ephisus]

@ryan84160 I invite you to go back and reread the thread.

[ryan84160]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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".